April 27, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 23

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Statements by Members.

This afternoon we have notice of two statements by members: the hon. the

Member for Bonavista North, and the hon. the Member for Lake Melville. I am not

aware of any other statements. If there are, I will call them in sequence.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 34, on a point of privilege.

Although our Standing Orders do not elaborate on the issue of privilege, it

is well documented, of course, in other parliamentary authorities such as Marleau

and Beauchesne , it is the responsibility of the Speaker to act as

guardian of the rights and privileges of members and of the House as an

institution.

Whenever a member brings to the attention of the House a possible breach of a

right or a privilege, the responsibility of the Speaker is to determine whether

or not a prima facie breach of privilege has occurred. Of course, when the

Speaker has ruled regarding the matter of a prima facie question of privilege,

and if it is so determined, it then goes before the House for consideration.

In order, of course, not simply to just raise a point of privilege or a

breach of a right of a member, it is necessary for the person raising the issue

to present facts in support of that, and then the decision as to the existence

of a prima facie question rests with the Speaker. The Chair shall take into

account the extent to which the matter complained of infringed upon any member's

ability to perform his or her parliamentary duties, or appears to be a contempt

against the dignity of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, it is also incumbent upon the person who raises the point of

privilege to provide the relevant provisions and references to the Chair, as

well as to bring it to the attention of the Chair at the earliest opportunity.

I refer here to the breach being comments by the Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board, albeit made outside this House yesterday. We would

submit that there has been a breach of the dignity of this House by deliberately

making statements contrary to the process of debate which was established here

in this House yesterday by his own House Leader, the Official Opposition through

myself as the Opposition House Leader, and the Leader of the NDP.

The fact I refer to is a statement made by the Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board yesterday at 6:00 p.m., approximately, on the NTV

newscast, when asked about how quickly Bill 18, which is the back-to-work

legislation, could proceed through this House. The minister responded that it

was up to the Opposition as to how fast this proceeded, or how fast the

Opposition allowed it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) could have been done today.

MR. PARSONS: He said, it could have been done today if the Opposition had

allowed, Mr. Speaker.

That was the fact that he stated on NTV. There are some other facts that the

Chair needs to be aware of as well, Mr. Speaker. One of those is that Bill 18

was tabled in this House, and only tabled in this House, yesterday afternoon,

Monday, April 26, about four hours before the minister made his statement to the

news media.

Bill 18 had been presented to myself and to the Leader of the Opposition

yesterday morning by the Government House Leader at approximately 10:00 a.m., as

a courtesy, so we could review it before coming to the House where it would be

tabled. Under the normal parliamentary rules, Mr. Speaker, the only thing that

would have happened yesterday, the first day that this bill was tabled, would

have been first reading.

Also, the Official Opposition publicly stated last Thursday, April 22, that

we would make ourselves available to the government at any time that Bill 18 was

ready to proceed, including last Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday. That was

well known because it was publicly stated, and known by the minister, and we

would be prepared to debate that bill at any time.

Also, Mr. Speaker, it is totally within the control of government as to when

a piece of legislation is called in this House for debate. That is not within

the control of the Opposition. It is government's prerogative as well to limit

debate if they choose to do so, at any stage of a piece of legislation. They can

invoke Rule 47, if they wish, called closure to stifle debate, if they so wish.

In fact, we had notice of closure yesterday given by the Government House Leader

with regard to the Committee stage of Bill 18.

The Government House Leader and myself, as the Opposition House Leader, and

the Leader of the NDP had unanimously agreed yesterday to the timetable for

debate and process of this bill through this House. That information was known

to the hon. Government House Leader and, I presume, to his colleague, the

Minister of Finance. At no time also - and this is very, very important - did

the Government House Leader ask and the Official Opposition to proceed with Bill

18 yesterday in debate. It was made quite clear that we only got it yesterday

morning, we would take some time to read it, and we would start the debate

today. Knowing all of these facts, Mr. Speaker, the President of Treasury Board

and Minister of Finance made the statement that we could have had Bill 18 passed

yesterday if the Opposition had allowed it.

Mr. Speaker, that statement is very misleading to the people of this

Province. It suggests and congers up the image that the Opposition are in some

way infringing upon the health and safety of the people of this Province because

we are being obstructionist when it comes to Bill 18. To make such a statement,

Mr. Speaker, knowing all of these facts, which existed before he made his

statements on NTV at 6:00 p.m., is nothing short of contentious of the

privileges of the members of this House and of the rights of this House. It

takes away from the dignity of this House when there is an agreed to process,

adopted by the Government House Leader and the Opposition, and yet we have

ministers of the Crown who make these misleading statements to the public.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that these facts, without question, establish a prima

facie case, that the President of Treasury Board has deliberately and knowingly

breached the privileges of every Opposition member by suggesting that we are

delaying passage of Bill 18. It infringes upon the dignity of this House when a

minister of the Crown makes public statements contrary to what he knew or ought

to have known was the process agreed upon between his own House Leader and the

Opposition.

I anticipate, Mr. Speaker, that the Government House Leader will use Beauchesne ,

and references therein, to suggest that a statement made by a member outside the

House cannot be used as the basis for a question of privilege. In fact, that

citation is referenced in Beauchesne . Mr. Speaker, that general statement

in Beauchesne does not settle this matter conclusively nor does it deal

with all factual situations. There have been many cases cited in Beauchesne ,

as well, where advertisements and pronouncements made outside the House have

been held to establish a prima facie case for a breech of privilege and to be

contemptuous. The role of the Speaker, of course, is to decide whether the facts

cited here in this situation establish such a prima facie case. Even if it does

not provide a basis for a question of privilege, it certainly provides the basis

for a question of contemp for this House, and we would ask Your Honour to

consider these facts and submissions.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since my name and role was included in the question of privilege, I do want

to set the record straight in terms of what was brought to my attention

yesterday. I did not see the NTV News last night but I know that the Minister of

Finance has a habit of playing fast and loose with the facts.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that this leader was never, at any

time, requested by him, by the Premier, by the Government House Leader, or by

anyone else on that side of the House, to consent to the passage of Bill 18

yesterday. I will add, Mr. Speaker, that if I was consented I would have

refused. If I was asked to consent, I, on behalf of my caucus, would have

refused and make it clear to the House and to the minister that what we would

have consented to - which we would have done on Thursday or Friday or Saturday

or Sunday or yesterday - would be a resolution of this House which could be

passed in half an hour under

section 30 of the Public Sector Bargaining Act

which would have ended this strike.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: That is the only way we would have consented to end this

strike pre-emptively because that would mean that the matters under dispute

would go to binding arbitration, which is the preferred route to go.

So, whatever the minister said last night about passage of Bill 18 yesterday

was absolutely incorrect. At no time was there ever any request by the

Government House Leader, who will confirm this, to have consent to go through

various stages of the bill yesterday. That was never under consideration. In

fact, what we discussed was what steps the Government House Leader would have to

do in order to get passage of this legislation. That does certainly reflect on

this House and the operations of this House, and reflect upon the abilities of

this House and House Leaders to actually conduct business, have discussions, and

to try to have an understanding of how things will proceed. If the Minister of

Finance is going to interfere with that process, well that process cannot occur,

and that will interfere with the ability of this House to operate.

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

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

Any matter of privilege, whenever it is raised, obviously is taken seriously.

First of all, let me set for the record as well, that in my capacity as

Government House Leader, the Opposition House Leader and the Leader of the NDP,

the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, know full well that in discussions about

the legislation that are before us and the issues which are contained in that

legislation, that there was never any request or attempt by government to try to

take away any time from any member in this House, according to the rules

governed by the House, and according to the rules, Standing Orders and

otherwise, that we are all governed by.

First and foremost, late last week when the decision was made to give notice

on this piece of legislation, I made a commitment to both parties that as soon

as we had it, or that I had it, they would have it. Legislation was finalized

late Sunday evening, and I was actually in contact with the Opposition House

Leader late Sunday evening. He said he was just on his way to bed, I believe, by

the time we just had it done, and I had left a message for the Leader of the NDP.

The legislation was delivered first thing yesterday morning to everybody. There

was no request made yesterday to any party in the House to: could we get into

debating the legislation? With the full understanding - given the circumstances

and given the environment that we are in - that it would be appropriate for all

members to take the opportunity to review the legislation so that when debate

began today in second reading and in Committee, that it could be done so from a

more informed way.

To the point that the Opposition House Leader has raised. Mr. Speaker, I do

not believe it is a point of privilege in the parliamentary sense, in terms of

the law that we operate in. It may be a pont of order; it may be a point of

grievance against the government; it may be a point that they fundamentally

disagree with what the Minister of Finance said in answer to a question from

someone in the media, but there have been - and I am not trying to diminish

anything whatsoever, but let me say this - I will quote Joseph Maingot Q.C., who

is the authority on Parliamentary Privilege in Canada. He is one of the

individuals who has defined and codified what privilege means in terms of

members and officers of the House. It is a long-standing precedent in

parliamentary law and in parliamentary history. I will just read it for all

members concerned: A complaint that a minister of the Crown has made a statement

outside the House rather than in the House or that the government provides

information only to its supporters in the House may well amount to a grievance

against the government, but in the absence of an order in the House - meaning

our Standing Orders - forbidding such activity, there is no personal or

corporate privilege that has been breached in the doing and neither does it

constitute contempt of the House in the privileged sense.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that there is no point of privilege,

from my point of view, and I do not believe at all that a prima facie case has

been established on this point. I think that, upon review, when you look at what

a prima facie case really means, is that, on the face of it, have individual

members' privileges, as members, not as ministers, not as members of the

Crown, but as private members - in order for privilege to be breached and in

order for the Speaker to find a breach, because that is the Speaker's role,

and if he ever found a breach, then it is up to the House to determine what the

penalties are. In this case, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, no breach has

occurred.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will review the information that has been

submitted by the hon. members. The Chair wishes also to consult with references

in Marleau and Maingot and Beauchesne .

The Chair would like to say at this time, however, that the Chair is not

party to any negotiations that might occur between the House Leaders and has no

knowledge of these particular matters. The Chair's only role is to determine

whether or not a prima facie case exists for a point of privilege.

I anticipate being able to bring this matter back to the House later in the

afternoon, following recess, and after I have had an opportunity to review the

matter with the House Officers.

Statements by Members

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer support to a young resident of Wesleyville,

Mr. Kris Mullaly. Mr. Mullaly is the Manager/Curator of the Bonavista North

Regional Museum and Gallery in Wesleyville.

On May 1 and 2, Kris will walk the ninety kilometer distance from Gambo to

Wesleyville to raise money to enhance the heritage and culture of Bonavista

North. The walk will re-enact the traditional "Sealers Walk" of years

gone by when hundreds of sealers would leave their homes in Greenspond, Shambler's

Cove, Safe Harbour, Pool's Island, Valleyfield, Badger's Quay, Brookfield,

Wesleyville and other communities in the area and walk to Gambo to join the

train that would take them to St. John's and a berth to the ice. Some of the

members in this House may know that many of our Province's famous sealing

captains came from Bonavista North.

The money raised by Mr. Mullaly in his walk will be used to purchase and

restore the old historic building in Wesleyville, known as Wesley Hall. Wesley

Hall served Wesleyville and area for many years as a church, a public hall, a

schoolhouse, a theatre, and a forum for public debate. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it

was at Wesley Hall in 1949 when Joseph R. Smallwood stirred a large audience

with his famed speech "Presentation of the Children to the People".

Mr. Mullaly will be joined on a trip by several of his friends and associates

who are also actively involved in the development of tourism in Bonavista North,

namely: Steven Perry, Jeremy Chippett and my son Jamie.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. HARDING: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in

offering support and encouragement to Kris Mullaly and his friends in this very

worthwhile undertaking. Anyone who wants to donate to this project may do so by

forwarding their donation to the Bonavista North Regional Museum and Gallery in

Wesleyville.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed saddened today to rise in this hon. House and to

inform this hon. House that indeed Labrador has lost one of its daughters.

Beatrice Watts, a well-known teacher in Labrador, died Monday at the age of

seventy-two years.

Beatrice was born in Nain, and became the first Labrador Inuit to qualify as

a teacher in the 1950s. She taught in most Labrador North Coast communities and

in the Upper Lake Melville area. For the past two years, Beatrice worked as a

land claims negotiator for the Labrador Inuit.

Beatrice received an honorary doctorate from Memorial University in 1992. She

was a strong advocate to protect and to promote the Inuit language. She was

proud of her culture and her heritage. She was a working participant in the

Ratification Committee of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, we have lost a daughter of Labrador; and to her husband, Ron,

and to her family, I am sure I offer all hon. members' condolences at this

particular time.

Thank you.

Statements by Ministers

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

Employment.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the organizers of

Nipavut, the first retreat to be held in Nain, Labrador, for Aboriginal women.

Nipavut, Mr. Speaker, is Inuktitut for "our voices". Not only is it

the name given to the retreat; it is also the name of a women's organization

that was formed about three years ago in Nain. The members of this group work to

build self-esteem and encourage empowerment among the Inuit women of Labrador.

Several women from the North Coast of Labrador and the Upper Lake Melville area

participated in the retreat this past weekend. It was an opportunity for them to

gather and discuss specific issues that Inuit women face in Coastal Labrador

communities. This would include health care, elder care, women's place in

decision-making, and violence.

Women elders also participated in this retreat and provided guidance and

insight on how women have dealt with women's issues in their communities. The

elders discussed the importance of maintaining cultural traditions, language,

foods, and being out on the land as a fundamental aspect of building women's

leadership, self-esteem, and maintaining mental health.

I am pleased to inform my hon. colleagues that the Women's Policy Office,

on behalf of this government, provided $10,000 to fund the workshop. The

participants report that it was a tremendous success, and contact has already

been made with national Aboriginal and Inuit organizations as a necessary step

in having the women of Labrador connect with their counterparts across the

country.

Again, Mr. Speaker, congratulations to all of those involved, and I am

pleased that my office and government are able to support this extremely

important grassroots effort.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the hon. minister for a

copy of her statement today. I say to her that last year I was able to

participate in one of the first Pan-Labrador Women's Conferences to be held in

Labrador in almost two decades. Certainly, the women of Northern Labrador played

a tremendous role in that conference.

I also want, at this time, to say to this House that the Member for Torngat

Mountains has spoken in this Chamber many times on the plight of the Inuit

people and the women of Northern Labrador, and the challenges that they have had

to undertake.

Mr. Speaker, it has been an ongoing struggle for native women all across

Labrador. The Inuit women, themselves, have battled many challenges. In recent

years, we have heard of Inuit communities that are faced with some of the

highest suicide rates ever to be record in North America today.

Mr. Speaker, the Inuit people of Northern Labrador have had to deal with a

failing fishery -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS JONES: Just a few minutes to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS JONES: - and very challenging social conditions within their

community. It is forums like this that allow them to have their voices heard and

to be strong in numbers, to move forward with the issues that face women.

Today the Member for Lake Melville mentioned Beatrice Watts, and I have to

acknowledge Beatrice because she is one Inuit woman, amongst many in Labrador,

that have pioneered and represented Inuit women all over this country, not just

in our own Province. She has made great strides for those women who will follow

in her footsteps when it comes to protecting the rights of women and our culture

and our heritage. So, as the Inuit people move forward with a new land claim

negotiation, I wish them well. I give my support to the women of Northen

Labrador, as I am sure the minister will in her portfolio.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement. We, too, Mr.

Speaker, would like to acknowledge the positive development that is taking place

on the North Coast of Labrador. It is not that long ago in this country, when

women anywhere in the country did not have any input into decision-making, but

in isolated areas and in the North Coast of Labrador, in our native communities,

it is much more difficult.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. COLLINS: The only advice I would give to the minister, Mr. Speaker -

as recent as yesterday the Member for Torngat Mountains talked about services on

the North Coast. If there is any one person in this House who knows the North

Coast, it is him. I would say to the minister, listen to the Member for Torngat

Mountains, because on many occasions in this House he raises legitimate issues

that have long been neglected on the North Coast.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear to everyone in the Province that this government

misled the people prior to the election, prior to the strike, throughout the

strike, and continue to do so, even yesterday, as the draconian back-to-work

legislation is being introduced here.

The point of privilege that you will rule on later, Mr. Speaker, the

President of Treasury Board made misleading public comments on yesterday's

evening news and again this morning on an Open Line program restating the same

information. That it is the Opposition that might be delaying this legislation

that could have been passed yesterday - he said last night - and today he said

this morning.

The question for the Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker, so we can clear

this up: Would the Government House Leader like to spell out for his own

colleagues on that side, for the rest of the Members of the House and for the

people of the Province, what the expected or likely timetable is for passage of

this legislation that you will vote for and we will speak and vote against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I can only advise the Leader of the Opposition that today we are doing second

reading. Today, also, there is intent to do committee. If there is anything else

other than that, myself, your House Leader, and the Leader of the NDP are

getting together after to see if we can facilitate - or if tomorrow, for

example, being Private Members' Day, which is government's day: Would the

Opposition allow government to use it as a government day as when we were in

Opposition, allowed you to use that government day on back-to-work legislation

for nurses? So, the rules are pretty clear. If there is any facilitation, that

is in your hands not ours.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To a different issue, I just hope that he would inform the President of

Treasury Board a little more about his plans in the future to prevent from

making false and erroneous and misleading statements in the public.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Premier if an employee would be fired

under

section 63 of this bill; this unbelievably, punitive back-to-work

legislation, if they were sick on the day they would return to work. As usual,

in this Legislature, he gave no answer. But, outside the Legislature, Mr.

Speaker, in addressing the media, the Premier stated: There would have to be

some individual considerations. Would the Premier like to now tell the members

of the Legislature, who are going to debate this bill, what those individual

considerations might be, and whether or not we can expect amendments to the bill

to spell out some of those circumstances in the legislation instead of just

waiting for the Premier to tell somebody outside the House what the legislation

really means?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the legislation is what it is and the

words speak for themselves and debate will clarify that. We will have an

opportunity to discuss it and that is what debate is all about.

I would like to inform the House today, and the people in the galleries, that

even though there have been comments made that this is what it was all about, it

was all about getting back-to-work legislation in this Chamber and we had no

intention of ever trying to reach an agreement. I would like to inform hon.

members opposite -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: If they would just give me an opportunity to give them

some very, very important information.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A question has been asked and the hon. the Premier is giving an answer. We

would indulge the members of the Opposition and also the visitors in the gallery

to permit that process to proceed.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Thursday past the continuance and resumption of services legislation was

introduced in this House. On Friday night past I had an extensive discussion

with a union leader with a view to still trying to reach a collective agreement.

As a result of that conversation, I understand that there was a meeting on

Saturday between union leaders at -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: This is very important, Mr. Speaker. I would appreciate

it if I had some liberty here to give a good answer. If not, I will just sit

down and wait for another question.

On Saturday there was a meeting of union leaders whereby -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The normal sequence is that we would have about a minute to make an answer.

The Premier has asked if he could have some extended time and I can only do that

if we have agreement to do so.

I do not see that we have agreement for the Premier to continue beyond the

one minute allocation, approximately. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition

if he could facilitate this process by a supplementary question.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the Premier wanted to make a speech about what transpired last week then

he could have made a ministerial statement, just like the Minister Responsible

for the Status of Women did a few minutes ago.

Mr. Speaker, now we have, again, a conflicting answer. Outside the

Legislature, just outside those doors, the Premier stated to the public of the

Province on television that there would have to be individual circumstances.

When I asked him the question today he says the legislation speaks for itself,

and it says nothing about individual circumstances.

The question is this. The fear is that the Premier does have some individual

circumstances in mind, that those who did not speak out against him will be

okay, but those that he can identify who did speak out against him will deal

with certain circumstances for sure. Let me ask the question again: Are we to

expect amendments that will spell out certain circumstances under which people

will not be fired if they do not show up or, as he just answered, does the

legislation speak for itself in which it says: If you don't go back to work

you are fired, end of the statement? Just like he said yesterday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at 2:00 o'clock on Saturday afternoon the union leaders had a

meeting to discuss the conversation that was held between myself and the union

leader late Friday night. As a result of that, government waited for an approach

from the union to see whether there was any point in pursuing and continuing to

pursue collective bargaining. Last night, at supper time, we received a new

offer from the union. We are presently involved in a negotiation of that offer.

We are moving forward. We are doing everything we can to try and reach a

collective agreement.

This legislation is before the House, it will go through its normal course,

but if we can achieve an agreement on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador with our public sector workers for the betterment of all

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that is affordable and agreeable we will work

to do that. That is my commitment.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think the people of the Province have heard the old adage,

fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, and we have fallen for

that before. However, I always wish the parties well if they can come to a

mutual agreement. If that means the Premier is finally about to see the light

and take the concessions off the table, that he says still aren't there, there

might be some hope.

Since he says we have to deal with the legislation anyway, Mr. Speaker, which

he just said, this will pass through the House in its own due course. Yesterday,

the Premier again, outside the door, just outside those doors right there, a few

feet away, bragged about the fines being the largest and the most extreme in the

history of the country, bragged about it, and said, if they have to be

meaningful people have to take it seriously and they must go back to work. They

are admittedly clearly excessive and intent on breaking the unions.

The question for the Premier: Can we expect -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question quickly.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Can we expect a return to sanity and rationality rather than the current

punitive, vindictive approach in this legislation, and will the Premier stand

and commit, right now, to amendments to lower these punitive fines to some

sensible, sane, reasonable levels in this legislation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the previous highest fines in the country were the fines that

were imposed by that previous government when they were in office. Those were

the previous highest fines in the country.

What we have done in this particular matter is, we have taken the advice of

the Department of Justice. We have checked other legislation around the country,

we have seen that fines have increased.

Let me make one thing clear, we cannot belittle the importance of what is

going on in our Province. We have to make sure that, as a government, we can

provide services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. A breach of

legislation that provides for the resumption and the continuation of those

services to our Province is a very, very serious breach. It cannot be treated

lightly and it, therefore, warrants a significant fine that prevents that from

happening, and that is the deterrent factor that is a standard principle in all

fines.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think everyone understands the answer was no, so I will ask

the question again slightly differently.

Morale is already at an all-time low, as the so-called valued public

employees see the very dark side of their vindictive little Napoleon. The labour

relations climate has been poisoned, probably for years to come. The question

again for the Premier: In order to start turning that around and restoring some

sensible - sensible - labour relations climate in the Province on the road to

recovery, and showing respect for the public employees of Newfoundland and

Labrador, will he again, I ask him, at least start by agreeing now to amend the

penalties down to some reasonable, sensible, level instead of the vindictive

punitive levels that he bragged about yesterday and says now he thinks are

right?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Again, Mr. Speaker, as I rise day after day and comment

on how the hon. gentleman opposite can be so hypocritical when he and his

government, and the members opposite who were part of that government, created

this financial mess, this financial nightmare that we find ourselves in. We are

only in government six months. We are trying to correct this situation for the

betterment of all people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

When I was on Open Line last week, I indicated that it is very, very

unfortunate -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - that myself and the hon. minister, and Mr. Lucas, Mr.

Reynolds and Mr. Puddister, find ourselves in this terrible, terrible situation.

The reason that we find ourselves in this terrible situation is because it was

caused by the hon. gentleman opposite, as Premier of this Province, and his

government who put us in a financial mess. That is exactly why we are dealing

with it right now.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One last topic, a new question that I would like to ask the Premier, Mr.

Speaker. I ask the Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker: Why is there no separate

section or clause in this back-to-work legislation, in Bill 18, describing the

purpose of the legislation? Why is there no clause in this bill describing the

purpose?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The purpose of the legislation is quite obvious. It is

for the resumption and continuation of services to the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador. We, as a government, found ourselves in a situation where we had

absolutely no choice. We had to act. The reason that we had to act -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - is (inaudible) two-fold. We had a health care

situation which was very serious. As well, there was a realization by both

parties - when you are trying to reach an agreement, if one party does not want

to reach an agreement you do not have an agreement. If two parties cannot reach

an agreement you do not have an agreement. When you do not have an agreement, we

had to come up with a solution because we had a situation that was presented to

us last Thursday from health care officials that said we had a very, very

serious backlog in our Province. That has to be dealt with. It is the people who

were not getting into the system, who were not getting diagnosed. They had to be

dealt with. We were not prepared to risk the lives of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, and we moved forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: As well, Mr. Speaker, I must emphasize that we were

unable to reach an agreement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to finish his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are still trying to reach an agreement. We are negotiating right now, at

this very moment.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I take it that the Premier confirmed, with that answer, that the

purpose of the bill is to provide for the resumption and continuation of public

services.

I ask this question, Mr. Speaker: Is that the sole agenda and the sole

purpose for this bill, or is the government also determined to punish people who

stood up against him and to strip their contracts? Is there a sole purpose or is

there more than one purpose?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There was never an intent to punish people throughout this process,

absolutely not. What we have done is, there were concessions on the table from

the very beginning, we took those concessions off the table. We took off sick

leave for current employees. We took off pension indexing. We took off the

severance issue. We reached agreement on job evaluation. We reached agreement on

other pension issues. We did everything we could to work towards an agreement,

an agreed settlement. There is nothing punitive about this legislation - it is

not intended to be punitive - but we have a responsibility as the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to take care of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and that is what we are doing to the very best of our ability.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Justice.

Minister, I assume you had some input into Bill 18. Given

section 2.(

d) of

the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the fundamental right of

"freedom of association", how can such despotic, oppressive and

tyrannical legislation be foisted upon the labour unions in this Province?

Minister, are you concerned about the constitutionality of Bill 18?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the format of the legislation follows very

closely the legislation that the hon. members opposite brought in, in 1999. So,

if there is any concern about the constitutionality, it was the same concern

then.

Mr. Speaker, while I am up, I would like to answer one of the questions put

by the hon. Leader of the Opposition concerning the firing of employees. The

dismissal provision in the legislation deals where an employee breaches

Section

4, and

Section 4 requires our employees, where applicable, to continue or resume

are set out in the collective agreements.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer quickly.

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

collective agreement. With respect to an employee who is sick, the same sick

leave applies to all current employees -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. MARSHALL: - that applied under the old collective agreement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Minister of Justice, perhaps if he could confine his answers to

the questions I ask, and not choose the questions he would like to answer, we

might get somewhere here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier, in Question Period yesterday,

commented that other pieces of legislation in this country permit for large

fines, and referred to environmental laws and poaching type offences, both of

which are quasi-criminal offences. Our Criminal Code here in Canada only permits

for a maximum fine of $2,000 for

summary conviction criminal offences, and we

are dealing with

summary conviction offences in this act, Bill 18, if you refuse

to go back to work.

Now that government is turning upstanding citizens who happen to be unionists

into criminals, is the minister concerned about the validity of $25,000,

$250,000 per day fines, and dismissal? Are you concerned, Minister, about the

validity of such a bill?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, in the nurses' back-to-work legislation,

the fines were the highest in the country at that time, for a union that is much

smaller than the unions that are out of work at the present time. The penalties

are relative, and the penalties are there to induce our employees to resume and

continue their contracts of employment.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, perhaps he should go back and research because there

is no precedent in Canadian history for back -to-work legislation with fines of

this nature. I would have him know that there was no punitive type inclusion in

the nurses' legislation that would fire them, like this government is doing.

By the way, just about everybody over there who was a member at one time, Mr.

Minister, stood on this side of the House and proclaimed that back-to-work

legislation was draconian and oppressive and never should be. Maybe the minister

should go back and read some of his colleagues' earlier statements in this

House during the nurses' strike.

Mr. Speaker,

Section 6.(3) of this act states that an employee who fails to

comply with Bill 18 will be dismissed - fired. We had a similar Tory hammer back

in 1981 in the Essential Health and Services Act, but at least in that act in

1981 there was a provision in

Section 11 which provided the employee an

opportunity to give a reasonable reason and excuse, grounds, for why they could

not comply with the back-to-work legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question quickly.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No such reasonable grounds of appeal or process exist in this Bill 18. You

fail to comply and you are fired.

I ask the minister: Aren't you concerned about this, as a Minister of

Justice, that it makes government the prosecutor, the judge, the jury and the

executioner, without any recourse by the employee?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. T. MARSHALL: I will correct the hon. member, Mr. Speaker. The

employee is not dismissed for not complying with Bill 18. The employee would be

dismissed for not complying with

Section 4 of the bill. That means compliance

before this legislation came into effect. Under the old collective agreement -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. MARSHALL: - if an employee did not resume or carry out his terms

of employment, the employee was liable for dismissal.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Premier.

In his attempt to assert his own right-wing agenda on public sector workers,

the Premier has claimed that sick leave is being abused. He is trying to paint

everyone with the same brush by saying that public sector workers use up all

remaining sick leave days on the eve of their retirement. He knows full well

that when a worker is off, being sick, they have to get a note, after three

days, from a doctor.

I ask the Premier: Does he realize that, in making this self-serving claim,

he is not only questioning the honesty of the workers but also the

professionalism of doctors?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can confirm for the hon. member opposite that the union leaders have

actually acknowledged that there is abuse in the system, of that nature.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, as you can see, that is another play on words as

we have become accustomed to in this House.

The Premier now admits that he has publicly insulted the public sector

employees and the doctors by suggesting that both are defrauding the system.

Premier, can you tell this House how this is going to foster good labour

relations in the future?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, there has been an acknowledgment by both

parties that there are problems with the system, that there is abuse in the

system. That word, unfortunately, has been used. There is an acknowledgment that

there is abuse in the system that has to be corrected. You can see from even the

union proposals that were presented to us that they did acknowledge that and

they were looking at a joint task force to deal with those very problems of

abuse.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Another example of what the Premier says in this House and what he then says

on Open Line.

Mr. Speaker, on March 16, the Premier claimed he had alarming correspondence

from the bond rating agencies and that is why he needed to change the sick leave

provisions. I ask the Premier: Is this phantom correspondence just another

example of how his government is misleading people to achieve his own right-wing

agenda, or can you now produce this bogus correspondence? If so, will you table

that today, Mr. Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: No, he can't!

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

Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have been in contact with bond rating agencies. We have been in contact

with fiscal agents and as late as Friday -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A question has been asked and the minister is attempting to give the answer.

I ask members to co-operate and permit the minister to give whatever answer he

deems appropriate.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have had ongoing discussions with bond rating agencies, with fiscal

agents, with major banks; we have read reports. We have $2.7 billion worth of

debt put on this Province since 1999 over and above -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: We currently have debts that are unsustainable on the

current path. We have to the correct that. We have serious concerns, Mr.

Speaker, about potential increased cost of borrowing, and we do not have any

intention whatsoever of reneging on our responsible -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to complete his answer quickly.

MR. SULLIVAN: - to make decisions in the best interest of this Province

and we are not going to be goaded into doing anything by that side who put us in

this fiscal mess in the first place.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is truly a day of mourning for collective bargaining in the public

sector in this Province when the Premier has destroyed collective bargaining in

the public sector and the prospect of true collective bargaining during his term

of office.

Mr. Speaker, my question is: How does this Premier expect to properly operate

public and government services in the Province when 20,000 employees will be on

employment imposed on them by him?

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

Board,

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When I gave a statement in this House, and notice that we were going to

introduce a bill here, I indicated that we are open to continue negotiations and

get this settled without having to go through any particular legislation. Nobody

takes pleasure in doing that. We did have a proposal, yesterday actually, that

was received from the unions. I received it yesterday evening at about 6:45 p.m.

and I have spoken today with Mr. Puddister of NAPE. I will be speaking with him

later on today and we have discussed the three outstanding issues there. I just

hope - and I do not want to build up any expectations by anybody. I am hoping -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - and I have never tried to build it up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The minister has about fifteen seconds to complete, if he desires.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I said that I don't want to build up or dampen any particular hopes out

there. We are sincerely interested in getting a resolution to it. I have had a

very honest discussion today after lunch with Mr. Puddister, and we will have a

follow-up there. A preferred solution is to get a negotiated agreement, Mr.

Speaker, and not one that is legislated in this House. While there is any hope

of doing that, I am going to pursue it while there is any hope whatsoever of

doing that.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, to the Premier. Does the Premier not realize that he cannot legislate

what is really needed in the workplaces of this Province, co-operation, good

will, loyalty, respect for the employees, dignity of workers as achieved through

free collective bargaining, all of which he has destroyed with this legislation

on the Table of this House today, and continue to be debated, regardless of

whatever discussions are going on?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Nobody knows better than the hon. gentleman opposite, of the loyalty and the

respect that I have with my employees, and I have always had all my life,

because he worked with me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, the Chair asks all members for their co-operation and all visitors to

the gallery for their co-operation as well.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. gentleman knows because he worked with me for some time. We worked

together in a law firm. We worked in partnership. We worked with employees and

we had a good relationship with our employees, and I also commend him for that.

He also knows what my private sector background is with regard to my employees

at Cable Atlantic.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I always had a good relationship with my employees Don't

ever accuse me, sir, of having a bad relationship with my employees. We

inherited a mess here and we are trying to deal with it. When I spoke on Open

Line on Friday -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I expressed sympathy for Mr. Puddister, Mr. Lucas and Mr. Reynolds for

finding themselves in the situation that they find themselves and I find myself.

It is due to the hon. gentleman opposite and his government, and the mess that

they have left us with.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

through legislation under threat of dismissal and nothing else.

Will the Premier not, in fact, Mr. Speaker, reach - which I am sure he can do

because it has already been said - an agreement with the two public sector

unions on the monetary issues and put the two concessions that he has still on

the table to binding arbitration under

section 30 of the Collective Bargaining

Act? Is that a way, Mr. Speaker, that he can feel he has not turned the

chequebook of the Province over to a third party? Can he not do that, because he

knows that no union can agree to those concessions that he has put forth?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, first of all they are not concessions. The

Warren Report is an add on. Secondly, we are talking about future employees.

Having said that, we are, in fact, trying to achieve a collective agreement.

We have been working since last Friday to do this, we had conversations. We

waited the weekend and gave the union time to try and put their position

together, which they did. They presented it to the hon. gentleman, the Minister

of Finance and President of Treasury Board, last night, I understand, at 6:45.

We discussed that through the night with our officials. The minister has gotten

back to Minister - Mr. Puddister -

MS THISTLE: Minister Puddister!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Would the Member for Grand Falls not be so silly. This

is a very serious issue.

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

The Premier has about twenty seconds left to make a response.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I can tell the hon. gentleman opposite, and all hon.

members opposite who want to listen, and there are none only the two members of

the New Democratic Party, that we are doing everything we can and we sincerely

hope, without building high expectations, that we can reach an agreement prior

to this legislation having to be passed in this House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the following Private

Member's Resolution:

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House encourages the government to protect the

Province's children and grandchildren from a massive and unmanageable burden

of debt by resolving to do a better job of living within our means.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of

Labrador. I will read the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS palliative care patients do not have the capacity for getting home

other than by air ambulance; and

WHEREAS stretchers cannot be taken on the commercial airlines serving

Labrador.

Many patients are critically ill and air ambulance is the only way to return

them home, and they are asking this government to introduce a change in policy

that will ensure that patients under palliative care will have the opportunity

to be returned home to their loves ones at the first opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, living in Labrador and in other parts of this Province, the only

alternative for patients to be able to return home is via the air ambulance. We

understand, because the minister and I have had discussions on this, that the

primary responsibility of the air ambulance in this Province is to respond to

emergency cases, but it is equally important, Mr. Speaker, that when the air

ambulance is not being used in that capacity that the air ambulance be used to

provide the only opportunity for people to be able to return to their homes.

In a lot of places in this Province, Mr. Speaker, people may be able to

travel where their loved ones are, in the hospitals, particularly here in the

St. John's area, but that is not true for people who live in more remote and

farther away areas of this Province, where the only way to travel is by air, at

substantial cost that many times families cannot afford.

Mr. Speaker, people who are under palliative care need to have peace of mind.

They do not need the further pressures that are on them with the knowledge that

they may not be able to return home. The current process is that once a doctor

releases a patient and says there is no further treatment we can give you, the

patient and the family is told that if the aircraft is dispatched to your area,

then we will take you at the same time that we go there responding to an

emergency. That is, quite frankly, not good enough. People have to have the

knowledge, they have to have the capacity, to be able to be returned home with

their loved ones. The other process could take a week or a day. It could take a

month.

I have talked to the Minister of Health and Community Services, I have spoken

with the Minister of Transportation on this issue, and I have done that about

twelve times in the past five years. Each time we were able to get the aircraft

put on to bring people back to their homes, but we should not have to go through

that process. It should be a standard policy by this government that says, once

a person is released from a hospital, the doctor has informed them there are no

further treatments that they can conduct and that they should be going back to

their homes, then at the earliest opportunity the people should be transported

back so they can spend their remaining days with their loved ones, rather than

spend their remaining days in a place far away from their homes where they do

not have any family or friends to comfort them during what, in most cases,

sadly, is probably their last days.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage this government -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I encourage this government to make the

necessary change in this policy, to show a bit of respect and dignity to the

people of the Province who find themselves in this unfortunate position. I ask

them to do the right thing, not have MHAs calling their offices taking two or

three days to arrange for the air ambulance, but do the right thing. Make the

necessary change in policy that will allow people the respect that they should

have.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition today from the students of Millcrest Academy in Grand

Falls-Windsor. I will not read the prayer because I know it will take up my very

important time, but I will be tabling this petition.

Really, what the students of Millcrest Academy are asking for - and it is

signed by 183 students - they are saying that: We formed a union of students

because we do not think the strike is necessary.

You know, out of the mouths of babes is always the truth. Here are the

reasons: Our school is dirty. It is not fair to students who have to sacrifice

after-school activities. People have allergies, and the dust is affecting them.

There is no busing, and people cannot get to school. We do not have any canteen

for recess or lunch. We cannot eat in the gym, and our classroom is really

dirty. We miss our secretary, because she does everything. We feel that the

workers should have their rights and you guys should come to an agreement, but

not legislation. It is not fair and we think you are abusing your power as

Premier. The workers should not lose their work time and their sick time,

because they have a family to take care of. We know the Province is in debt but

it cannot be fixed overnight.

I think the most important thing they are saying is: Please be fair and

compromise. Please be fair and compromise. Millcrest Academy is a school of 300

students. These students are ages eight to eleven, Grade 4, Grade 5 and Grade 6.

What does the school secretary do? Well, she is a sympathetic ear. Anything that

goes wrong in school, the school secretary looks after it. She provides

Band-Aids, she calls their parents when they are sick, she provides medications,

she looks after fundraisers; and, we all heard Mr. Fred Douglas, the President

of the NLTA, say: What would a school be if we did not have a secretary there

when you entered the door?

We talked about hours of work and taking the concession off the table, but do

you know something? When you look at the concessions on page eighty-five, hours

of work is clearly included. It is clearly included in the current collective

agreement and it should remain there.

What does a janitor do? We have a full-time janitor in Grand Falls-Windsor,

in Millcrest Academy, and a part-timer who works five hours a day. Right now, we

have fifty children out with asthmatic conditions. They have to be kept at home.

So, why do we need janitors? So, those fifty children and many more like them in

the Province can go to school every day. Our janitor cleans the library, the

computer lab, the breakfast room, the science lab, everything, but do you know

something? I think there is a motive to what this government is trying to do. I

think you are looking at privatization. When you walk out around this

Confederation Building, you have our cleaners here, who are privately employed,

making $6 an hour, no benefits, and you want to continue it! You want to

continue it!

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Laugh all you want.

Mr. Speaker -

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

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

We are not going to sit down here and listen to a former minister who was the

one who privatized janitors out in this building, to point at this government

that, that is where we are. Who privatized provincial parks? Who privatized

Works, Services and Transportation? Who tried to privatize Hydro? It was you,

Minister, not this government! We are not going to sit down and take that

nonsense!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, to the -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) lies whatsoever.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, maybe if the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair clearly heard the Government House Leader use a word that we all

recognize to be unparliamentary and I ask him to withdraw it.

MR. E. BYRNE: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

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

House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the Government House Leader withdrawing that remark. It is most

appropriate to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have a point of order here at all. What we

have here is a very sensitive Government House Leader. Maybe they are getting a

bit thin-skinned and a bit frazzled after their work efforts in the last

twenty-six days or so.

Mr. Speaker, we have no problem at any time dealing with the truth over here,

if that is the concern of Government House Leader. We are always prepared to

deal with the truth. Now, we had some questions about some other cases or

whatever, but I tell the Government House Leader not to be worried and not for

anybody in the public to be worried. When anyone over here speaks, we will only

give the truth. We will not use any weasel words or anything else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order. A disagreement between members as to

the

interpretation of facts and statements that may differ in their

interpretation does not qualify as a point of order. So, there is no point of

order.

Now, as members know as well, when points of order occur while an hon. member

is speaking to a petition, the time for the petition continues to go on. So I

would ask leave of the House to let the minister have her thirty seconds she had

left to finish up her petition.

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

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

for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The janitors of this building were mentioned here by the previous speaker. I

want to say that the issue of janitors in this building, being paid minimum wage

contracted out, was never raised until I brought it forward to this House

yesterday, and that is not something that happened recently. That is something

that has been going on too long. I have approached members of the government

here to see what they can do to change that because it is inherently unfair. The

janitors who clean these offices deserve better than that. I do not want them

being used as an example by anyone in this House to further their own gains or

to further their own arguments. What is happening is unfair, and it is more

unfair to use them to try to get another point across.

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order. I think the point of order falls in

the same category to one on which I just ruled. There is no point of order.

There may be differences of opinion between hon. members but does not constitute

a point of order.

The thirty seconds remaining to the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for being so fair.

I know that they intentionally try to take my time but I thank you for

restoring it. There is no point of order.

The point I was trying to make was that by the attitude of this government,

the coming out and saying that they are laying off 4,000 people and imposing

fees - what are they going to be doing next? Are they going to be privatizing?

That was the point I was making, but you could not listen to it. No, because you

are getting to antsy today from sleeping in a sleeping bag up here afraid to

come in through the door.

Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to say is that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Now the hon. member's time has expired.

I do believe I saw the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi rising first.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, have a petition from students of Millcrest Academy in Grand

Falls-Windsor. I do not know if it is similar to the previous speakers because

she did not read the prayer.

It says: We, the students of Millcrest Academy, are opposed to the strike and

to the legislation. We want the strikers back at work but not with legislation.

We would like you to compromise and negotiate a solution.

This is from students in various classes at Millcrest Academy in Grand

Falls-Windsor, obviously showing a lot of wisdom for young people, Mr. Speaker,

recognizing that there has to be a reasonable compromise to be made. They have

written, as well, a letter to the Premier saying: We formed a union of students

because we do not think the strike is necessary, so we feel that workers should

have their rights and you guys should come to an agreement, but not legislation.

It is not fair, and we think you are abusing your power as Premier. The workers

should not lose their work time and their sick time because they have a family

to take care of. We know the Province is in debt but it cannot be fixed

overnight. Please, be fair and compromise. Sincerely, the Millcrest Student

Union.

That is a letter to the Premier, accompanying the petition, Mr. Speaker. I

want to urge on hon. members opposite the wisdom of these young people

recognizing that fairness and compromise is an important part and the role of

government in dealing with people who are exercising their legal right to strike

to achieve a fair collective agreement under a collective bargaining regime that

is set in legislation and has been operating in this Province for over thirty

years.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important part of democracy. Many people do not see

collective bargaining as a part of our democracy. It is the way that workers

called industrial democracy that the workers collectively can negotiate their

The Minister of Justice, a little while ago, talked about the collective

agreement and what is in the collective agreement. Mr. Speaker, there are no

collective agreements under this legislation. What this legislation says is

those things attached to the schedules are considered to be collective

agreements under the act. They have to say that because they are not collective

agreements. They have not been signed and they have not been entered into.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, the legislation has to go so far as to say in order to

make them considered agreements and be considered binding, the collective

agreement listed in

Schedule A and the amendments to them contained in Schedules

B and C are binding on the employers and the unions to the same extent as if

they had been entered into by them and on each employee. Mr. Speaker, these are

These students, Mr. Speaker, in their young lives, have recognized that basic

principle of freedom and have asked this government to be fair, to compromise,

to recognize that there must be a fair negotiated settlement -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: - and not legislation in this House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me today to rise in

the House to present a petition on behalf of the Newfoundland and Labrador

association of retired public servants. The petition is signed by members of my

district, people within my district, within my constituency, and people within

the constituency of Trinity North.

We all know what happened on January 5, and the presidential address to the

Province in terms of - and the kinds of concessions that this government had on

the table. They were going to rob pensioners of $5 a month; going to take away

the small pittance of money from pensioners.

I look down through this list, Mr. Speaker, of people who have given thirty,

thirty-five years of service to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I see

some of these people here who operated with the Department of Highways when

there wasn't any plows and there wasn't any equipment or what have you. The

most they had was pick and shovel. Today they are living on a very, very small

pension.

This petition was presented to me a few days ago - the hon. Government House

Leader, I wish he would stay quiet so that I can represent the people in my

district and the District of Trinity North. The Government House Leader for some

reason is over there babbling off on something. I do not know what he is talking

about. They wanted me to present this petition, to represent their point of

view, because I indicated to them at the meeting I had with them in Clarenville

- that the Member for Trinity North did not turn up to. On that particular day

this concession came off the table. So when I got the petition I called the

people and I said: Do you still want me to present the petition in the House of

Assembly? They said: Oh, yes, because we don't trust this government. We don't

trust this government! When we see what has happened in the last twenty-six

days, I can understand why they do not.

I do not know if people can remember or not, we are talking about pensioners.

When Mr. Peckford left this Province to go to British Columbia, and when the PC

government was at the end of its term, the top executives within the provincial

government were allowed to buy pension service that they did not work, at 1 per

cent premiums.

We are talking about a government now that is going to take the rights away

from the people who worked hard with the picks and shovels in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

Orders of the Day

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

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

I wasn't asking the Member for Bellevue, I was just wondering. I didn't

hear what the prayer of the petition was and I was trying to find out what it

was. That is all it was.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I don't. I will have a copy of it, but let me say to

him, that once you table it I will have a look at it. I only asked.

Mr. Speaker, Orders of the Day: Motion 8, to move, pursuant to Standing Order

47, that Bill 18 now begin debate.

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

Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to raise this point of order,

that we in the official Opposition, other than our next speaker, will be leaving

the Legislature while the President of Treasury Board and Minister of Finance

introduces this bill.

We have had occasions where he has had to apologize twice in the Legislature

for false statements in the last few days. He is being challenged on a point of

privilege today. We don't find anything he says to be credible. With our own

sanction - I don't know what you will rule, as the Chair, later, but our own

sanction, as the official Opposition, is that other than our next speaker, which

will be the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, we will register our own protest and

give our own judgement as to what we believe about what this minister says in

this House by leaving the Legislature, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. It is entirely within the prerogative of the

Leader of the Opposition whether he sits in the Legislature or not.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to introduce Bill 18, and I would like to preface that by saying, in

this House, at any time, any piece of legislation can go through every single

stage in one day, within one minute by agreement. In this House, on the 29 th

of March, the Opposition agreed to move a bill that I presented through the

House in twenty minutes.

I made a statement, and I said it publicly, that has no bearing on any

privileges, a point of nothing as far as this House is concerned. I made a

public statement yesterday and I made one this morning on VOCM Open Line that

with the co-operation of Opposition we can move a bill without debate in ten

seconds in this House and pass it. That is factual. They know that, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure you know that, and I am sure every member of the House knows that.

That, to me, is unfair, it is grandstanding. We have co-operated in the past

with them.

[Comments from the Gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Visitors to the gallery are asked not to engage in any dialogue, to comment

either positively or negatively, in any way showing approval or disapproval for

any statements that are made on the floor of the House. That is a parliamentary

tradition and right. We welcome all visitors to our gallery. It is an honour to

have you here; however, we ask you for your co-operation.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have, in the past, when we were in Opposition, co-operated with government

on some very important legislation that we moved through in a matter of minutes

in this House. Anybody who has participated and understands the proceedings of

this House knows that a government can get legislation through without any

debate, at any time, with the consent of Opposition.

The question I have been asked, and the saying has gone, and it has come from

both sides, that government decides when a House opens, Opposition decides when

it closes. That has occurred since I have come into this House, Mr. Speaker. If

the Opposition want to drag it out to the limits, it can go on for a number of

days. If they want to have it ended within five minutes, that can end. That is a

fair statement, it is an honest statement. In no way should it reflect on

anybody's stand and make anything other than that. If not, they are not

telling the truth, Mr. Speaker. That is the honest truth, and the rulings of the

House in the past can bear truth to that.

Mr. Speaker, in this legislation here - and nobody takes pleasure in

introducing back-to-work legislation for the resumption and continuation of

public services. It happened in 1999 here in this House, and I stood and I did

not agree. I did not agree at the time. Since 1999, we have gone through a

period where we have added $2.7 billion worth of debt. I am speaking with

people, not daily but close to it, regarding our fiscal situation, the concern

for the future of our Province and the services that we want to provide to the

people of our Province.

I am concerned. We have heard reports that the PWC report was phony. They

said our debt for last year would be $827 million. We closed off at the end of

March at $959 million; $132 million worse than they had predicted it would be in

the Province. There was one extenuating thing that did not even account for all

of that.

It is no secret, Mr. Speaker, none to me, none to the officials of my

department, and none to the former government who got advice from these very

same officials, on any of these numbers. I can tell you, it is a stark reality

there and we might as well tell the truth to the public on that. I cannot

control whether the public believes what I say, but I can tell you that anything

I say, I sincerely believe to be the truth on the best advice that I am getting

from the figures that are provided to me by very respected officials in my

department, and former officials in my department, a former deputy minister who

retired at the end of December and who has been here for thirty-some years and

served many governments in a very honest and a very fair way.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is brought in on a variety of reasons and

backgrounds. We do not want to see people out on the streets. I read a news

release that was put out just last week by the President of the Newfoundland and

Labrador Medical Association. Dr. King said, patients are suffering, patients

are at risk, and every day that goes by only adds to the anguish that our

patients are feeling and the anguish that we, as physicians, are feeling.

It is important that we get stability back in the workforce. It is very

important. It is very important that we get back to work and get stability not

only in the health care sector but in all aspects of the Province. We tried very

hard to get an agreement, I can assure you. This is the first time I have been

involved in negotiating on behalf of government, in trying to get a collective

agreement.

Mr. Speaker, what we see here, during the local negotiations, there are

seventeen collective agreements that were in place with the bargaining units.

These copies that each member received are copies of those agreements. In

Schedule C of this bill - and the bulk of this bill is

Schedule C - there are

seventeen of these agreements under which numerous issues have been agreed to.

In

Schedule A of that bill are the seventeen units that comprise those

agreements. There is one part of this bill, there are four sections in

Schedule

B, four areas that we initially had difficulty, of which two we got compromised.

So, everything you see here and put forth in this House today, in all these

seventeen agreements, they are ones that have been agreed to by all parties in

the process.

There were five outstanding issues, five issues of concern, as we went

through the process. Until, I think it was April 16, when we got back together

after an absence, we had waited, I think, for eight days, to get a response to a

previous proposal and I phoned the President of NAPE to try to get things back

moving again. They had asked, they had made reference in the public forum. I

personally called and we got back together from the sixteenth, seventeenth,

eighteenth and nineteenth on five different meetings during the course of that

four days. We made exchanges of proposals and wordings back and forth. There

were five proposals exchanged over that period of time. We agreed to a wording

on job classification. The evaluation system and classification system, we

agreed, is an outdated system and things need to be improved in that particular

system. We came to a compromise wording to allow that to happen so people can be

put on a certain scale that can better reflect the conditions of today and not

thirty years ago or forty years ago when this system came in. We got agreement.

We got agreement on all aspects of the pension. We said earlier, before we

came back, that indexing was off the table. We had initially indicated that by

paying 1 per cent on indexing we were enriching a plan that had a $2 billion

unfunded liability and we did not think it was healthy, but we agreed and before

we even got back we took that out of there. We said: We will take it out of

there.

Now we are putting, on behalf of the taxpayers, $60 million a year into the

Public Service Pension Plan to help that unfunded liability. Twenty million

extra went in as a result of the last agreement. We took the indexing out. We

said: Leave it there. Let people get an opportunity to get their indexing or

their enriched plan even though we have a severe unfunded liability. We will

withstand the cost of that, the $20 million, and absorb that. Let's move on to

other pension indexing on joint trusteeship.

I was approached by people - and I have said it publicly - who are retired,

who did not want us to move forward on joint trusteeship. They met in my office,

the president, before we even brought it to the table, and other officials

representing different groups, and did not want us to come forward with joint

trusteeship. They felt, and I will say it publicly, it was better to have it in

government hands so we would be able to accept ultimately some liability for

that, where there is not enough money to pay it. They did not want a pension

plan that was unfunded to a tune of $2 billion going out into a joint ownership

that we only had 50 per cent control. They have told me that.

They had some comments in the public since that, that may or may not have

reflected that, but I had officials there and I had a group of people and I had

another president of a group on the telephone that day, before we even went to

the bargaining table. In spite of that, what we did, we did, and I compliment

Mr. Lucas and Mr. Puddister and Mr. Reynolds, who sat at the table during the

last while with me, representing CUPE. We did come to an agreement on those two

items, on job evaluation and on pensions, and that left three issues on the

table. We sincerely believed that something could happen on those particular

issues.

I can honestly say that from the very first day to the very last day, when

this broke down, there had not been any movement, basically, whatsoever - except

some movement on the wage - towards some middle ground.

I proposed, and the Premier, when we sat at the table on, I guess, Wednesday,

when we had our last meeting - last Wednesday - put forward numerous suggestions

to try and get a middle ground, and a middle ground on sick leave. I said to Mr.

Reynolds and Mr. Puddister: Look, if we go forward twelve days - and let's

work together to deal with this, the joint task force or whatever avenue you

want. Let's work together to address it. They admitted it was a concern, we

admitted it was a concern, and it is a significant cost. They said: Let's work

together.

I said: What we will do, let's set some targets that are realistic and work

toward them and when we get to those targets and keep it we will retroactively

give every new member their twenty-four days - the extra twelve days when we get

to these targets, so they have these. It does not matter if they have

twenty-four days or thirty or 100 days, basically, if you are only using a

certain amount. Let's get the numbers down and let's work together to get

them there and you can have your days back.

That was our proposal, Mr. Speaker, on the sick leave, and that is for new

employees going forward. There is no infringement of the rights of anybody who

works for us in the public service, on the sick leave. There is no change to

current entitlements whatsoever.

We went to the Warren Report. The previous government signed a Memorandum of

Understanding. The former Premier of the Province signed a Memorandum of

Understanding that a report would be set up to study the hours of work in

schools. Facing the Challenge was the report, commonly referred to as the Warren

Report. On that MOU, they put forward that these findings would be implemented.

They expected to have a report by the end of March, 2002.

The report was tabled. It was given to government in January, 2003. Under

that report, they estimated that it would cost - there were twelve

recommendations. The first eight recommendations would cost about $5.1 million

and the remaining four would cost about $4.4 million. Recommendations nine to

twelve, it was felt, were not within the scope of the Warren Report and

therefore non-applicable. The union did aggrieve, and that has not been dealt

with, but the other eight were within the scope of that report, and it was $5.1

million to implement that.

Two months after they received that report, the government of the day, when

the Opposition Leader sat on this side of the House right here, introduced a

budget on the Warrant Report, that put into their budget $2.5 million to deal

with the Warrant Report - a report that the author of that report said would

cost $5.1 million.

I stood here in this House and brought down a Budget this year that put $3.6

million into that Budget towards the eight basic things that are included in the

Warrant Report. That is 40 per cent more than the former government put into

that report, the one who said they would implement it, and the one who stands in

this House now criticizing us for not fulfilling an agreement.

If they were not going to live up to it, why did they sign it? Why did they

agree to it? The hypocrisy is very, very clear. They never had the intention to

implement it because it was too problematic in the first place. They did not

have that right. I gave assurance to the leaders and the Premier the last day

that what we budget and what we allocate for secretarial and janitorial and

maintenance in those school systems, we will ensure that it goes for that

purpose.

That is far more than a former government ever gave, only a MOU that is not a

part of the current agreement. It has no validity in law. Anyone will tell you,

in a legal opinion, it is not a part of the current agreement now and it is not

a concession. Still, we went and put $1.1 million more into that pot there. We

made a very honest effort to get a deal in this case.

I know the players involved. It was frustrating, and the final analysis on

these was that we are not doing anything. It does not matter what the report is,

or the targets there, we are not going to settle a period for going forward

twelve days, even if we can get them back retroactively. They were not going to

discuss that. They were not going to sign any agreement that did not include the

Warrant Report in it, even though it is not there now.

Anybody who wants to take it to a legal opinion and challenge it to what

level you like, it is not a part of it. What was in the current agreement was

the Young Mediation Report, and in that report it said there will be certain

things complied with for two of the three years. That expired, that lapsed, in

June, 2003. That is gone. That is history. That lapsed even during the former

governments, when they were in power. That lapsed and went out the door last

June, so we have gone on these two issues through a very long and a very arduous

and a very fair process.

We spoke with the wallet when we put in a Budget more than the former

government even put into that. We indicated if there are problems with certain

boards that are unfairly treating people in certain parts of this Province, and

are nickel-and-dimed by cutting back a few, fifteen minutes here and there, we

will ensure that there is balance, there is equity, that a school in this area,

if it has 400 students and another one with 400, they have similar square

footage, that we will not allow them to nickel-and-dime one and give unfairness,

because people in any part of our Province with similar circumstances have a

right to the same basic services. We were prepared to put that in writing, Mr.

Speaker. We were prepared to do many things in writing. I hope that we will get

this settled before this passes. It has been frustrating, with the games and

innuendos that are said by people across this House that are not true, and I

know them not to be true.

We went for three months and never spoke on this issue. I respect the right

of unions to advertise and do all they want to do. I respect that right. You did

not hear us come out and put counter-arguments for three months because we

respected their right and we did not feel we should spend more public money on

advertising and doing all these basic things to counteract it. A lot of things

did get out in public that were not accurate. A lot got out that were not true.

I have been there from day one. I know what is true and I know what is not true.

[Comments from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, this legislation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has to again remind people who are visitors in the gallery that

they should not show any approval or disapproval verbally, or in any other way

participate in the debate whatsoever. Again, we are honoured to have you here

and we wish you to be here. This is very important to many of you, so we want

you to listen but not to participate in any manner possible.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Nobody who sat at that table with me, Mr. Puddister, Mr. Reynolds, or

anybody, can deny what I said, because it is true. I have never heard them

denying what I stated publicly on those matters.

The Opposition House Leader stood today in this House and said: Why are you

being so draconian? Why are you putting a

summary conviction? It should be

around a $2,000 fine, not $250,000.

Well, the very members were over on this side of the House and the very

government was over here in 1999 and they put in a

summary conviction fine in

Section 7 of the Health and Community Services Resumption Continuation Act, for

$100,000 on a

summary conviction, to bring nurses back to work - and talk about

how it should be $2,000.

Talk about the hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker. That is what it is; it is hypocrisy.

There is a reason, yes. The Premier mentioned it. There are four times as many

people in the bargaining units now as there were with the nurses. There is about

four times as many - numerous in five years. There has been an advancement in

the level of fines in a five-year period. Not only that, the membership has four

times the number. Yes, it is something that sends a message from government but

it also is one that is reasonable under the circumstances. We want the people to

come back to work. We would like to have them working. We did not want to see

them out in the first place.

There is a difference in 1999, and I want to mention that. In 1999 the

leaders of the Nurses' Union recommended acceptance and the membership said,

no. The membership, in this instance - and I respect that is a unions right. I

am not, in anyway, taking away or saying anything from the right of a union to

make decisions, but the membership did not get an opportunity to speak on what

we proposed and put to them. I do not, in anyway, indicate that we should do it.

The unions make their own decisions. Their membership takes advice from their

leaders, and I am sure they get advice, vice versa, Mr. Speaker, and that is

something that is their matter. It is not an area that I am going to intrude

into because it is their right. I am not questioning their right, but I would

have liked, personally - I am sure we would have liked an opportunity for the

members to be able to voice their concern on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to belabor it. It is fairly straightforward, most

of this legislation, agreements and the changes that we made and agreed to. What

we moved forward in this legislation - everything that was agreed to at the

local tables, we agreed to bring forward in this legislation. We agreed to make

temporary employees permanent, people who have been here over two years. We are

going forward with those changes. We have agreed to allow people who are paying

taxes on a car allowance, who need it for their job, a social worker, whatever

the case may be, to allow that to become as a benefit that is not taxable to do

that. We are coming forward with every single thing that was agreed there. The

only three items that are referenced - the salary issue is one that obviously

changes with every agreement. The other issue, on sick leave, it is the same for

all current employees. The Warren Report is not even in the current agreement.

Mr. Speaker, there is an opportunity to hear from people on both sides of the

House as we go on with discussions on this. I am not going to use the hour that

I have. I do not think it is necessary. I just want to move that this question

be now put.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved that the question be now put.

I interpret that to be in accordance with Standing Order 43.(1). I will read

the Standing Order so all members can understand it. "The previous

question, until it is decided, shall preclude all amendments of the main

question, and shall be in the following words, "That this question be now

put." If the previous question be resolved in the affirmative the original

question is to be put forthwith without any amendment or debate."

So all members understand, this is accordance with the traditions of our

House. We are moving the previous question, which means that members who speak

now will be limited to twenty minutes; with the exception, I do believe, of the

Leader of the Opposition who would have - or the member replying - one hour to

speak in reply.

If the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans is going to speak next, the member will

have one hour to address the issue.

MS THISTLE: Will the Leader of the Opposition have an hour to

(inaudible)?

MR. SPEAKER: I would need to consult on that particular matter with the

Chair. Maybe we should take a short recess so I can determine the answer to the

question and come back to the House momentarily.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

(Inaudible) it is an issue where, in this particular case, it is not a

government order. Therefore, the Minister of Finance could speak for twenty

minutes to the question, if he wishes, but that is his choice. Then the

spokespeople for the other parties can speak for twenty minutes, the exception

being the Leader of the Opposition, who would have one hour to address the

House.

You can speak at any time you wish. If the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans

wishes to speak now she can. She will speak for twenty minutes but when the

Leader of the Opposition speaks his time limit would be one hour.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think back to the petition I raised for Millcrest Academy and the young

people in our schools who said: Please be fair and compromise. Mr. Speaker, this

government knows nothing about being fair or compromising either. I have to say

that I will be voting against Bill 18, and I am sure that all members of this

side will be.

This is a very black day for democracy in our Province. It is clear that this

government has no respect whatsoever for collective bargaining. They have shown

that repeatedly. They showed it before January 5, because any government which

realized that the biggest public sector union and all public sector unions in

this Province, coming up for negotiations this year and never had the courtesy,

never had the decency to sit down with union leaders prior to January 5 and

discuss what the fiscal situation was in the Province or what the terms of

negotiations would be in upcoming negotiations with the unions and their

membership. They never had the courtesy or the decency. All they did was, ten

minutes before the Premier's address on January 5, call in the union leaders

and say: Look, this is it. In ten minutes time I am going on TV and this is the

medicine you are going to get: wage freeze.

I guess you can go back before January 5 because, I guess, the first signal

that this new government sent to unions and membership in this Province was -

the first order of business was to abolish the Department of Labour. That was

the first thing. So that should have been a signal to unions and union

membership in this Province, that this government has no regard for the union or

the union membership. Absolutely none! They do not believe that it is necessary

for a business, government, and labour to have a relationship together because

if they did they would have been trying to foster that relationship.

Now, here we are tomorrow, April 28, on our annual ceremony to mourn the loss

of injured workers and workers who have died in the workplace. Isn't it

interesting - terrible, in fact - that the date is going to coincide, maybe -

when this atrocious legislation may be passed in this House tomorrow - with the

official day of mourning for injured workers and those who have lost their lives

in the workplace. You see that even Workplace Health and Safety, which held a

very important

part in the Department of Labour, no longer a Department of

Labour. That has been transferred to the Department of Government Services. Can

you understand now how this very important function of Workplace Health and

Safety will no longer be on the front burner of the previous Department of

Labour. It will be somewhere towards the back, out of the many things that they

do over in Government Services.

When you look at this, Mr. Speaker, no dialogue whatsoever with the most

important people in the public sector, the unions and their membership. We now

have 20,000 of them out on strike when the Premier blurted out a wage freeze. Do

you know something? He never had the decency to say, on that particular night,

how long that wage freeze was going to last. I think that was weaseled out of

him when he stood before a camera at a public function somewhere. His only

agenda, that particular night, was his own agenda. We have seen that everyday

since January 5. He had the audacity to take back something from seniors in our

Province. He decided, on his own, that he was going to claw back the indexing

they had gained in the last round of negotiations. Now, how low can you be, to

claw back $5 of indexing from a pensioner out there? Day by day now I am getting

letters come to my office asking us: How in the world could this ever happen to

a new Premier, a new government, to want to claw back? But, you know, public

outcry worked, because it finally caused him and his government to come to their

senses and draw back on the pensioners.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a definite pattern of control and right-wing

agenda throughout every day of this strike. I saw the Premier's interference

on the picket line. We all saw it on television. You talk about intimidation

tactics! He went out in the midst of the picket line with an ad that he wanted

to sign, setting the record straight - that is a good one for an example - an ad

that was in the Telegram . He wanted to sign it, Danny, saying that he

wasn't going to touch concessions and he was going to agree to the wage

increase that they had. Later the union leader picked up the cell phone and

found out what the Premier had signed to was wrong, false, that indeed there

were concessions on the table and he had no intention of taking them off.

Then you have the Premier talking about intimidation. Look at the riot gear

that the RNC got at a cost of $50,000, and marched on the square. That is

intimidation. Then the Premier suggested, not in this House but outside, to the

union leadership: You know, you only have 3 per cent of the people in your

membership who are concerned about the Warren Report, drop that and move on. He

said: You only have 3 per cent of the people out there who are going to make a

difference. Do you know something? That is in the collective agreement, that

Warren Report, and we have heard nothing only foot loose and fancy free words

over there on that side. They can say that it is not there but it is there. It

is plain, it is legal, it is in the text.

The union leadership said they were standing up for all their members. They

are not going to conquer and divide, they are not going to leave the 3 per cent

out. They felt it was important. Why should the union have to lose their

concessions? They shouldn't have been brought to the table in the first place.

They worked and they earned those concessions. Why are they introducing them now

as something they have to fight for right here today? They earned them in the

past and they should keep them. They have every right to keep them.

Look at the bill that is coming before the House, Bill 18, look at the

heavy-handed fines. I want to step back a bit. I want to show this House today

how there was nothing but intimidation and control and the Premier's own

right-wing agenda. Every time there was any word of a union demonstration, every

time - and I can think of two in particular - when the Premier heard there was

going to be a union demonstration, a protest, he, with his Minister of Finance

and President of Treasury Board, hastily decided to

schedule a meeting because

they wanted to look at a new proposal. Do you know something? Those meetings

were only deflection points. That is all they were, nothing else, a PR, public

relations event.

The Premier and the Minister of Finance kept the union waiting twenty-seven

hours one time, just so the Premier and the Minister of Finance could dodge

another Question Period saying it was inappropriate to talk about what was

happening at the table because they were looking at a new proposal. I saw him do

that twice that I could recall. The first was a twenty-seven hour delay in a

meeting, and the next one was a twenty-five hour delay. Does that sound like a

Premier who wanted to resolve the strike situation? No, I do not think so, not

at all.

Then we had the Minister of Labour stand up in the House last week and drop a

weak olive branch for the two unions to get together because she knew there was

a massive demonstration planned that day, herself. Twenty-five hours later there

was a little PR meeting down at the hotel - a scuttle, I guess - that the

Premier and the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board walked out

and said, the deal is off. The deal was never on, let me tell you. The deal was

never on.

In fact, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo went over to the Government

House Leader and he said: Guess what? The deal is off. The talks are off, and it

is back-to-work legislation.

The Government House Leader accused him of telling lies, and then the Member

for Twillingate & Fog walked out and picked off the media, the news wire,

yes, in fact it was true.

The Government House Leader did not even know. He did not know, and neither

member of the caucus knew. That is how well-informed this Tory caucus is.

AN HON. MEMBER: I told him, sure.

MS THISTLE: Yes, several people told him, and they were in shock because

they had no idea what was going on.

Now these are the same people who filled the gallery here, the public

gallery, with managers, high-paid managers, some of them making $100,000 a year

and big expense claims, going all over the country, and they were here filling

the public galleries when the union membership were trying to get in here and

they were not permitted. They even signed the visitors' book. Can you imagine?

How low can you go? Managers even signed the visitors' book out there in the

front, in security. They were ordered: Be here or be fired. They signed the

visitors' book and got a visitor's badge when, in fact, these people work

here in the building every day of their working life.

What do people say about this situation here? They clearly had an out many

times. They have an out here today. They can still go to binding arbitration,

but no, they do not want to go to binding arbitration and let the workers go

back to work with some pride and some dignity. They do not want to do that.

Workers today have been out twenty-seven days and they are losing a whole month's

salary. They are losing the concessions that they had before, and they are going

back feeling pretty bad. How do you think morale is going to be? They did not

gain anything in this strike.

What surprised me the most was that unions were willing to be a part of the

solution. They came out in the beginning and agreed to a wage freeze. That was

almost unheard of. So, the unions were the first to be co-operative and what did

they get? This is what they got. They cannot go out today and settle this with

pride and dignity through arbitration. There are only two or three things that

need to be settled. It is all within the Premier's prerogative, but no Sir. He

has his right-wing agenda and by golly he is sticking to it. He is going to be

the hero. He is going to take off the tables what you earned. That is his only

plan in life, the right-wing agenda, and he is going to plow through no matter

what else comes. He never, ever had a plan to resolve this issue because he only

had one plan and that was his own. It is all about ego and it is all about his

own agenda.

I heard the other day - a person of the nurses' union - on Open Line, and

she said that they did not like back-to-work legislation, but she did say that

the former Premier did not remove any existing benefits. I can speak, as the

former President of Treasury Board, that was my first bill to the House. I did

not want to bring that bill to the House, but there were thirty bargaining units

that had settled prior to the nurses. It was 7 per cent for everybody at that

time. That was the only reason why we came to the House. We negotiated the wage

increase only. All of the other things stayed on the table and, in fact, after

that event nurses were reclassified so they are now on par or above their

Atlantic counterparts. Nobody wants to bring something like that to the House,

but at that point there was no choice.

There are choices here today. This is the first union that you are

negotiating with. You are taking off what people have already fought for, and

that is not the right thing to do. I also heard her say that Williams, the new

Premier, brought a wage freeze forward and the people of NAPE and CUPE are going

to lose concessions.

What did the members of the current government say? This is the interesting

part. When we heard that the President of Treasury Board, the Minister of

Finance, brought forward a resolution saying, "THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED

that this hon. House call upon the government to submit the dispute to binding

arbitration as provided for in the Public Service Collective Bargaining

Act." What an about-face here!

Look at the Government House Leader, "It is the position of the Leader

of the Opposition that when you enter into collective bargaining you do so not

with threats or predetermined ideas of what you are going to bargain with."

He says, "...the Progressive Conservative caucus that at this point, where

a consensus cannot be reached, where a tentative agreement cannot be reached,

that we do not arbitrarily impose settlements on people." That is what you

are trying to do today. That is exactly what you are trying to do today. He

said, "It is our position that if we were in your position today..." -

well, you are in that position today. You are in that position today - "...

we would be announcing that we would be sending it to binding arbitration."

Now, you only have two concessions on the table and you have a wage issue, so

minor that people right across this country are looking at you and saying, this

is not the kind of thing that you should be settling in the House of Assembly

with a heavy hammer. You are very close, but do you know something? The Premier

cannot get his way unless he comes to the House of Assembly, because the unions

are determined to keep those concessions on the table and the Premier is

determined to take them off the table and legislate them to get what he wants.

That is the only reason why this Bill 18 is here today, no other reason.

Then we have the member - this is a family situation here - we have the

Member for St. John's South. He is saying, "I hope and pray to God that

when I get to that side of the House I will have more sympathy and compassion

for the public employees than this government has, because they have none."

Now, isn't that hypocritical?

Then, of course, another family member, the Member for St. John's West,

said, "I am ashamed to be a member of a legislature that would introduce

such a tyrannical bill, but I am proud to be a member of this Opposition that

will be vehemently voting against it."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MS THISTLE: The Member for St. John's West.

Of course, you have the Education critic, last year, the Member for Harbour

Main-Whitbourne, "Again I bring to your attention that, as far as I am

concerned, collective bargaining is sacred." Would you say that today?

"As a teacher, I certainly knew what it was to struggle to establish

collective bargaining in this Province."

Now, that is the same member who is part of a government that is going to

take out 476 teachers. It is going to consolidate the school boards and every

peck of savings is not going back into the education system, not one. It is

going to abolish the democratically elected school boards and use patronage

appointments to appoint the people they want in there.

Then he continues to say, "I certainly knew what it was to struggle to

establish collective bargaining in this Province. As I stand in this House

today, I am very disappointed that the struggle to continue collective

bargaining has taken a serious downturn."

Then we have the present Minister of Education, and this is what he said,

"The legislation is reprehensible." Oh, well, how do you feel about

Bill 18 today, Mr. Minister of Education? "It goes to show that this

government, when it does not get its own way...." - well, gee-whiz, you

didn't know you would be eating those same words, did you? "It goes to

show that this government, when it does not get its own way..." - we could

substitute that with the Premier, I guess - it goes to show that this Premier,

when he does not get his own way, will do whatever it takes to ensure that he

gets his own way and he denies basic ordinary legal rights and privileges to

ordinary, well-intentioned, hard-working, sincere individuals. Now, that is what

he says. That is exactly what he says. That is the current Minister of

Education. All we had to do was substitute government for Premier. Of course,

that was April 1, 1999, but it could be today.

Of course, the Minister of Finance, this is what he said, "I think it is

a sad day that we stand and take draconian measures...to legislate a very

civilized group of people back to work. I do not think they are very fair

measures, not fair measures at all." This was a goodly number of that

caucus standing on April 1, 1999, speaking against Bill 3. Now, today we are

looking at Bill 18. Also, when you think about those heavy-handed fines, what

union can stand to pay $250,000 a day? What union representative can pay $25,000

a day if they speak out? What member of the public service, what employee can

afford to lose their job today by not going back to work? I do not think there

is one public sector employee today who can take that chance of losing their job

by not going back to work. That is the reason why it was heavy-handed fines that

were put in this legislation.

We have heard it said during the course of this strike that there are

managers out there today doing essential work, working beyond all hours of the

night and day. Now, when they go back to work -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Can I just have a minute or so?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted for some cluing up comments.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, those managers when they go back to work, they are going to be facing

very dim prospects because they are the very people whose jobs are on the line.

They do not have the protection of the union. A lot of those people came up

through the union system, were then promoted to management and took the chance

thinking that they were going to make a bigger salary and so on. Those people,

when they are back at their jobs, they do not know if they are going to be one

of the 4,000 and another 1,400 who are going to be laid off by this government.

I will close my debate by saying today, Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against

this legislation. There were many opportunities for this government to react and

give a settlement to these workers but they chose not to, all because of the

Premier's right-wing agenda.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question, first of all: Why are we here

doing what we are doing today? If you go back and look at the things that have

been looked at in the contract, look at the wages, the wage component of it,

then look at the part of the janitorial services and then look at sick leave.

Let's look at wages, first of all, Mr. Speaker. When we look at the wages,

the workers of the general service and the people who are on strike, the 20,000

of them capitulated. They gave in to zero and zero, because as the Premier has

said: There is a financial situation, a mess in the Province. I do not believe

that, not for one minute. Hopefully, during my twenty minutes I will be able to

expound a little bit on that. In year three and four, he said: 2 per cent and 3

per cent and possibly a three and three. So, it has nothing to do with money

there. That has been agreed on.

Now look at the second part of it, the component of it, when we talk about

the janitorial work and the secretaries. I worked in a school, Mr. Speaker, for

twenty-plus years in a community in Point Leamington where we had a good

relationship with the custodian there and the secretaries; they are very

important. The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board said today, and he said it

yesterday: I gave the unions $1.3 million more than what we did last year so

that the janitorial people and the custodians of the schools and the secretaries

could have these hours. He gave them more money all right, but do you know why

he gave it to the school boards? To use at their discretionary so that they can

hire another assistant superintendent or two assistant superintendents, not to

give work for the people who are out there doing the work in the schools. It

does not cost any money. So why are we here?

Then look at the third one, sick leave. I cannot believe it, when the Premier

of the Province goes and says that the last two years of people who work in the

schools, or as nurses or as LPNs or anybody else, they take the last two years

and do not go to work to purposely use up their sick leave. I do not believe

that! Not for one minute do I believe it because there are people there with

more dignity than that. If you are going to take any more than two days at a

time sick leave you have to go to a doctor and get a note saying that you are

sick. To perpetrate that on this House, and the people of the Province, that

somehow these people are insubordinate, that they are dishonest, that they are

disloyal. It is nothing more than absolutely not telling the truth.

So, why are we here? It is not about money. Government is not looking for

money. I will tell you what it is about. It is about power. That is what it was

from day one. I will tell you what, the last week I stood in this House and

predicted what would happen, and I was right. I had that gut feeling that I was

right. It is about power. I will tell you what, I used the analogy - and I will

use it again today, Mr. Speaker. I grew up in a small community on the South

West Coast, and my grandfather and my father fished for a living. Do you know

what? They did not know what it was to have currency in their pockets. It was a

barter system. I can remember when my parents had no money. I look back at it

and I realize it was quite a struggle for me to be where I am today. But we

survived and we got currency, and we did it. We made it a point. Do you know

what we have today in the Premier? We have a modern day Water Street fish

merchant leading the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: That is what you have.

The people who are strike here are the lowest paid workers in the public

service. These are the people we probably should give some extra attention to,

people who deserve it, people who are out there like single parents working as a

custodian or a secretary, or working with the kitchen outfit in some of the

seniors' homes around the Province. These are the people who deserve

attention.

I remember also - I think it was the Member for Gander who said it, he can

remember as a young boy, when they were politicking' they threw rocks at

Joey Smallwood's car. Well, we did not, Mr. Speaker. I said at that particular

time it depended on where you lived. If you lived in St. John's on Water

Street as a fish merchant or if you lived in some small cove out around the bay,

when Joey Smallwood came - do you know what he brought for us? He brought a

currency. He brought things that so many other people who were a part of Canada

had. It meant that my parents did not have to sell cattle and they did not have

to sell potatoes to buy butter and to buy sugar and the things that they needed

for the winter. That is the difference, and that is why we are here.

I remember also, when we talked about the legislation a few days ago, one of

the members on the opposite side - I am not sure who it was - said: At least we

were not like you, we did not bring in legislation to legislate people back to

work. This particular piece of legislation is quite different,