April 21, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 20

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The Chair has not received any notification of statements by members. The

Chair will still call, just in case there has been some mis-communication.

Statements by Members.

Statements by Ministers

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to announce that government has enhanced its coyote management

plan by amending our Wildlife Regulations to introduce a new coyote harvest for

the Province.

Mr. Speaker, introducing a new coyote harvest strengthens our management

options in addressing the number of concerns related to coyotes, such as

predation on livestock and our wildlife populations, particularly big game. A

coyote hunting season will allow for greater hunter participation, resulting in

increased recreational and economic opportunities.

Government is committed to ensuring a sound coyote management plan for our

Province. We believe that establishing a specific coyote hunting licence and a

designated hunting season for coyote is a prudent approach and the best option

to addressing concerns about the expanding coyote population. The new coyote

hunting season will complement existing coyote management strategies, which

include a trapping season, a shooting season during big and small game seasons,

and an individual permit system to remove problem coyotes.

Mr. Speaker, the firearms permitted under the new coyote hunting licence

include the small calibre centre fire rifles, not greater than .225 calibre, and

shotguns with a shot size #2 or larger. The effective and humane harvest of

coyotes, as with all wildlife populations that are hunted in this Province, is a

key consideration in the establishment of firearm regulations for coyote

hunting.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the new coyote harvest strategy is not to

eliminate coyotes from the Province, but rather to help manage the population

more effectively. Given the adaptability and reproductive capacity of the

coyote, total elimination of the species is not a feasible option.

Mr. Speaker, the 2004-05 coyote hunting season begins May 1 and will end July

2005. This season will be closed from July 11 to September 10, 2004. It will

open again on September 11 and close on July 9, 2005. Given that some of this

years's season has elapsed, Mr. Speaker, the 2004-05 licence will be valid

until July 9, 2005. Thereafter, the coyote season will begin on the second

Saturday in September and end on the second Saturday in July. Coyote licences

will be available from the Government Service Centres and wildlife licence

vendors.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We welcome this initiative from the minister today. I want to compliment the

minister on bringing this forward today. As well, we have had quite a number of

calls on this particular problem. I know in my own district, and talking to

people in the district, the caribou herd on the Burin Peninsula has been ravaged

by the coyote. As a matter of fact, most of the smaller caribou have disappeared

completely. I see this as great news in terms of conserving our livestock and

wildlife population. I also have a concern that if we are going to have such an

extended hunting season for coyote, I hope that the minister has adequate

resources in his budget to make sure that we have better enforcement out there.

I hope that some of those layoffs do not include -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. BARRETT: - the enforcement officers and that this is a properly

supervised hunt.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, from

all reports around the Province coyotes do seem to be a problem in a lot of

areas of the Province, but I wonder if the minister intends to have a study

commissioned to determine more accurately the numbers that are out there. I will

say that the hunt is welcome news because there are enough reports from

different areas of the Province to suggest that there is indeed a problem with

coyotes.

Mr. Speaker, one of the disadvantages of trying to combat this is that

coyotes are one of the few -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: By leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: The coyotes are the only animal, probably in this Province,

who do not have any natural predators. They can go up and down the food chain.

Having no natural predators such as wolves, which are long extinct from this

Province, their numbers do increase and multiple. Their breeding rate, Mr.

Speaker, for anyone who knows anything about coyotes, is much different than

that of other animals. So, there is a lot of cause for concern and this hunt is

certainly, I think, legitimate and worthwhile but I would suggest to the

minister that he commission a study to determine more accurately the numbers and

where in the Province they are most populated.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we begin Oral Questions today, I want to remind

members that yesterday we had a point of order relative to the time taken for

the asking of questions and the time consumed in the answering. There was a

general statement made by the Chair that we would try to adhere as closely as

possible to the goals that we set out at the beginning of this session, whereby

the questions should not be more than forty-five to fifty seconds in length and

that supplementaries should, as far as possible, not have extensive

preambles.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today is day twenty-one of the largest strike in the Province's

history. Ironically, it also happens to be Employee Appreciation Day.

[Comments from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair, again, wishes to remind all members who are visitors to the House,

in the galleries, that they are not to engage in any way or to reflect in any

oral manner with comments that are made in the House, or in anyway possible to

show their approval or disapproval for anything that happens on the floor of the

House. I ask all visitors for their co-operation. We know that this is a

difficult time in our Province and we welcome you as visitors to the gallery,

however, please keep in mind that the traditions of the House are that visitors

are not to participate in any way at all.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question for the alternate Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board, which is the Minister of Health and Community Services, as I understand

it, is: Could we get an update on what negotiation related activities have

occurred since the unions offered another olive branch some twenty-five hours

ago?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Since yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour, in her statement in the

House, indicated that mediators had been, I guess, dispatched to see where there

could be any common ground. That process concluded itself, is my understanding.

Government has made a request, through the Premier and the Minister of Finance

and President of Treasury Board, to meet directly with the President of NAPE and

the President of CUPE. It is my understanding that meeting is either occurring

right now or is about to occur.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, hopefully our visitors today will be back at work tomorrow if

there is productive work actually occurring outside this Legislature today.

Also, hopefully, the Premier who publicly applauded the union leadership last

evening and this morning for making significant moves might make some

significant moves himself today, on behalf of the government, such as taking

concessions off the table so we can have a settlement.

Mr. Speaker, another question for the alternate to the Minister of Finance

and President of Treasury Board. The Premier and the President of Treasury Board

consistently claim that they need to do something about future benefits like

sick leave - and here is the key, Mr. Speaker - at the urging of the bond rating

agencies.

On March 16, the Premier, in the presence of the Minister of Natural

Resources, claimed at a press conference that he had - and this is a very

important phrase - he had alarming correspondence from the bond rating agencies

and, as late as last evening, he said that is why they need to change provisions

such as sick leave.

Would the alternate to the Minister of Finance describe to us, and answer for

us, what actual correspondence from bond rating agencies is in the hands of

government, and could she table it for us?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, given the fact and the acknowledgment that this year's Budget

was a tough piece of work, not unlike what the Leader of the Opposition, in many

budgets that he was involved with and brought down himself, has gone through.

Given the fact that, even through all of that, the Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board, on Budget Day and in the Budget Speech, introduced

a Budget, recognized that this year's accrued deficit would be $840 million,

much of what we did -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am about to answer the question, I say to the Member for

Twillingate & Fogo.

Much of what we did was on the advice of trying to maintain a balance between

ensuring that our current credit rating remains in place - and I know the Leader

of the Opposition understands the importance of that, because if there was any

downgrade in that, government could be faced with trying to find an additional

$55 million to $75 million to $150 million if there was a downgrade.

Now, given the question that the member has just asked me in terms of the

correspondence - Can it be tabled? Will I find it? - I can only say on behalf of

the government that I will take that matter under advisement and I will report

back to the House at the earliest possible opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the answer and the undertaking, Mr. Speaker. Maybe I can save

the House Leader, who seems to be going to answer the questions instead of the

Minister of Health and Community Services, who is the alternate to the Minister

of Finance, I will save him some work. As a matter of fact, I have in my hands

here a response to a Freedom of Information request that we placed to the

government asking for that information, and I will provide him the answer.

The response that we received from the Deputy Minister of Finance is that

there is, in fact, no alarming correspondence from the bond rating agencies, as

the Premier stated on March 16. As a matter of fact, it goes on to say, with the

Deputy Minister of Finance, there is no correspondence from bond rating agencies

at all. None whatsoever.

Now we have a government answering in the House today that if the bond rating

changes we might have these dire consequences, because again we have a situation

being described to the Province other than what actually exists.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask this question: On October 29, as a matter of fact,

after the election, with the new government already in place, the Dominion Bond

Rating Service, which is one of those bond rating agencies, confirmed the credit

rating of Newfoundland and Labrador. It did not say it might be downgraded. It

confirmed it and stated, and it is their quote: Trends remain stable. Trends

remain stable.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

I ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The question is an important one. Why is the government, whoever is speaking

or answering on behalf of the government, misinforming the public and trying to

justify a totally unnecessary attack on collective bargaining benefit items,

with information that is completely and totally at odds with what the bond

rating agencies put in the possession of the new government a week after they

were elected?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, maybe I should wait and let the leader ask all of his questions.

He has asked a question and then stands up - to which an answer he already had,

or he believes that he was in possession of.

The fact of the matter is this - and maybe the Leader of the Opposition

should write a Freedom of Information request. Maybe he already has. If he has,

I am not aware of it. Maybe he should ask for the correspondence of what the

fiscal agents of the Province had told the Province and the provincial

government sometime in November and December. The response was clear, and the

royal commission on our position within Canada, a commission which he started,

Mr. Speaker, said exactly the same thing, that the fiscal situation and spending

practices of the Province are unsustainable. In other words, we couldn't spent

$1 billion this year more than we had, we couldn't spend another $1.1 billion

next year that we didn't have, we couldn't spend $1.2 billion the year after

that, or $1.3 billion after that; in doing so, adding almost $4.5 billion to our

debt.

The only place that would bring us, Mr. Speaker, is to a point where there

would be absolutely no level of service -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his answer.

MR. E. BYRNE: - for people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Government House Leader would know, having been in this position, that we

ask the questions because we know the answers but the government hasn't

bothered to tell the people of the Province what the answer is, and they need to

find out.

Mr. Speaker, let me move again - because the Government House Leader who, I

guess, is designated today to answer the questions said: Well, in October that

might have been true. That might have been what a bond rating agency said in

October, but we got different information in November and December.

Let me provide this information and ask this question, Mr. Speaker. Moody's,

which is another bond rating agency, provided information to the government in

January of 2004, just before the Premier spoke to the people of the Province on

January 5. Here is what they stated, their quote: We assign an A-3 rating to the

Province, the highest it has ever had in history, having raised it in May, 2002.

The upgrade that we provided recognizes the Province's - listen to this! -

improved debt profile since the mid-1990s, and its brighter -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

- and its brighter economic prospects.

Now, they sat in the Cabinet, they sat in the Caucus, they suggested it. The

statement finished by saying - this is January when the Premier was about to go

to the people of the Province saying, we are drowning in debt - the Province's

rating outlook is stable.

Mr. Speaker, the question - can the Government House Leader answer on behalf

of the Premier? - is that the alarming correspondence that the Premier said in

his presence in a press conference on March 16, that he had received from the

bond rating agency? Is that what they are talking about?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, we believe, based on the information that has been provided to

us, that one of -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question. I

listened to his question. I wonder if he would have the courtesy to listen to my

answer.

Much of the reason why we have not seen, at this point, or probably will see

a downgrade in the Province's credit rating which would put at risk -

admittedly, the Leader of the Opposition shook his head when I talked about it

earlier - the Province having to find an additional, anywhere from $50 million

to $150 million, depending on the length of the downgrade or how much the

downgrade was. Where would we find the money to do all of the other things that

we are currently doing?

Mr. Speaker, when we became the government earlier this year, or in the last

year, we faced a fiscal situation that was almost three times greater than -

when in 1989, as a member of a former government - he faced. Almost three times

greater!

Let me say to the Leader of the Opposition, that we took the view that he

did. This is what he said then: The problem has always been that if you do not -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. E. BYRNE: - sooner or later take the bull by the horns, Mr. Speaker,

and deal with it, you can always delay, but every week, month or year of delay

will put you in a more difficult problem to grapple with it and provide public

services to the people of the Province.

That is the situation that we inherited from you and your government, Sir.

That is the situation that we are trying to deal with on behalf of everybody.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is the story they have chosen to believe themselves and are trying to

foist on the people of the Province. Today we are getting to the truth, Mr.

Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, not the bond rating agencies but the Province's

own financial advisors, a separate group of advisors that they pay rather well

to advise the Minister of Finance and the Premier. They advise government that

the bond raters who gave us stable ratings, raised our ratings, did not say they

were at risk at all, nothing alarming, things are stable. Does the government

understand the difference between the situation is stable verus the situation is

alarming? What is alarming is what is happening in the Province today,

twenty-one days into a strike, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the government's own advisors said the bond

raters want to see an action plan that is front-end loaded, which is why we do

understand that the Premier and the President of Treasury Board are out with the

negotiators today, probably talking about a two-year wage freeze. That is

front-end loaded, that is action in the early years. Those kinds of things are

what is recommended.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The issue that we have been talking about here and the reason this strike is

going into its fourth week is about sick leave, in which there is no savings for

the government for years and years and years to come, because they are going to

get rid of 4,000 employees in the next four years.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair appreciates the exchange that is back and forth, but the last set

of questions we were nearly two minutes in the asking and we were a

minute-and-forty in the response. We are now up to a minute-and-forty in the

asking and we should get these exchanges done a lot faster. A few seconds to put

the question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The question for the Government House Leader is: Why has this government

caused a strike that is now finishing its third week and endanger of going into

its forth week over an issue that has nothing whatsoever to do with alarming

correspondence or with front-end loading an action plan in the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, we have to come to recognize, and I know the Leader of the

Opposition does, that the financial situation that faces all of us - this is not

thirty-three members on the government side who have an $840 million deficit.

This is a 510,000 people problem in Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, this is what

the Leader of the Opposition said when he sat on government. He said: Health

board deficits are continuing to grow at an alarming rate; $40 million this

year, $50 million in 2001, $65 million in 2002. We are on an extremely dangerous

course, if not contained, could lead to financial disaster for Newfoundland and

Labrador. The fact, sir, is this: You did nothing about it, you recognized the

problem and you left us holding the bag.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Every time we get close to the truth they get a little bit sensitive and they

go back to the past and blame it on someone else. They chose this course,

against advice, and have told the people of the Province the exact opposite.

Mr. Speaker, the last question from me, a different question. Let's go back

to the beginning. In December of 2003, just before Christmas, before the Premier

spoke to the people of the Province on January 5, Moody's, another one of

those bond rating agencies again, stated that Newfoundland and Labrador's debt

ratios have eased since the mid -1990s. Their quote is: Interest payments on the

debt have remained flat since the mid-1990s and actually even decreased - and

members opposite are going to hear this for the first time - have decreased from

$574 million to $560 million.

I ask the Government House Leader, on behalf of his leader, the Premier: How

does that match the false billion dollar story that the Premier concocted on T.V.

on January 5, when he spoke to the people of the Province about drowning in debt

and having to give a billion dollars to the banks when he had just received the

report from Moody's saying that the interest had flattened out and even

declined to under $600 million? Answer that question for the people of the

Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the way the Leader of the Opposition is purporting information

today, you would not know if the coffers of the Province are flush, that they

are overflowing and that there are thirty-three people on this side of the House

who want nothing more than to cause hardship and anguish to the people of the

Province. Nothing is further from the truth.

Mr. Speaker, it is as simple as this. DFO stocks, for example, say that

Northern cod is stable, but at a low level. Does anyone find that alarming? The

fact of the matter is this, that unless -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

We need to recognize this, that unless we deal with the financial situation -

it cannot be lost upon anybody, that Budget Day the Minister of Finance stood up

and delivered what you described as one of the harshest budgets ever, but still

contains accrued deficits this year of $840 million more than we have. What

would you do with it? Would you continue to spend what we do not have? Because

if you did, you would be taking the future away from my two children and I am

not going to let you do that, sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions -

[Comments from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again I remind visitors in the gallery, it is the second time that I have had

to interrupt Question Period to remind visitors that they are not supposed to

engage in any dialogue whatsoever. The Speaker does not want to have the

galleries cleared. It is the last thing any Speaker would want to do. Please, I

ask visitors for their co-operation.

I want to say to visitors that they are always welcome in here, but please do

not engage or make any response to anything that is said on the floor of the

House.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture,

and they concern another 20,000 people who are waiting to go to work in this

Province today.

A little over a year ago, this minister and his Premier called in the

Competition Bureau of Canada to investigate the processors of our Province. They

both claimed that the processors were colluding to limit - and I say limit -

competition. That is what they said, that they were colluding to limit

competition.

Does the minister realize that plant quotas will not limit competition, but

they will eliminate it entirely, and that these same processors who they claim

were colluding to limit competition will then drive the price down offered to

fishermen for their product.

Will the minister now stand and tell the Province that he will never - never

- implement production quotas unless and until the FFAW agree to them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the member is correct in saying that we did call

in the Competition Bureau to investigate the actions of fish processing

companies in this Province. That was just about three years ago and, as I

understand it, the investigation is still ongoing.

As for the issue of plant production quotas, we said when we rolled out the

Dunne Report that we were prepared to engage in a discussion with the industry,

with harvesters, processors and plant workers, on the possible implementation of

plant production quotas. We said then that we would not engage in plant

production quotas in 2004.

I reiterated that on the Fisheries Broadcast yesterday, and on numerous

occasions over the past two months; however, I will say this to the member and

to all who want to listen, that there are only two ways to deal with fish

processing in this Province: Price setting, and that is in a regulated fashion

with plant production quotas and a collective bargaining act; or, in the absence

of that, with an open and free market, the auction as we proposed back in

February.

Those are the two choices, Mr. Speaker, and I am free at any time to engage

in the industry in a debate on either of those options.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Twillingate &

Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

I think that the minister did not answer my question. I heard him say that he

would not implement them in 2004, but I happen to know that officials in his

department are saying that they are going to implement them in 2005.

Another question, Mr. Speaker. The minister indicated yesterday, in the

media, that there is no role for the government in the dispute between the

harvesters and processors of our Province. Plants in the Maritimes and Quebec,

as we speak, are already buying crab and shrimp, while we are hearing from our

fishermen that they are talking about landing their catches in Nova Scotia.

Does the minister realize the impact this is going to have on our plant

workers in the Province? How can he justify driving our fishermen over to Nova

Scotia and keeping our plants closed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Part of the reason why we have the problem we are confronted with today in

this Province is because of the overcapacity. I am not going to blame this

member when he was minister because, to my knowledge, he did not really issue

any licence, nor this one here, but the government they were a part of did issue

a whole lot of licences and create the overcapacity that we have in our industry

and the overcapitalization that we have in this industry, Mr. Speaker.

We, as a government, have a role in developing policy, in issuing licences,

or not, in the quality assurance program, and in inspections and so on. That is

the role that we unveiled. We indicated our intentions when we rolled out the

Dunne Report on February 4. We are sticking to those intentions, Mr. Speaker. We

will work with the industry in any way that they feel we can participate in

helping to facilitate -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the minister. The minister has about

twenty seconds left to reply.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, we will engage at any time, as we did over this past

weekend, through the facilitation of a mediation process. We are prepared to do

that now.

Mr. Speaker, I will say this: If the industry wants us to post the price for

fish in this Province, I have no problem putting a process in place to do that,

but at this point there is a dispute between harvesters and processors about the

price -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. TAYLOR: - and they must resolve it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is obvious that the minister talks a lot but says nothing. He has not

answered a question here today.

Mr. Speaker, he talked about the overcapacity in the industry. In 1972, I say

to the minister - and his colleagues sitting next to him know this - in 1972,

when the Tories took over the government in this Province, there were120

processing licences in this Province. When you left in 1989, there were 260. So,

if you want to talk about overcapacity, you caused it.

Mr. Speaker, my final question. The minister and the Premier talk about no

giveaways of our natural resources. Their inactivity is forcing fishermen to

take our resources to the Maritimes and Quebec. They are sitting on their hands

while our resources are being exported. What is the minister going to do about

the 20,000 fishermen and plant workers in this Province today who are waiting to

go to work?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Under the rotation we have, the Chair will recognize next the member - no,

sorry. The member will be recognized next, but the Chair will give the minister

about thirty seconds to make a reply.

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not cause it, Mr. Speaker. In 1989, and the five years before that, I

was steaming around Belle Isle catching codfish. I did not cause the

overcapacity in the industry either.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, at this point, in crab and in shrimp,

there is a process in place, there is Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining

Act. I have said there will be no plant production quotas in 2004 in crab. I

have indicated my intentions to deal with the issue with the industry. We have

said that at any time we will be prepared -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The minister should now finish his answer.

MR. TAYLOR: - to engage in this process and deal with it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Government House Leader, who is answering for the

government today.

Yesterday, the Premier indicated in this House that he would be flexible in

negotiations with the public sector workers. Yet, last night on TV he said that

signing bonuses were only for hockey players.

Will this government not acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, that one-time payments,

whether they are called signing bonuses, special allowances, lump sum payments,

one-time payments of one sort or another, are a common feature of wage

settlements in the public and private sector, and that they have been used, for

Government of Quebec, the Nova Scotia Government, the CBC, and Bell Canada, none

of whom, as far as I know, employ hockey players.

Will this government acknowledge that this is a possible way of solving the

dispute without adding to the long-term salary budget and, in fact, Mr. Speaker,

to deny the use of such options could, in fact, lengthen the strike and

eliminate the possibility of reaching a successful conclusion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to acknowledge that today - it could be

right now or within a short period of time - the Premier, the Minister of

Finance and President of Treasury Board, are sitting down, face to face, with

the President of NAPE and the President of CUPE. What they are going to talk

about is obviously trying to reach an agreement that everybody can live with and

that will be in the best interests of everybody.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that in the interest of that meeting occurring right

now, I am going to leave the negotiations to the President of NAPE, to the

President of CUPE, to the Premier of the Province, to the Minister of Finance

and President of Treasury Board, leave it to them right now where that meeting

is occurring, and not happening between the Leader of the NDP and myself in my

capacity as Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Health and Community Services, concerning

the transportation of palliative care patients upon being released from hospital

or being told by their doctors they are able to go home. The minister is aware

that the only way these people can travel home to be with their families and

loved ones is by air ambulance.

When will the minister make the necessary changes in policy that will enable

the air ambulance to transport patients back to their homes upon being told, by

their doctors, there is no further treatment available?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am aware of the situation that the hon. member is talking about and we are

currently reviewing it. We have not reached a conclusion at this point in time,

but we are approving individual instances on an ad hoc basis.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair was advised earlier that it was set at 2:08, but

if I have made a mistake I will correct it. There is one minute left.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Last week, the minister announced that a compliance officer to ensure the

enforcement of the adjacency principle for Voisey's Bay employment would be

released this week.

I want to ask the minister: Is that still on track, and will that compliance

officer have the authority to make sure that people in Labrador, who are

qualified for employment at Voisey's Bay, will get it first, rather than what

is happening today, being at the end of the line?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Last week, in response to the member's question, I had indicated that by

this week we would have a response. The week is not concluded yet and we are

still on target to have a response. I want to say to the member, clearly, that

when it comes to the adjacency principle that the Voisey's Bay Nickel Company

has, it is our view, as the Department of Natural Resources on behalf of the

government, that we are going to put in place a process which involves personnel

that will see the people of Labrador have faith and confidence in getting hired,

and ensuring that the adjacency principle that was committed to them is lived up

to.

Also, Mr. Speaker, and finally, let me say this: That the process that will

be put in place will not just be a monitoring position, but will be a position

that ensures that if there is an oversight or somebody is aggrieved that it is

corrected. That is the commitment that I made last week and that is the

commitment I am standing by today, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair now recognizes that the time has expired. The Chair apologizes. I

normally set two stopwatches. Today I forgot to do it. I asked the Table

Officers and they gave me the 2:08 instead of the 2:09. I apologize for any

inconvenience it may have caused the hon. Member for Labrador West.

Petitions

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, today I stand and would like to present a

petition by retired public service pensioners in the Province. A few weeks ago I

attended a session in Clarenville that was well represented by the retired

pensioners expressing concern about the treatment this government has had with

our retired public servants. The day the meeting took place - actually, there

was an announcement by the government that took these people out of the torture

chamber they had them in for three-and-a-half or four months. The Premier

indicated that it was off the table; that it was never the intention of the

government to reduce the pension benefits of our retired public servants and it

was never on the agenda.

We all know that back in January the Premier and his government said, when

they started the collective bargaining process, that they were going to reduce

the pensioners by .06 per cent, which caused a lot of anxiety with our people. I

attended this meeting, Mr. Speaker, and most of the people were from

Clarenville. There was an invitation to the MHAs of the area to attend. The

Member for Trinity North did not turn up. They were very, very upset because

they knew the Member for Trinity North previously had risen in this House of

Assembly and presented petitions on their behalf when he sat on this side of the

House of Assembly. As a matter of fact, they were very upset with the poor

representation that they received.

After I got this petition - because they indicated they would forward

petitions to be presented, even though they knew that this was off the table. I

made contact with them because I received this petition a day or so ago, and

they said: No, Percy, we want you to stand in the House of Assembly to make sure

- because the negotiations are not completed yet. We have not concluded the

negotiations. We said that the Premier and the Minister of Finance - we have

been on the edge of our seats for the last three weeks. When we start to reach a

crisis situation in the collective bargaining process - and what happened here

yesterday was unbelievable. Just before the House opened we had the managers

stuffed into the galleries to fill the galleries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame! Shame!

MR. BARRETT: We had the managers, who are making $100,000 a year, stuffed

into the galleries to occupy the seats so that the general public could not get

in here. So, we do not trust this government and the pensioners do not trust

this government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave to clue up.

MR. BARRETT: There will be a lot more petitions presented on this issue

because just recently, this morning, I received another petition. The

petitioners want me to ask a question of the Member for Trinity North: They want

to know where you are?

[Comments from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: I will inform visitors in the gallery that if there is

further commentary at all the Chair will have the galleries cleared for the day,

and if they are cleared for the day, the doors will remain closed for the

balance of the sitting day.

[Comments from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, the House will recess and the galleries will be

cleared.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We were hearing petitions before the recess. The Chair will call for

petitions again now.

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 Labrador

residents concerning the question I asked the Minister of Health and Community

Services earlier, on travel for palliative care patients, whose only way of

getting back to their home is on Air Ambulance.

Mr. Speaker, none of the airlines going into Labrador West today is a

suitable option of travel for people who need to travel on the Air Ambulance

because of their medical condition at the time they need to travel.

The minister said in response to my question, Mr. Speaker, that the policy

was under review. I certainly hope it does not take long for that review to be

conducted and a positive answer be given to the people of the Province who find

themselves in this position of having to get home to their loved ones.

She also talked about, right now, at the present time, taking care of

individual cases as they occur. Well, Mr. Speaker, the problem with that, and I

know because I have dealt with it obviously enough -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. COLLINS: The problem with that, Mr. Speaker, is that it takes a day

or two days of my time, when the patients are from my area, who I have

intervened on their behalf and their families behalf, by talking to the Minister

of Transportation, by talking to the Minister of Health and Community Services,

both in the last case, which is the first case I have had to deal with since

this government has taken power. In that case I commend both ministers for the

assistance that they provided during that period of time. But the problem with

that situation, or with that system, is it takes time to get the okay.

Unfortunately, a lot of people, a lot of the patients who I am referring to for

this travel, the one thing that they do not have, in many cases, is a lot of

time. Many cases that we have been able to get people back to their families and

their loved ones, they have gotten back just in time to spend a few hours with

them, sadly, before they passed away. That is not good enough.

The Air Ambulance is the only form of travel for these patients and their

families. It has to be put on to bring these people back, once their doctor -

generally here at the Health Sciences - has said that there is no further

treatment available for them and releases them to return home. The last thing,

Mr. Speaker, the most inhumane thing that can happen when a doctor tells a

patient that, is to have them sit in a hospital waiting for a phone call saying

you are going to be transported in two or three or four hours time. Because, Mr.

Speaker, the first line now from the Air Ambulance is that we will take you back

to your home - and that home could be in Labrador West. It could be in the Happy

Valley-Goose Bay area. In could be in the Corner Brook region or St. Anthony.

What they are told at the present time is that when we get a call for the Air

Ambulance -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

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

MR. SPEAKER: By leave to conclude.

MR. COLLINS: - is that when we get a call for the Air Ambulance to go to

your area for an emergency, we will take you back at that time. Mr. Speaker,

that could be a day, it could be a week, it could be a month. The people I am

referring to, who need this service, do not have that kind of time frame in the

most cases. It is important for the minister and for this government to bring

about the changes necessary so that patients can be transported home in a timely

manner to spend their last days with their families and loved ones in

comfortable surroundings.

I urge this government, Mr. Speaker, and the minister, to bring in the

necessary changes as soon as possible so that patients, who find themselves in

this position, are not subject to more mental anguish and suffering than they

already are.

Thank you.

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: This being private member's day, we have the motion, I do

believe, by the hon. Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

The Chair now recognizes the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to move:

WHEREAS a strong and dedicated civil service is an

important part of maintaining and improving both the social and economic life of

people in this Province;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly does not agree with a

downgrading of the civil service in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure, and I have some other emotions

today, tainted with a bit of sadness as well, that today, being Employee

Appreciation Day, we have some 20,000 of our public service outside, on the

streets, fighting for what they believe to be their right. So, it is with

somewhat concern today that I bring this motion forward. I feel it is rather

significant that we discuss it here in this hon. House in light of the past

Budget that we also had.

Government has the responsibility of providing for its citizens, and part of

that responsibility is providing for a strong and dedicated public service, to

make sure that the special things, the things that are important to people's

lives, are being looked after.

Yesterday we sat here and I noticed that there were management brought in to

fill the seats. It sort of struck me that these people were brought in as

essential employees, and I did not think it one little bit essential at all to

fill the seats to keep our public from attending the proceedings of this House.

It is not my impression or my feeling that these people were best utilizing

their time when we have our seniors lying in hospital beds, waiting to be taken

out, just to be given some care, a little bit of a change from their mattress,

to get up and be moved to a chair.

Not too very long ago, my own father was lying in a hospital bed and I

appreciated - and this is why it came to me today, that this motion is so

important - I appreciated the role of those people in our health care

facilities. It is so important. It goes beyond our health care facilities, which

I will get to later.

It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, I guess, that the managers were not ordered

in today, because they too are employees of government and they could listen to

how I feel about their role. It is unfortunate that they are locked out. I hope

they are not locked out in the cold.

In any event, having somebody spend time in a health care institution, that

is when you get a getter appreciation of what is happening; why those people are

so important. I am not just talking about the nurses or the doctors. I am

talking about the ward clerks, the steward on the floor, the person who takes

someone down for an X-ray, who smiles at them, even though they are going down

to find out that, yes, maybe they do have cancer.

People are brought to those institutions at a time in their lives when their

main concern, their very main concern, is their own health. The family of those

people, their main concern is the health of their loved one.

I am sure we have all experienced that. Hopefully we go through life and we

never experience it, but unfortunately the cycle of life brings us to a point

where that is exactly what happens. Somebody, somewhere along the line, who

belongs to us ends up in a health care institution.

When we look at the steward or the ward clerk, the person who signs somebody

in for an exam or anything, they are always there with a smile to try to ease

the stress and stain of that individual when they go through their tests. Even

from the point of view of the floor being cleaned, the person who goes into a

room - and it happened so many times as my father was lying there in bed - and

empties the garbage can next to the bed, who always said a kind word or had a

smile. Even my father's last day - the housekeeping people. There is no such

thing as insignificant people in our public service. There is no such thing.

Everybody has an important role to play, and it cannot be taken lightly.

In our last Budget, the Budget that we are debating in this hon. House right

now for this year, 4,000 people are slated to go, but it is all being

overshadowed, unfortunately it is being overshadowed, by the 20,000 people and

the plight they are in, out on the street right now. There are all kinds of

games being played. All of a sudden - it is like a rabbit chasing a carrot -

just as they get close, somebody pulls the carrot away. I hope that is not what

is happening today. I notice the Premier and the Minister of Finance are down

having negotiations, or at least I hope they are. I hope they are not going to

pull that carrot away from the public sector again today and get past another

weekend.

It is discomforting to all of us when we have to cross the picket line and

come to work, but those people out there, they are not the enemy. There are

people out there who are fighting for what they have come to believe to be their

rights, and it is rights. They have earned their right to a collective

agreement, and that a collective agreement stays in place until a new one

replaces it.

Those particular people, when they come back to work, are going to be coming

back to serve the public of this Province. The people of this Province have come

to expect a level of service from the public service that they do not mind

paying for. Going, standing up in a lineup - and I experienced that just last

year when I was involved in your roles. How many of our offices around this

Province are understaffed, people getting sick, having to stay off because they

are overworked or stressed out because they are working too much? We do not have

to go very far. We can go to Mount Pearl, to the Motor Vehicle Registration

Office out there, and see what is happening out there. At given days, the

lineups are out to the parking lot. The one in Harbour Grace, the Government

Services office out there, the lineups are to the parking lot almost any given

day.

I know people right now - I know the strain is going to be on these people

when they do come back to work, and I know they will be back to work, but the

strain that will be on those people when they get back to work, trying to catch

up on the backlog. We have heard the stories about car dealerships not being

able to sell vehicles because they did not have plates. That thing sorted itself

out for the time being, but it is the little things throughout an individual's

day or week that they have to go to a public servant and ask for their service

to get some assistance, whether it be getting water checked, their well. If you

live in a rural community, it is very, very important.

Last year we hired a number of extra water analysts just to make sure that

the drinking water of the public in this Province was in good order. That is

very, very important in rural Newfoundland. It is different in cities and

municipalities because they usually have some people on staff who monitor the

pump stations from time to time and make sure that the water is being treated

and that they have a safe drinking supply, but in rural Newfoundland when you

get out there and you have an inspector who probably has to drive, on a given

day, maybe 300 or 400 kilometres, as they do on the Northern Peninsula - they

leave Corner Brook and go up the coast, or go from St. Anthony to somewhere else

- those are the functions that we sort of forget about, and as we get involved

in government it becomes commonplace that these people, we see them every day

and we sort of forget what their roles are.

AN HON. MEMBER: Taken for granted.

MR. SWEENEY: They become taken for granted, and that is why today's

motion is so important, that we let these people know that we do not take them

for granted.

The other thing that we have to keep in mind is a reduction, as I said in my

motion, does not agree with a downgrading. A downgrading, to me, means a

reduction, and 4,000 jobs out - the first thing that I think about is, I will go

back to saying about my father last year when he could not cut up his supper,

and the person who brought in the meal, the porter, took the time to cut up his

food and spend a moment with him and helped feed him. If we take 4,000 people

out of the public service, what is going to happen to people like my father? The

person who is suffering, who is most vulnerable, in a hospital bed, what is

going to happen?

I know and I have read through the Budget about reviewing the role of nurses

in this Province, which sets off an alarm bell, because any time there is a

review undertaken by bureaucracy of government, what happens then is: What are

we going to fool with? What are we going to tamper with?

AN HON. MEMBER: Skill mix.

MR. SWEENEY: The word, as you just said, skill mix. Skill mix means, to

me, less nurses and more nursing assistants. We will find a way to push down the

high paying jobs and prop up the other jobs. Now, as soon as that happens, then

we get into longer stays in bed, because I am convinced that with 4,000 people

going out of the system there will not be new people coming in. That means those

nursing assistants who are already worked to pieces, worked to death, from my

experiences in the long-term care facilities in my area and from the hospital in

my area, that means that they are going to have to do more, probably trained to

give medications, give needles and other things.

The comfort of the person who is sitting there, the senior who is lying there

in bed, getting their Attends taken off and a fresh unit put on, that becomes

the last thing you do, because as the term means in the hospital, the terms

comes to light, meds. We have to get the meds out there. A lot of times, when

places are understaffed, what happens with meds is that you get a med alright,

it is a pill to help somebody sleep longer so that they are less trouble, they

are less bothersome to the staff.

AN HON. MEMBER: Less patient time.

MR. SWEENEY: And less patient time, less attention given to a patient.

That is what meds means.

That is why I saw a trend in our last Budget that the real people, the people

who are out there providing care to our children, to our mothers and fathers and

to our brothers and sisters, those are the people who will end up suffering in

all of this. Four thousand people, I don't care how we cut it - because the

years haven't been good to the numbers of the public service.

I remember when I first joined the public service, I watched and I saw it

gradually deteriorate. I was involved in the college system, and I saw in the

college system how, all of the sudden, you cannot do a plumbing course in a

government run facility anymore, you cannot do an electrical course, there are

only certain point at which you can get in, and in many cases the waiting lists

are three and four years.

I say to the Member for Trinity North, he will have his chance to speak. I am

sure he will expound wisdom all over the place, as I have heard him talk so

often, that he is such an expert on everything.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace. I would

appreciate it if the member could be heard in relative silence.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

I feel very strongly about this motion, Mr. Speaker, because you have to show

respect for the people who serve the public of our Province. I represent the

people of my Province and I have a right to speak here in this House without

being drowned out by insults and other shoddy remarks that mean nothing to

anybody. At least I have the decency to get up here and say how I feel about the

people that I represent, the people who work for the people I represent.

MR. JOYCE: Four-hundred and seventy-five teachers gone.

MR. SWEENEY: Just this year - and I thank my colleague from the Bay of

Islands for bringing that up - 475 teachers going out of our system. Now, that

is not going to hurt too much, I say, Mr. Speaker. That is not going to hurt

very much in Mount Pearl or St. John's but that is going to hurt in rural

communities on the Northern Peninsula. It is going to hurt down in Clarenville.

It is going to hurt in Carbonear and Harbour Grace, Victoria and Bay Roberts,

and the Bay of Islands. That is where it is going to hurt. We are going to go

back to what we saw back in, I hate to say it, but the 1930s. You know, back in

the 1930s. I would imagine the member - I know you were not alive at the time

but probably we had one-room schools on the North Coast of Labrador. We probably

had one-room schools.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: We are going to go back in parts of this Province where we

are going to have multi-class units, I think they refer to it as, or sitting to,

the great teacher of all, a computer monitor. Now, I do not know how somebody

who is sick in a classroom, or some young child who is four or five years old

can sit in a classroom and ask that computer can they go to the washroom, or if

they are sick and being nauseated if they can go outside. I do not know how that

is going to work. Now, computers are great things, but they are great learning

tools not great teaching tools.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. SWEENEY: I realize I have fifteen minutes at the end to clue up

debate, so I adjourn.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am certainly pleased to stand today to say a few words on this private

member's resolution put forward by the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

I will just read: THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly does

not agree with a downgrading of the civil service in this Province. Now, Mr.

Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member got the idea that we were going to

be downgrading the civil service in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I

do not know where he got that idea. We have been upfront with the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. We may be downsizing the public service but we told

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador during the election. The people on the

opposite side of the House, they were the people who made it a big issue. They

picked a page out of our Blue Book and made a big to-do about it. They were

fearmongering and telling people we were going to let go as many as 20,000

people out of the public service. But the people saw through it and knew that

what we would do, we would be responsible in our actions.

I will just read right from the Blue Book, if I could, on page fifty-eight,

it says, "Approximately 40% of all government expenditures go towards

salaries and employee benefits. Over the next five years, approximately 25% of

the public service will be eligible for retirement. A Progressive Conservative

government will use this five-year period to reduce the size of the public

sector through attrition." Nothing about downgrading, just reducing the

size of the public service.

What we hope to do, in the long-term, is improve the services provided by the

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. When people retire within the public

service we will look at each and every position and there will be some people

who will be hired back in. There is no doubt that. As a matter of fact, in the

Budget the Minister of Finance said that we will be putting a committee in place

to look at those individuals who would leave the system and try to get them back

in as soon as possible afterwards. So to say that we are going to be downgrading

the public service is misleading, at the least, Mr. Speaker. We will be

improving the public service in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I have to comment on this most recent point that the Member for

Carbonear-Harbour Grace got up on, and the Opposition Leader. He was up

yesterday on a point of order talking about the galleries; people in the

galleries, staff in the galleries. Well, Mr. Speaker, obviously that side of the

House of Assembly is: Do as I say, not as I do. If anybody wants to remember and

look back at the House of Assembly when the Voisey's Bay debates were going

on, what happened here was that the galleries were full by staff, deputy

ministers, assistant deputy ministers, directors and managers. Not only that,

Mr. Speaker, they were in the galleries, in the seats, before the House was even

open. When the debate went through and was finished that night and the vote was

taken - people watching will obviously know that there is supposed to be no

response from the galleries. We have had the Speaker clear the House in the past

number of days - and what happened? They were instructed, Mr. Speaker, by the

then Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, to stand and applaud in the

galleries. Obviously, from that group, it is: Do as I say, not as I do. They

tried to put something on this side of the House that is not there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: That is what has been going on, Mr. Speaker, in this House

of Assembly for the past few weeks, getting up and fearmongering, asking a

question about one thing and the next day changing their minds and asking about

something else; wanting the Premier involved one day, not wanting him involved

the next day.

The Leader of the Opposition getting on the Open Line shows every morning and

evening - the most simplest little things happening in the House of Assembly and

trying to blow them out of proportion. That is what he is up to, Mr. Speaker.

Not only that, when we have people in the galleries here, the civil servants who

are on strike, I see members on that side of the House inciting the people in

the galleries, Mr. Speaker, by comments from that side of the House and actions,

and what have you. They should be ashamed of themselves! They should be taking

this a lot more seriously than what they are doing. They are trying to gain

political points on the backs of the civil servants.

We are in a situation in this Province today - and the Minister of Fisheries

was on his feet yesterday and gave a really good speech on this, Mr. Speaker. In

this Province today we have a debt of over $11 billion for 500,000 people, and a

deficit this year of $840 million. Now, we have to deal with that. We have an

Opposition that is in place now that were in government for fifteen years and

they have to take some responsibility for that. You would not but we were over

here being the big, bad wolf. That is the impression they are trying to give out

there. We are trying to be responsible and trying to correct the problems which

were created by that crowd on that side of the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: That is what we are trying to do, and we are trying to do

it in an orderly fashion. What do we have from that side? I remember the Leader

of the Opposition standing up and saying: You know, we will try to assist. He

said himself that we are in a dire situation with respect to the fiscal

responsibilities of this Province, and every chance he gets he is undermining

what is trying to be done on this side of the House of Assembly, the government

of the day.

Yes, we have 20,000 people on strike in this Province. I have family on

strike on the picket line and I have good friends on the picket line and a lot

of acquaintances. Do you think that I want to see them on the picket line? Do

you think anybody on this side of the House wants to see them on the picket

line? Not likely, but to listen to the crowd over there, you would not know but

we were getting some kind of enjoyment out of it or something. They should be

ashamed of themselves! That is the problem we have in the Province today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Look back on it. The question has to be asked - again, the

Leader of the Opposition, every time he gets on his feet: Don't look at the

past, we have to look at the future. But to correct the problems we have today,

we have to look at the past and see what happened, I say to members on the

opposite side of the House. We have the abuse of the Public Service Commission

for years and years. We had abuse of the Public Tender Act for years and years

and years, and they are over there criticizing us for trying to correct it.

It was a PC government that brought in the Public Service Commission. It was

a PC government that brought in the Public Tender Act to try and correct the

problems of the previous administration to that; contracts were given all over

the place. We see today, this Administration over there just weeks before the

election, extending a contract for the ferry system, the Appollo, up on

the Northern Peninsula going over to Labrador, weeks before a four-year contract

- $16 million to $20 million, and they wonder. They have to question and wonder

why we are over here doing what we have to do.

As the Minister of Fisheries said yesterday, what we are trying to do is

protect our future on this side of the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, trying to

protect our children, our grandchildren, and great- grandchildren. They have no

responsibility. I do not know what the Leader of the Opposition does when he

looks in the mirror in the mornings. There must be nothing showing there because

he takes no responsibility.

Another thing, I have to go back to this. I want to speak on the Budget, when

the Budget Debate comes up, and point out all the good things in the Budget. Not

all the negativity coming from that side of the House, but some of the good

things.

Members on that side of the House should look back too, and say: Listen, I

was a part of the government - and again, they were a part of a government that

let 3,000 civil servants go, pink slips. Only last week, or a few weeks ago, Mr.

Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Christmas Eve.

MR. J. BYRNE: Christmas Eve, basically. That was a nice Christmas gift.

It was only last week, or two weeks ago, that I heard a member, a high

profile person in this Province who is involved with the strike, come out and

say - listening to those individuals over there - I really felt bad for the

4,000 people and families who got their layoff slips the other night.

Mr. Speaker, that is completely misleading, completely untrue. What is

happening - over the next number of years - there will be a downsizing, not a

downgrading, a downsizing, of the civil service. As I said last week, every job

will be looked at. If someone retires, Mr. Speaker, do you think, as I said, if

a person retires, a nurse retires, or a snow plow operator, a physician, or

whatever the case may be, X-ray, lab, these people, that they are not going to

be replaced? Really, there are certain positions that have to be replaced, and

we will be looking at that.

As I said, there is a committee in place that will be putting people in

positions that were vacated. To be up there, fearmongering all the time, trying

to incite people in this Province, when we all should be coming together. As a

matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see the federal government, the

provincial government, the municipalities, the unions, the labour, all coming

together and saying: Listen, we are in a difficult situation in this Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. We have to take some responsibility. We all are part

of the problem, Mr. Speaker, and we all need to be involved in solving the

financial situation of the Province today in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The people out there, the general public, are supporting us. They understand

what has gone on in the past, over the past fifty years in particular, of all

governments. There is no doubt about that. We all had responsibility; but, if

you listen to the Leader of the Opposition over there, Mr. Speaker, it blows my

mind, I have to say. He will get up and wash his hands of everything that went

on in the past, and he was a part of it.

It was probably a good time to have the debate on the Budget, for the Leader

of the Opposition, around Easter time. He was certainly acting as Pontius

Pilate, taking no responsibility at all, Mr. Speaker. He should be ashamed of

himself, and members on that side. We should be working together.

As a matter of fact, this resolution, Mr. Speaker, was put forth for no other

reason than politics. We have resolutions come to this House of Assembly to try

and improve the situation of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is

strictly politics, there is no doubt about that, to say "...that this House

of Assembly does not agree with a downgrading of the civil service in this

Province." Really! Do they expect us, on this side of the House, to agree

to that, when we are here trying to correct the problems of over fifty years,

fifty-five years? Mr. Speaker, it is shameful. They should be ashamed of

themselves.

What I want to do, Mr. Speaker, is move an amendment to the private member's

resolution, of course, which would then be more in line with what is trying to

be accomplished in this Province today in Newfoundland and Labrador, not to play

politics with it.

Let's look at the civil service out there who are on strike today, 20,000

people, family, friends, acquaintances, some with a husband and wife on the

picket line, and in here trying to play politics with it. We have to get a

resolution to this as best we can and as soon as possible, Mr. Speaker, not to

try and extend it and to incite people when they are in the galleries. I can

name people on that side, Mr. Speaker, who are at that every day when there are

people in the galleries, but I will not. I would not do that. I would not want

to embarrass them, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I want to move that the private member's resolution

now before the House be amended by adding, following the

BE IT RESOLVED clause:

That downgrading' be defined, in this context, as eroding the ability of

the government to provide high-quality public services to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador within the Province's ability to pay.

That is what I would like moved, Mr. Speaker, and it is seconded by the

Member for Lewisporte.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has not yet received a copy of the amendment. If

the Chair could have a copy forwarded, then the House will recess very

momentarily. There is no need for members to leave. We will recess for just a

few seconds so that the Chair can consult with the table to make sure that the

amendment is in order.

The House will recess for about a minute or two.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The Chair rules the amendment to be in order, and advises the member speaking

now that he has about two minutes left in his address.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the amendment is in order, and I am

sure that other members on this side of the House would like to speak to the

resolution and to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, why are we in the situation that we are in today? We see members

on the other side of the House questioning a study that we had done recently of

$150,000 to try and improve a situation in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador; but, Mr. Speaker, they seem to forget. I could go down through a list

of money that was wasted since I have been in this House of Assembly, that I

have been questioning for years and years and years, since I have been here,

eleven years. One, for example, they had an ad campaign in the media not long

ago, $250,000, about the good things that are happening in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador. That is part of the reason why we are in the

situation we are in today.

A few years ago, the group on that side of the House had a big new

conference, a big media event in Labrador - $1 million to announce the Lower

Churchill. Where is the Lower Churchill, Mr. Speaker? Not one job created -

irresponsibility.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Sorry, not all members. I am sorry. The NDP were not

involved in that. I stand corrected.

Mr. Speaker, we had court cases from the Liberal Administration, Atlantic

Leasing, $4.2 million, not a job created, Mr. Speaker, taking care of their

buddies. Cabot 500 Corporation, we all know about that, where the people were

fired and they were forced to pay out over $500,000 for being irresponsible.

They have the Trans City, where the Public Tender Act was abused to the hilt -

and then sued, and another $5 million paid out for not one job being created.

The list goes on and on and on. We are here, what? less than six months, and the

people on that side of the House expect us to turn the world around in six

months.

Mr. Speaker, what we are planning to do is put a long-term plan in place and

to work gradually and to resolve the problems of Newfoundland and Labrador with

a two-pronged approach, to cut our expenditures and then to look at job creation

in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, which will certainly benefit the

Province as time goes on, and if the people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, just to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if the people on that side of the House would

sit back and be a bit relaxed and give us maybe a little bit more time than five

or six months - I am not asking for fifteen years, like they had to do

something, but at least give us a reasonable amount of time to cure the problems

of Newfoundland and Labrador and we will continue to work towards that, Mr.

Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The resolution that we are debating here today - it is Employee Appreciation

Day. How ironic, Mr. Speaker, that we are here talking about Employee

Appreciation Day and we have had the people who work for government out for more

than three weeks. Just think about it. Just think about it.

This morning, while I was preparing some notes to do a fifteen-minute speech

on this today, I went to CBC National on the computer, and on CBC National there

was a picket line, or a poster, I should say, of three people with these words

on the inscription: My vote sentenced me to four years of hell.

These are people who are there out on the picket line. I want to, in the few

minutes that I have, try to demonstrate that there was no need for us to put our

public service through the situation that has happened and has occurred in the

Province. There have been too many highs and there have been too many lows for

the people. If we go back - and we can go back, if we like - to January 5,

January 6, January 7, January 16, January 24, February 7, February 17, March 5,

March 18, I have them documented and I have some material that I want to look

at. We have, Mr. Speaker, many, many instances over the last number of weeks -

and we can go back to January, if we like - when the first salvo was given to

the public service that there would be no increase. That, in itself, was a

traumatic experience for many of the people who are on the picket line. It might

not have been a traumatic experience for people like us, but it was for them.

Single parents, two children, three children, working with a maximum salary of

$17,000, $20,000, $25,000 or $30,000 a year. It was for them; it had to be

traumatic. Then, all of a sudden, as we go up through, we see the term of events

happening up to March 31.

On March 31, when there were some negotiations, the Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury Board got involved, the Premier got involved, and there

was a ray of hope for those people who were on strike. They saw light at the end

of the tunnel. They really did. They were hoping and praying that there would be

a resolution to the strike - or the impending strike, I should say - but it did

not happen. It did not happen. These people's hopes were dashed. All of the

hope and vision that they had for being able to carry on and maintain for their

families was taken from them. They had thought that there was going to be an

agreement.

Since that particular time, what has happened to the people on the picket

line is that there has been despair. They want to go back to work. When things

got really tight, for example, there had been again some hope given to the

people out there, that there would be a resolution to the strike, and their

hopes were up. Then, quickly, they were dashed again. There is going to be no

strike. The strike has gone from day one to day two to day three and we find it

as it is now, three weeks into the strike.

I am hoping, I really do - and I say that sincerely, with every inch of

fervor that I have - that we do find a resolution to it, because the people who

are out there on strike, these people from the general services and the people

who work in the seniors' homes as LPNs and so on, these are not the

high-paying jobs that are in government. These are at the lower end of the

scale. If we were to give them, for example, 1 per cent increase, the people who

are on strike today, it would not cost $20 million or $30 million. It would cost

$10 million. It is the people who should never be in the situation where they

are, but they are.

Then, another example, only yesterday they rallied here at the building. They

rallied at the building again yesterday. As they were rallying yesterday,

yesterday afternoon I think it was, they say: Okay, we are going to send the

mediators back again to talk to the people to see if there are any grounds

whereby we might be able to find some resolution to it.

It is twenty-five hours after that and there is still no resolution, and

there might not be one. Again, what happens is, you lead the people along with

the hope that there is going to be an agreement and it never happens. The people

who are out there on the picket lines, they have already capitulated, they have

already given in to zero and zero. The only reason they were out there,

basically, was the sick leave, and primarily the Warren Report for secretaries,

again, and custodians within the school system. These are the people who are at

the lower end of the rung. These are the people we are talking about here, and

it is these people who have been tortured.

To me, in a sense, they have been in the torture chamber. That is really what

has happened to the public servants, because there is nothing worse than

psychological torture, and that is psychological torture that has happened to

the people, because they get a fair hope that something is going to happen and

then it does not. Again, something is going to happen and it does not, and they

are waiting. This has been three weeks for those people who have been on strike.

MR. DENINE: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: The Member for Mount Pearl, that is fine, you can talk about

rolling back wages and so on. I listened to the speaker who was there, and you

can have your say afterwards. All I am saying is, the people who are in the

situation now, the people who are there today. The thing about it is, when we

have people who are picketers or people who are out there on strike in the

gallery, there is no noise. As soon as they disappear, you cannot hear yourself

speak. That says a lot. That says a lot, I think.

Mr. Speaker, the thing about it is that those people who are the most

vulnerable are there. The sad thing about it - and I might be proven wrong, and

I hope I am proven wrong. It is my belief that right from the beginning that is

when the people should have been told, and they were not told, that these

concession about sick leave days and so on were not coming off the table. I

honestly believe - I might be wrong, I hope I am wrong, and I say that with all

the strength I can muster, and all the honesty, and I hope it does not happen -

I fear that we will be back here some time within the next week or so because we

cannot find the concessions, that we will have to legislate these people back to

work, and all of these -

MR. HICKEY: (Inaudible) been there before.

MR. LANGDON: Okay, I might have been there before, I say to the Member

for Lake Melville. That is fine. I have been here before. I am not saying that I

have not, but what I am saying to you, to the people of the Province who are

watching, is that if that was the case, then why put people on a three-week

situation that we have had day after day after day, highs for those people, and

lows. It has been like this here. It has been a curve for them, and it is very,

very difficult.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing that could very well happen, and I have said

this many times and I will stand by it, if we do bring legislation here into the

House and you legislate changes to the contract, that these people do not want

concessions - if you legislate, for example, sick leave days down from what it

is, against their will, and bring it into the House, and you do not take the

janitors or custodians into consideration, I am telling you, what we have seen

in the galleries will be a picnic because the people from the nurses' union,

the people from the teachers' union, the people from the FFAW and the people

from the loggers union will be here. I predict that will happen, because it has

never ever happened where will you will legislate changes unilaterally to a

contract and bring it in. I am telling you.

The thing is: Do I want it to happen? Absolutely not. I have relatives who

are on picket lines too. My wife is one of them, she is down at one of the

seniors homes and has been there for twelve years. She does a lot of good work

and provides good work. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I could never perform the type of

work that my wife would be doing at the seniors home - I could not do it - as an

LPN. I think you have to have compassion for these people day after day and be

able to care for them in a way that I do not think I could do. That is why -

like in the situation right now, it has been twenty-one days, over three weeks,

that the people who are in these homes have not had the proper care and

attention that has been due to them. That is a tragedy in itself, Mr. Speaker.

The thing about it is, the strike itself, I think personally, could have been

avoided. Even today, I am hoping that the Premier and the Minister of Finance

and President of Treasury Board do find a resolution to it. I will be the first

one to applaud my desk if it happens. But I am afraid that it will not, because

as I said earlier, I believe that the whole premise, right from the beginning,

was the fact that we have too many people within the civil service. We want to

curtail some of the numbers. It was interesting yesterday - when you sit here

and listen to people you hear what they say. The President of Treasury Board and

the Premier have basically said that there are too many people in the civil

service, but the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and Labrador Affairs

said: I do not want to see any people go. If we had the money to pay for them

and so on we should be able to keep them. That is quite different from what some

of the other ministers have expounded; quite different and it is telling.

Now, him and I happen to disagree, and it is philosophical. That is a debate

for another day. That is for the people of the Province to decide four or

three-and-a-half years or so from now, if that is the case. I happen to believe

that as we sit here the public service - we need a good public service, but if

you take 4,000 people out of the service that we already have then it is quite

different. We have heard where Newfoundland and Labrador, by the way, has a

greater percentage of people working for it than in other provinces, but just

think about the services that the provincial government provides in Newfoundland

and Labrador that is not provided in Ontario. In Ontario, for example, all the

housing problems - like Newfoundland and Labrador Housing - are all done by the

city; the City of Toronto, the City of London, the City of Scarborough, but here

in Newfoundland and Labrador we have many small communities. They do not have

the expertise whereby to do it, so what happens? You have the extra people from

government that are in the field to help people who are unable to help

themselves. We need more people, and that is just one.

In education, the same thing. In Ontario, when you get your municipal bill

for your municipal services you have an education component built into it. We do

not have that here. The municipalities themselves do not have it. It is not

built into their tax structure. In Ontario and Alberta it is part of the

municipal taxes. So, it is different. We are different.

Just look at the number of people that are in the Province, 500,000 people.

The same as the City of York, but look at the size. It is the size of Prince

Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick together. The services are all over

the place; 10,000 miles of coastline. I believe it is possible to take the HRE

person out of New-Wes Valley; it is possible to take it out of Bay d'Espoir;

it is possible to take it out of Harbour Breton because you have computers and

you will be able to link it up, but there is no personal touch. There is no

being able to go into the House and being able to look at the services.

A lot of us here, all of us are members and many of us are in rural parts of

the Province. People look to us for services. They do not differentiation if you

are a federal member or if you are a provincial member. You still have to do the

EI appeals for them; you still have to do Workers' Compensation; you still

have to do Canada Pension for them. That takes up a lot of their time, and that

is the work that we do. It is the same thing, as I said, for the civil service.

It is different. It is a different situation than we find in many other parts of

the Province.

Mr. Speaker, when I look at this particular resolution, as I said here: Be is

resolved that the House of Assembly does not agree with a downgrading of the

civil service in the Province. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs

put in an amendment to it that says: if we can afford it. Again, it goes back to

philosophy, and I am not going to change that. It is a different philosophy of

different people on different sides of the House, it is government verses the

Opposition. That is why you have governments from time to time and people elect

them. You have a different agenda, you have a different way of doing things, you

have a different way of priorities, and that is it, but I do not agree that we

can not afford the civil service; not for one moment.

I think that we need more water quality inspectors out in the fields of

Newfoundland and Labrador than we already have. I was talking to a reporter

today and he said to me: We still have 280 communities on the boil order. I said

to him: Look, I know that we have 280 communities on boil order. Over the last

number of years we tried to take care of as many as we could. I said to him,

there are a number of instances here where you have counted 280, where you have

ten artisans wells, or ten wells from a community, twenty from another, but the

whole idea about it is that - only recently I think I heard the minister say

that the towns were complaining about the cost of this water service to the

community. I think the minister's reaction was: Well, okay, go and do it

yourself.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I remind the member that his time has lapsed.

MR. LANGDON: Just a minute to conclude.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Many of the municipalities that are out there do not have

the wherewithal to do it. They depend on people in government with expertise to

be able to ensure that they do have good quality of water and that, you know,

whether it is THMs or lead or whatever the case might be, they can rest assured

that because of people who are well-trained from the civil service, people who

are there working for us, can do a job that is commendable for all of us.

So, I certainly support the resolution put forward by my colleague, the

Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and

Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to take an opportunity this afternoon to pass a few remarks on the

resolution that is put before the House by the gentleman from Carbonear-Harbour

Grace, and, in particular, to say a few words to the amendment that is put

forward by my colleague, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the hon. gentleman who just took his

seat, and with the possible exception of thirty seconds or forty-five seconds or

so at the most, I do not believe the hon. gentleman made any reference at all to

the resolution. The hon. gentleman talked a lot about the strike. He talked

about people losing their jobs. He talked about a whole bunch. He talked about

philosophy. He talked about a whole bunch of things but he did not spend any

time whatsoever, in my view, discussing the resolution. That is what is before

the House, the amendment and then the resolution that deals with, in essence,

downgrading of the public service.

I want to take a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the resolution, but

before I do, the hon. gentleman, who just took his seat, talked about people

making unilateral changes to contracts. Are we going to - he said he posed the

rhetorical question - is the government going to - and the Opposition are hoping

like the dickens, that we are going to have to move into legislation at some

point. They do not want to see a negotiated settlement to this labour dispute, I

say to them. It was not very difficult to detect that tone from them, I can tell

you. But let me make some reference for the record, so that the record is clear

to the people and to our colleagues in this House. The member made some

reference to unilateral changes to contracts. Now, I am only aware of one

situation in this Province where a government moved unilaterally to change

labour contracts, and that was a government which the hon. gentleman, who just

took his seat, was a part of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Wells government, shortly after coming to

office in 1989, negotiated with the labour unions representing the public

service of this Province -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, I never interrupted him

once. If he cannot take the heat, he should get out of the kitchen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order by the hon. Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to take time from the Member for

Lewisporte. I can take the heat when I am in the kitchen just like he can, but I

am not abrasive like that. I will say to him, that I was not in the government

with Wells, I was not in the Cabinet, I was on the backbench. Technically

speaking -

AN HON. MEMBER: On the backbench?

MR. LANGDON: Indeed I was on the backbench with Wells, and it was not

until after, the last six years of the fifteen, that I was in the actual

government.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair rules that there is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Transportation, Works and Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that obviously is not a -

MR. MANNING: It is a point of mixed up.

MR. RIDEOUT: It is a point of nothing.

The hon. gentleman was a supporter of the government, the only government

that I know, Mr. Speaker, in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador, that

unilaterally broke negotiated contracts with the labour movements.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, there are others over there - it is the

official Opposition I am talking about now, not our friends the NDP. All of them

over there, I do believe, with the exception of the Opposition House Leader and

with the exception of the Member for Port de Grave, all of the others who

currently make up the official Opposition, were supporters, either private

member supporters, backbench supporters or ministers in the only government, in

the history of Newfoundland and Labrador, that unilaterally, by force of law, by

force of the Legislature, took away what was negotiated at the bargaining table,

Mr. Speaker. They went out, Mr. Speaker, they negotiated wage increases, they

negotiated all the benefits, and I remember them coming back into the House and

saying: We made a mistake, we cannot afford it.

Mr. Speaker, what did this government do, this new approach? What did we do?

We told our people upfront we couldn't afford it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, we took the heat for it from January up until

the last of March. That is what we did. There were people in this Province who

told us we should try to blind side our employees, we should be less than honest

with them, we shouldn't be upfront with them, we should wait until we get

around the bargaining table to tell them the sad news. Well, Mr. Speaker, this

new approach, this new Premier, this new government, thought we should be honest

with them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: We didn't think that we should follow the course, the old,

tired, tried approach of the old government. We didn't think that we should go

out and negotiate something with them that we couldn't afford to pay. We didn't

think that we should do that and six months down the road, September or October,

when the fall session of the Legislature comes, come in here and tear it up. We

didn't believe we should do that, Mr. Speaker, and we are not going to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: That is the Liberal approach, Mr. Speaker. That is hiding

behind the power of this Legislature approach. We have said from day one that we

do not want to. It will be the last resort, if we have to use the power of this

Legislature, and I hope to God we do not. We will if we have to, Mr. Speaker,

but we will be fair, we will be honest, we will be transparent and we will be up

front.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the gentlemen and ladies on the other side,

from time to time, make a great show about: All you want to do is live in the

past. All you want to do is talk about the past government. All you want to do

is talk about the past approach. You do not want to talk about the future and

the new approach.

Mr. Speaker, I left this Assembly - voluntarily, by the way - in 1991, and I

came back again in 1999, thanks to the good people of Lewisporte. From 1999, the

day I entered this Legislature, until the election was called in September or

October of 2003, any day that I was here - and my colleagues who were here with

me at the time can testify to this - any day that I was here, Mr. Speaker - I

know there were a lot of days I was not here, and people know why - but any day

that I was here, there was not a day passed over my head but the Leader of the

Opposition or some minister on this side, when a question was asked by the then

Opposition, said: Ask your colleague from Lewisporte. He was here. He was part

of the government. He helped do all those dirty, dastardly Tory deeds. Go talk

to him and ask him. Don't ask us.

You think, Mr. Speaker, that after six months we are going to let this hon.

crowd off the carpet? Not likely, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, those people in Opposition today had fourteen

or fifteen years governing this Province, and if they think that every sin of

omission or commission is going to be forgotten by the people of this Province

in six months, I would say you have another thought coming.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: If they believe that this government is going to allow them

to forget it, Mr. Speaker, not likely, not on our watch, not when I get a chance

to get to my feet, I can tell you, and there are dozens and dozens over here

like me who are going to remind every one of those hon. members what they did,

or what they failed to do. The past is a present, and you will always be

repeating it, Mr. Speaker, if you do not learn from it.

The people of this Province learned in October, they wanted a different

approach. One of the different approaches was to tell the people who work for us

exactly what our situation is, tell the truth, tell it up front.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: The hon. gentleman who introduced this resolution today, Mr.

Speaker, so silly, ridiculous and convoluted, gets up talking about we are going

back to the dirty thirties, the 1930s. He knows as much now about the dirty

thirties as I know about the dark side of the moon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I remember my father talking about the dirty thirties, and

people dying because there was no health care, people dying because they were

starved to death, people dying because there was tuberculous, people dying out

in the rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador because they had nothing to eat.

Do you mean to tell me, in all honesty, that this is what is happening in

Newfoundland and Labrador today? They were not a very good government, Mr.

Speaker, but that did not even happen under them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I mean this is so ridiculous and ludicrous. This resolution,

let's call a spade a spade. It is here for political purposes only. It is here

so the Opposition can have a day, which is their right, to continue to

fearmonger, to put the fear of God into the good, hard-working people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the only reason this resolution is here.

Well, Mr. Speaker, let the word go forth. Let the word go out to those people

out there, that there is hope in Newfoundland and Labrador today!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Let the word go out to our children and young people, that

there is a future for them in Newfoundland and Labrador today!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Let the word go forth, Mr. Speaker, from this time and this

place that there is new leadership in Newfoundland and Labrador today!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: And that we intend to take the cares and the sorrows and the

needs and the compassion of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians into our

thought process and provide the best possible government we can, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: That is why I am here, Mr. Speaker. I have no other reason

to be here. My colleagues have no other reason to be here. We are here to

provide sound, good, honest, open, transparent government to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what we campaigned on, that this what the

people threw out the old crowd for, gave them the royal order of the boot, put

them over the head of the wharf. That is what the voters did to them, and what

they expect in return from us is what we said we would do. We will provide no

less.

This resolution, as I said, talking about going back to the thirties, talking

about what the previous government used to do, and blame everything on the

Member for Lewisporte, all of that kind of stuff is not going to wash.

I will tell you what we do not do. I will tell you what this government does

not do. They were mentioning political staff and so on in the galleries. This

government does not take its hired political staff and put them on the Open Line

shows every day or every night, Mr. Speaker. We do not do that. I tell you,

there will be no political staff belong to me, while they are in my hire, get on

Open Line. I can get on Open Line and I can speak for myself, and every member

of this government can do the same thing. Our political staff are hired to do

the political work that we want them to do. They are not hired to be Open Line

defenders of our policies and our positions. I can do that. That is what I was

elected for. That is what the people of Lewisporte want me to do on their

behalf, to be the politician, to make policy decisions, to be a minister, to

lead for them. We are not going to turn that over to some hiree' who has

nobody to answer to. I answer to my constituents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the resolution, the amendment that was proposed

by my colleague, is a very sensible one. We are not talking about downgrading

the public service, the inflammatory language that was put in by the Opposition

for their own political purposes. We are talking about - I understand that over

the next three or four years there is somewhere between 6,000 and 7,000 people

who voluntarily will leave the public service.

AN HON. MEMBER: They had an attrition policy (inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: They have had an attrition policy.

AN HON. MEMBER: They just did not tell anyone.

MR. RIDEOUT: They just did not tell anybody, exactly, as my friend says.

We are saying up front that somewhere, perhaps around 4,000 of those - we will

look at every single position. If we have to have a snowplow operator replaced

on the Northern Peninsula, Mr. Speaker, the snowplow operator will be replaced.

If a nurse goes out of the system, there is a nurse comes back in the system.

They are saying there is no hiring. Again, it is falsehood. It is foolishness.

It is fearmongering. It is trying to make a tough situation that we inherited,

after fourteen or fifteen years of Liberal mismanagement, it is trying to make,

like the old fellow said, a silk purse out of a sow's ear. You cannot do it.

That is what they are trying to do. It is not washing with the people of this

Province. The people of this Province voted for change. They voted for a new

approach. They voted for a new leadership. They voted for a new vision. They

voted for transparency, and everything they voted for is being delivered to them

by the people of this Province, by this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: We did not say it would not be tough, Mr. Speaker. We did

not say we would not have to make tough decisions based on the mess that this

hon. crowd left us, but we are doing that, and at the end of the day the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador will be better off because we were here instead of

them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The people at home can turn their TV back up again, now that we have our fill

of the rhetoric and the loudness and the aggressiveness of the Member for

Lewisporte, and listen to something that makes a little bit of sense.

A little bit of sense now, Mr. Speaker. Let me read into the record again the

resolution that the Member for Lewisporte went on and on and on about, ad

nauseam, in terms of what was meant by this resolution. What it says, Mr.

Speaker, is:

WHEREAS a strong and dedicated civil service is an important part of

maintaining and improving both the social and economic life of people in this

Province;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly does not agree with a

downgrading of the civil service in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, who could argue against a resolution like that?

We are talking about people and their families who will be impacted if we do

not respect our public servants, if we do not pay some recognition to the jobs

that they do throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, for us. We are talking about

teachers. We are talking about nurses. We are talking about health care workers.

We are talking about maintenance workers, highway workers. We are talking about

people from all facets of life, 20,000 public servants who are today out on

strike. Of course we want to make sure that these people have jobs, because the

jobs they provide, the work that they do for the people of this Province, is so

important. It is important to every one of us in Newfoundland and Labrador.

When I go in and use the health care system, I want to know that there are

enough nurses there, that there are enough lab technicians there, that there are

enough people in the health care sector to make sure that I get the service that

I need. If I expect it, then I am sure that people throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador expect to have the same courteous approach and the same kind of

treatment that they need and deserve.

It is not until you have had the opportunity to actually avail of the health

care service in this Province that you really do appreciate the work that goes

into it, and the employees who work there, and how hard they work to make sure

that the patients in their care get the kind of treatment that they need. I

speak from experience, Mr. Speaker, of the need to ensure that we have people to

deliver that service for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Member for Lewisporte went on again about honesty, about how we wanted to

be up front with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, I know how up

front the Premier was with the people in the District of Grand Bank. I know only

too well, how up front he was, when he campaigned.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: Yes, I was. The Member for Kilbride says, as I was, and indeed

I was very up front with the people from my district. You ask them, not point

fingers at me. They know only too well that I was up front with them, and for

every one over there who suggests that I was not, indeed I was.

When the campaign was on, where was the Premier, when he was trying to become

the Premier of this Province? He was down campaigning, promising to build a

health care facility in the District of Grand Bank. He is on record and his

quote is: This hospital complex was started in Grand Bank and it will be

finished in Grand Bank.

Well, little did people know what he meant when he said: finished in Grand

Bank. He misled them. Talk about honesty, talk about being truthful with the

people of this Province. How can you then expect the people in the District of

Grand Bank -

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

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, last week, maybe it was two weeks ago, there

was a ruling by the Chair on the very same language that was used, that the

Member for Grand Bank just used. It is clear you can say that the government

misled people, or the people feel misled by the government, or people feel

betrayed by the government, or people feel that the government betrayed them,

but the member, in using the language she just used, which is almost exact - I

think the record will be bear it out - when she talked about honesty and

integrity, he misled. There was a ruling by the Chair last week, that was

unparliamentary, or two weeks ago. In saying that, I ask the Speaker to

recognize that ruling, to enforce the ruling, and ask the member to withdraw

those comments.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the point of order, I would like to seriously respond to the point of

order because it seems like the Opposition, whenever anyone on this side of the

House raises any legitimate concerns about the actions of this government, or an

individual in this government, and I say for the record albeit the Government

House Leader here has singled out the comments as being made to a person, the

person who the Member for Grand Bank has used the term here today of misled

against, is the very person who leads for, speaks for, represents this

government, this Administration, in everything that it says and that it stands

for. There is nothing derogatory, improper or unparliamentary in referring to

the head of the government when you make a reference to someone who misleads

somebody.

That brings me to the next issue here, which is the world misled itself. As

the Speaker has ruled in this Chamber, the word, in and of itself, is not

unparliamentary. It depends upon the tone that is used, the context in which it

is used, and the facts and circumstances that the person who uses the words use

it. In this particular case here, the Member for Grand Bank has said that the

people of her District of Grand Bank were misled.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: If I could finish, the Government House Leader will get his

opportunity to respond.

In Beauchesne , the word misled has on some occasions been held to be

unparliamentary and on others to be parliamentary. I refer the Speaker to page

147 of Beauchesne where that is indeed the fact.

The fact that the Government House leader stands up and says the word was

used, it was used against a person and therefore it is unparliamentary, and we

have had an earlier ruling, is not the case. The Speaker made it quite clear

when he gave his ruling that the use of the word mislead, or misleading, always

must encompass the circumstances in which it was said.

Maybe it is a premature point of order by the Government House Leader, and

maybe if the Chair would listen and the Government House Leader listen, so that

the Member for Grand Bank can finish the context in which she is using this

word, the Chair would be in an appropriate place to decide if it is, indeed,

unparliamentary. To stand up because the word has been uttered and say that it

is unparliamentary, and to apply, inappropriately, an earlier ruling by this

House is not acceptable.

MR. E. BYRNE: The Chair will decide if it is inappropriate or not, not

you.

MR. PARSONS: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, and I say to the Government House

Leader, that is why I am addressing this issue now in my allotted and my

permissible time to respond to a point of order. He raised the point of order,

and if the Government House Leader did not wish to hear what I had to say,

perhaps he should not have raised this worthless point of order in the first

instance. Since he did, I am fully entitled and will respond, subject to

directions and orders from the Chair, not from the Government House Leader.

Again, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, if the Chair is to decide if this use of

the word, mislead, is inappropriate here today, you have to hear the full

context, and the context hasn't been given by the Member for Grand Bank. Then,

if the Chair feels that it is inappropriate the Chair will make a ruling

accordingly; not for someone to be jumping up prematurely and suggesting that

because you simply use the word it is unparliamentary, and you haven't even

heard yet the facts and circumstances surrounding it.

That is the whole point here. If we are going to be jumping up on points of

order all the time because someone uses a word without even giving an

explanation, we will never be able to use any word here, if someone want to

attribute a negative connotation to the use of that word.

Mr. Speaker, the ruling earlier made by the Speaker is not applicable to this

particular case right here.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair was about to stand before the Government House

Leader made motions that he was going to stand, and the Chair certainly

recognized the Member for Grand Bank when she directed the quotation towards a

member. The Chair will certainly rule that if the context of what the member was

putting forward was directing at a group of people, it would certainly be

admissible. The Chair clearly heard the Member for Grand Bank refer to a member

of government as misleading the people of the Province, in the context that she

put forward for information here. The Chair rules that is clearly

unparliamentary, and the Chair would ask the Member for Grand Bank to withdraw

those remarks.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker.

MR. J. BYRNE: Are you challenging the Chair?

MR. PARSONS: I say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I am not

challenging the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I am not challenging the Chair

and wouldn't even consider doing such. I would like some clarification. Maybe

I missed the point myself, in which case if I did I would certainly apologize to

this House.

My understanding is that the Member for Grand Bank used the word Premier and

didn't refer to a particular member. That is why I premise my argument that if

the word Premier was what was used, she is referring, by the use of the word

Premier, to the government indeed. He represents the government. She cannot be

anymore definitive and general in using the word Premier. So I would like some

clarification. I did not hear, I thought she had said Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, to the same point of

order.

MR. E. BYRNE: The transcript will show that she said: He - using and

talking about trust and integrity - misled people. So, it was not general. It

was very specific. It was exactly to the point of the ruling last week. That is

why I stood up on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was not frivolous, and I

appreciate the ruling that you have made.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would ask the Member for Grand Bank to withdraw

those remarks, please.

MS FOOTE: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.

I withdraw the fact that I used the word: He. Let me just say that the

Premier misled the people of Grand Bank. The Premier betrayed the people of

Grand Bank.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member has already gotten direction from the Chair that the remarks she

is making in this House are certainly unparliamentary. I ask the member if she

would be kind enough to withdraw the unparliamentary remarks and continue with

her speech here in this House.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, how would people of Grand Bank feel about the way

they have been treated by the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Member for Grand Bank if she would withdraw the unparliamentary

comment that she made in her earlier statements.

MS FOOTE: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I did mean to withdraw the remark

before I started again.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Let me say again how the people of Grand Bank feel about the

way they have been treated by the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is

sad, indeed, because they do feel that what he promised he did not deliver on.

He promised to build a new facility in Grand Bank. He did it in the context of,

if he became Premier, that in fact, that new facility would be built. They

clearly feel that he did not deliver on a promise that he made. Now, how someone

can go into a district knowing the number of health care facilities there and

still commit to completing that facility, and then turn around when he becomes

the Premier of the Province and suggest that it is not going to happen, then we

know why they feel the way they do.

When you look at the employees, the public service employees who work in the

old Cottage Hospital in Grand Bank, who work in the health care facility down

there, the seniors home, you can understand why they feel the way they do. They

feel they have been let down by this government. They were so enthusiastic about

the fact that there was going to be a new health care facility replacing the

dilapidated hospital that is there today and replacing the senior citizens home

which today houses residents who require a different type of care. The seniors'

home that is there required a Level I and Level II care. Not anymore. Today

people are being given Level III and Level IV acute care in a facility that was

not designed for that very reason. So, yes, not only are the residents of the

Blue Crest Seniors' Home concerned about what has gone on here but the public

service employees, who work in an unsafe environment in the old cottage

hospital, they are concerned daily about the conditions under which they work,

but as well, the employees who work in the seniors' home.

When I look at our public service workers, I know how hard they work. I have

witnessed it. I have witnessed it in the cottage hospital and I have witnessed

it in the Blue Crest Seniors' Home; I witnessed it in St. Lawrence and I

witnessed it in all other parts of my district and throughout Newfoundland and

Labrador. Public service employees need our respect. They are on the picket

line, not because they want to be on the picket line. They do not want to be on

strike. Twenty thousand public service employees do not want to be on strike.

They have been looking to this government for a settlement. The Leader of the

Opposition stood here day in, day out, last week and this week, and spelled out

how there could be a resolution to the situation in which the government finds

itself today; in which the entire Province finds itself today. But, no, it was

not good enough for the leader of the government. It was not good enough for the

Premier, even though it was pointed out that the concessions with respect to

sick leave would not cost the government anything in the short term.