Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Statements by Ministers — 31 March 1999 (44th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLIV No. 11)

1999-03-31

Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)

March 31, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 11

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Fifty years ago, at 11:59 on March 31, 1949,

Newfoundland and Labrador became Canada's tenth Province.

The destinies of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador

had long been linked before our official joining through Confederation. Aboriginal people

had left their footprints across the great expanses of the Northern half of the continent.

Migrants had braved ferocious seas to cross the Atlantic and wrest a living from the

wilderness. Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador fought together, as comrades, on the

battlefields of Europe, and forged even stronger ties through the defense of the North

Atlantic in World War II.

In short, In 1949, we - Canada and Newfoundland and

Labrador - were not strangers. Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada were friends and

allies. Through the exercise of democratic rights and negotiations of two equal nations,

both Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador agreed that, together, we could build a better

country and a better future for all our people.

Fifty years ago, on March 31, 1949, Newfoundland and

Labrador entered Confederation as a full and equal partner with the other provinces. In

the words of novelist Margaret Duley: Everywhere it was change, startling change.

Newfoundland and Labrador would never be the same again.

Confederation with Canada indeed brought massive and

positive change. It was this promise of change which so caught the heart, mind and

imagination of Joseph R. Smallwood, the leader of the Confederate side. Smallwood believed

passionately that Confederation with Canada would make an immediate, material and lasting

difference in the quality of the lives of his fellow citizens.

Too many of us remember Smallwood for the sometimes

controversial decisions he made, without an appreciation of the times in which he lived,

and his lasting, positive contribution to all our lives. Everyone, of course, has an

opinion of Joseph R. Smallwood because, at the end of the day, Smallwood mattered.

Smallwood made a difference. He changed out lives. His actions have, in large part, shaped

who we are today.

It is to this legacy of Smallwood, as a nation builder,

that we celebrate today on the 50th Anniversary of Confederation. What we have built

together, in Canada, is something of which we can all be proud. We are part of a country

which values tolerance and generosity, a society whose first priority is to fulfil the

potential of all our citizens. Canada invests in the welfare of all of its citizens and

works hard to ensure basic levels of care and opportunity for everyone. Our country has

always been able, through changing times, to adapt to meet the hopes and dreams of our

citizens.

Union with Canada has not been perfect. Like any family,

we have had differences. But like the best of families, we find solutions based on mutual

respect and compromise. Before Confederation, Newfoundland and Labrador stood alone. Now

we stand with the combined strengths and support of our sister provinces and territories,

including the new territory of Nunavut.

As we witness, in the last days, the conflict in Kosovo,

as we witness the attempts by the NATO allies to discipline the excesses of the Milosovich

regime, let us remind ourselves that there is no doubt that Newfoundland and Labrador in

1999 is a part of the best country in the world in which to live. It is a place of peace

and security; a place where Newfoundland and Labrador stands poised to give as much back

to Canada as we have gained from Canada. Canada remains a land of tremendous opportunity.

This is what we have built together; it is our treasured heritage.

In 1949, Newfoundland and Labrador became "one of

ten." On this the 50th Anniversary of Confederation, I invite all Canadians to visit

us during Soiree '99, our year-long celebration of the unique traditions, rich culture,

vast land and unstoppable spirit of this special place.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to salute the cultural

community of this Province. Tonight their voices, their songs and their stories will speak

for all of us at the 50th Anniversary Gala Celebration. They, on our behalf, will tell the

world and tell our fellow Canadians that it is possible to be culturally unique, to be

different, and at the same time to be a Canadian. There is no contradiction between a

great love and a great passion for one's province and a great love and a great passion for

one's country. No Canadian anywhere in this great country should be asked to choose

between the two. In 1949, we chose both. We chose Newfoundland and Labrador and we have

retained all that is unique and special about it, and we chose Canada as well. Today,

fifty years later, we are celebrating with joy that decision.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I am reminded today of the rich part of Newfoundland's

history and our heritage. I am also reminded of the words of Sir Robert Bond, one of the

great prime ministers of Newfoundland and Labrador, prior to it becoming a province in

Confederation, when we gave up the right to self-govern, and his famous quote is: If only

I had the strength, the feathers would fly.

The Premier is right in acknowledging today that in 1949

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians chose collectively another option. They chose an option

that for some time had been denied by ourselves, that being the right to govern ourselves

within a larger federation, the federation known as Canada.

As we reflect upon these fifty years we also have to

reflect upon the impact of Joseph R. Smallwood, no question. I want to be associated with

the remarks made today that certainly the mistakes of the past - no doubt fifty years from

now people will sit in this Chamber, or another like it possibly, and judge ourselves and

look at the mistakes of the past we all have made. However, it is true, and there is no

question about the impact that he had on the way of life, the fundamental changes that

came with his drive and energy and initiative to bring us into Confederation, along with

all of those who worked so closely with him. I was reading an

article yesterday about one

of the unforgotten fathers of Confederation.

Fifty years later it is also time to reflect not only on

what Confederation bought to us, but it is time to reflect on what we have brought to

Confederation. That is what I think is the opportunity today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Because we have brought to the country

something that was missing, something that the country did not have before. We extended

its continental shelf certainly from a geographical point of view, but we brought with it

the richest cultural identity and history within the federation. That is my opinion as a

proud Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

I will also say that because we are part of

Confederation and a province in it that it should not stop us from continuing to debate

the merits and the demerits of what face us today as a country: the things that bind us,

the things that have bound us, and the things we would like to shape forever and a day.

I join with the Premier today in acknowledging the

statement on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Newfoundland and Labrador's entrance

into Confederation. I would like to ask all people in the Province to take the time to

reflect on what it has meant for them personally, for the children that they will have,

and for people who come after us. More importantly, I would ask people, upon reflection,

to take the time to act to ensure that the country we now enjoy, and the things that make

us unique and different as a country, we do not at some point in time lose those very

cultural, historic things that have made Canada so unique within the global context.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to join with the Premier and the Leader of

the Opposition in marking the 50th anniversary of the entry of Newfoundland and Labrador

into the Canadian Confederation to join with the other nine provinces as part of the great

country of Canada. It was a momentous decision and a difficult one, as is evidenced by the

historical debate that still continues about the nature of the decision made in 1949.

On balance, I think we all have to agree that

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are far better off today as a part of the great nation of

Canada than we were fifty years ago. We gave up our sovereignty to be part of this great

country. It was through the leadership of Joseph Smallwood, who has to be acknowledged as

an astounding and forward thinking individual with great energy and vigour, who led the

force of Confederation and skilfully convinced a majority to join with him in seeking

Confederation.

We also have to acknowledge that this country we are now

a part of is not without its flaws, that there are still, fifty years later, concerns in

this Province about the relationship between Newfoundland and Canada, particulary as some

individuals and opinion leaders in the country treat us a poor cousin, as opposed to an

equal sister province. There are fundamental issue with respect to regional disparity and

the relationships between this Province and Ottawa that need to be addressed, and these we

will continue to struggle with.

I attended a historical symposium a week or so ago

called Encounters with the Wolf. There are many who had a lot of passionate things to say

about the state of being a Newfoundlander and Labradorian and our nationhood. Perhaps we

can take a page out of the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: Perhaps we can consider the concept

recently discussed about the province of Catalonia in Spain which regards itself as a

non-sovereign nation within Spain. It is perhaps something that Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians, particularly in our passion and our patriotism for this Province, see

ourselves, as a nation still, although within the Canadian Confederation. Our cultural and

artistic communities proudly show us that heritage, that passion, that patriotism that we

share within the Canadian Confederation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I was able to give

notice to the Leader of the Opposition; I regret I could not give notice to the Leader of

the New Democratic Party, but I think it has since been given.

I think there is one other duty that members would want

us to discharge today. When Newfoundland and Labrador became part of this great country

fifty years ago we were welcomed by our fellow Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It

gives me great pleasure today, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps the voice

of the Leader of the NDP being added to that, to extend to the people of Nunavut today

who, on tomorrow, will become Canada's newest territory, our sincere congratulations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the people of Nunavut,

of the north, who are overwhelmingly of Inuit descent, have struggled for a long time for

the creation of the new territory. They have now put in place, through an election, their

first government, elected their first leader and premier. Tomorrow will be a day of great

celebration.

We forget on occasion that our nearest neighbours are

two. First of all the Province of Quebec, with whom we share a boundary, and with whom we

share some history, and with whom we will hopefully share some future prosperities through

some new opportunities, but also we share a boundary through the great land, the big land,

Labrador, with the people of Nunavut. We share an ocean, we share the Davis Strait, we

share the turbot resource which has occupied, on occasion, the time and attention of this

place and of our people.

They are our neighbours, they are our fellow Canadians,

and I extend to the people of Nunavut congratulations and best wishes from all the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, if I could I would like to move a

resolution, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, which would read the following:

WHEREAS on April 1, 1999, the territory of Nunavut will

officially come into existence; and

WHEREAS fifty years ago, on March 31, 1949, the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador were warmly welcomed into the Canadian family as a Province

of Canada;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the hon. House of

Assembly, on its own behalf and that of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, warmly

and wholeheartedly welcome the people of Nunavut as a new territory within the Canadian

Federation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I join with the Leader of

the Government, the Premier, in welcoming Nunavut to the Canadian Confederation.

He has indicated about the things that we share in terms

of common boundary, common ocean, common resource. We also share a very common human

resource. One of the ministers, actually, in the first Cabinet in Nunavut, is none other

than a gentleman from Portugal Cove, Mr. Ed Picco.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: I am reminded of the statement earlier

about our celebrating Confederation. This is one of the other things that we have brought

to this country, significant human resource potential that has travelled all over Canada,

and people from this Province playing significant roles in business, universities and now

certainly in Nunavut as a minister.

It is also common practice, I believe, and this is more

for the people in the gallery, that much of the furniture in the House, the Table, the

Speaker's Chair, there is something from every province. When we joined Confederation,

every Province of Canada, as a physical sign of welcoming us to the Canadian Federation,

sent something that would be physically here as a visible sign of their connection with us

and our connection with them.

I would hope, and I think it would be appropriate, that

government, on behalf of all members of the Legislature, and indeed on behalf of all

people in the Province, that we at least take the time to see what is necessary so that we

can have a physical presence in the Legislature in Nunavut; to send to them, on behalf of

the people, a small token of our gratitude and a small token of the partnership that we

will be entering into with them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If it were possible to have two seconders to a motion, I

would be the second seconder.

I want to just give my own heartfelt welcome on behalf

of our caucus, and to join with them in celebrating the creation of a new territory within

Canada which is, as the Premier has noted, primarily a territory of Inuit people who are

engaged in the self-government process through a territory of Canada.

We want to wish them every success in the development of

their democratic institutions. I would also wish to acknowledge, as the Leader of the

Opposition has, that they will have the assistance of a Newfoundlander from Portugal Cove

who has been living in the Territories for some many years.

It is indeed a great step for them, and I would also

join with the Leader of the Opposition - and I noted the nod of the Premier as well - in

asking that we, as a Legislature, send a gift of this Legislature, of the Government of

Newfoundland, to the new territory of Nunavut for use in their House of Assembly, or

Legislative Assembly, whatever name they have given to it.

It is a very positive day and a hopeful day for the

future of the Inuit people in Nunavut.

MR. SPEAKER: You have all heard the resolution.

All those in favour of the resolution, `aye`.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

I declare the resolution unanimously carried.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

My questions today are for the Premier. In the last few

days, Premier, you said that the biggest reason that you are against abiding by existing

provisions of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act on emergencies by sending a

dispute to binding arbitration is because that is what governments did in the early 1990s

and that led to, a year later, wage rollbacks in Bill 16 and Bill 17.

Premier, that argument does not hold water because the

reality is that binding arbitration was never used in the early 1990s. On March 15, 1990,

many ministers in the Cabinet today were also ministers in that Cabinet. Mr. Baker, the

former President of Treasury Board, stood in the House and announced a tentative

collective agreement with nurses in the Province, and it was never sent to binding

arbitration.

The question is: Will you not admit that wage restraints

legislation, Bill 16 and Bill 17, obviously had nothing to do with the arguments being put

forward?

I would like to ask the Premier this: Doesn't that take

away some credibility and enhance and strengthen the hand of those, including those in

this Legislature, possibly on both sides of the House, that the appropriate, the right

thing to do to solve this dispute this afternoon would be to abide by the current law and

send this dispute to binding arbitration?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with

the Leader of the Opposition. The point is that settlements were reached and arrived at in

the early 1990s - I do not have the specific dates in front of me; I will undertake to

have the specific dates in front of me and convey the exact information to the Leader of

the Opposition later this day - which were more than the government of the day could

afford to sustain. By providing for those kinds of settlements, the government of the day

found itself in a position where it would have to do one of two things: either proceed

down a course of action that would result in massive and increasing deficits for the

government of the day, or to roll back those settlements.

It is my view that when a government enters into a

process that results in wage settlements that are not sustainable, unless the government

either raises taxes quite dramatically or borrows quite dramatically, that government is

being irresponsible.

As for arbitration, the most recent arbitration process

in this Province was the arbitration process, non-binding, with the RNC. That process

resulted in a recommendation for a wage settlement which was double all of the wage

settlements negotiated in the thirty-odd negotiations that have been successfully

completed on behalf of 30,000 public servants.

Every 1 per cent more applied across the system costs

$16 million. It is not hard to figure out that if you applied that arbitrated settlement

across the system, you would have a wage bill in excess of $100 million more annually for

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I can tell the House today that whether you are dealing

with 14 per cent at about $112 million, or dealing at 17 per cent at $160 million

annually, in either circumstance the fiscal capacity simply does not exist to pay the

bill. It is not a question of lack of will; it is a question of lack of money. What we are

trying to do is to be fair to everybody and at the same time to live within our means.

Government has considered all of these issues and

regrets that we have not been able to come to a negotiated settlement. Nobody wants to be

here dealing with back-to-work legislation, but we have considered the question carefully

and we are committed to the course that we have announced.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: The Premier's words were here two days

ago. I said clearly yesterday that this is a process that was followed in the Province in

1990. The government of the day found out that the settlements which were imposed were

settlements that could not be afforded. The reality was that there were no settlements

imposed by binding arbitration; that settlements were negotiated settlements. The

government of the day negotiated a collective agreement.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing that is very clear is that

today the ability to end this strike so that everybody not only saves space, but that

everybody - nurses, the system - is back up and running. The ability lies clearly in your

hands. You can agree and abide by the current Public Service Collective Bargaining Act.

The law of the land is clear: invoke those sections.

There is no sense in predetermining what will happen at

the arbitration process because you do not know. That is what binding arbitration is all

about. You do not know what will take place before you go into it. It is a leap of faith

for both parties. It could either play foul or fair equally for both, but the process in

independent. It was put in place to end - the law of the Province with respect to this was

put there to address the exact situation we find ourselves in today.

The right thing to do, the only thing to do, to end this

for everybody sake, is to pass a resolution today in this House that would send it to

binding arbitration and let the process and people get back to work, and get the system

back up and running.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the

Opposition makes a suggestion, one which government has considered very seriously, and

that is the question of going to binding arbitration.

We have considered that, not as something to be looked

at quickly, and not as something to be dismissed quickly. We have come to the conclusion

on this side of the House, and we have taken our responsibility, and we have given a

straight answer on this question over the last number of days, that a process that results

in a wage settlement being imposed in the current circumstance that will give rise to

increased demands right across the system, demands that cannot be met and that cannot be

afforded, is no solution at all.

The point about the early 1990s is that settlements were

entered into which could not be sustained. We need to remind ourselves. It is only a few

years ago that in this Legislature collective agreements right across the system were

rolled back and then frozen for year after year. That is what happened.

Mr. Speaker, the Opposition House Leader pointed out

yesterday how much the debt of the Province had increased in the previous decades, and he

went through how much it increased under each and every successive administration, but the

Opposition House Leader did not say to the House yesterday - but I sought to remind him -

is that since 1996 the debt of Newfoundland and Labrador has not gone up one dollar.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, that is because we laid

out a three-year fiscal plan. It is because we sat down and negotiated with all of the

major unions. We have attempted to negotiate with all, save one. We have come to a

framework of 7 per cent over thirty-nine months, which has been agreed by the Newfoundland

Association of Public Employees, agreed by CUPE, agreed by the Newfoundland and Labrador

Teachers' Association, an agreement which applies to tens of thousands of other taxpaying

citizens who happen to be public servants.

Mr. Speaker, if is the position of the Leader of the

Opposition that in the case of, let's take the RNC, we should settle at 14 per cent, and

in the case of nurses, the last position they put, we should settle at 17 per cent, I want

to ask the Leader of the Opposition this. Should those 30,000-plus other public servants

remain settled at 7 per cent, yes or no?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the question is clear and

so is the answer. It has been for days. If you want to continue to ask it, I will continue

to answer it, I say to the Premier.

It is the position of the Leader of the Opposition that

when you enter into collective bargaining you do so not with threats or predetermined

ideas of what you are going to bargain with. That at the end of the day in collective

bargaining it is not my way or the highway, which has been the approach of government.

It is the position of the Leader of the Opposition and

the Progressive Conservative caucus that at this point, where a consensus cannot be

reached, where a tentative agreement cannot be reached, that we do not arbitrarily impose

settlements on people, arbitrarily use high-pressure tactics throughout negotiations, but

that we respect the law of the land. It is our position that if we were in your position

today we would be announcing we would be sending it to binding arbitration. How is that

for an answer, Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, while I have not spoken

to the nurses' union today I was given their press release. They made it quite clear, very

clear I think, that they are prepared to sit down to work out a solution.

I will quote it for him: Today we wish to tell

government that it is not to late to choose the right path. We will end this legal strike

if government will agree to submit all monetary matters to binding arbitration. Although

present law gives us the right to binding arbitration on all outstanding issues, we are

willing to entertain the establishment of studies, a mediation panel to deal with issues

related to workload and casualization.

Premier, wouldn't you agree that this is a significant

compromise, that it is an olive branch, and that maybe it is one that you should seriously

consider?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the press

release which the Leader of the Opposition refers to. It is interesting that the nurses'

union has offered to discuss other than through binding arbitration all other issues.

Because the truth is that the announcement by the Minister of Health of new positions,

both the conversion of casuals to permanent, and new permanent positions, was never what

caused the inability to reach an agreement.

The simple truth is - and I know when I say this it

makes some people uncomfortable - we are still in a strike today, and we refuse to come to

an agreement today. We are still in the position we are in for one reason and one reason

only. That reason is money. Yes, it is. I have been privy to these negotiations and I know

of what I speak. The blunt reality is that on matters of workload these proposals which

have been on the table have been the basis for agreement. The only outstanding matter is

money.

The position put to the government, the last position,

was that the nurses' union negotiating team wanted, according to their own public

comments, a 17 per cent wage settlement. In the absence of a yes answer from the

government we were told that they would ask to be released from conciliation. We never

left the table.

We never asked to be released from conciliation. The

nurses' union did. I do not know why what was on the table, which also included additional

compensation over and above that - and the nurses need to hear this, and citizens of

Newfoundland and Labrador need to hear this - what was on the table was worth another $8

million to nurses over the life of this contract. I do not know what nurses have been

told. That is the truth.

Mr. Speaker, we made a real effort, a genuine effort,

beyond the last offer and beyond what has been offered to other public servants to

recognize and respect nurses. The answer we were given was: Not enough. A request was made

for a release from conciliation and the nurses' union left the table, walked away.

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

the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Premier, yesterday you and the

President of Treasury Board stated there was a imminent crisis in the system. I have no

doubt that as each day goes by the system becomes more stressed. Nobody questions that. I

was surprised to pick up this morning a statement by the St. John's health care board. The

St. John's Health Care Corporation is moving to distance itself from the government's move

to legislate nurses back to work.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?

MR. E. BYRNE: A press release. The St. John's health

board says a crisis has not arrived yet. The government's action was prompted by a letter

from the Province's health care association saying some boards are facing imminent crisis.

The St. John's board has now issued a news release stressing there is no immediate danger.

The Corporation says it is managing to care for patients, thanks to the cooperation from

striking nurses and essential nurses -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: - and its remaining staff. The

Corporation also makes it clear it that it supports the right of nurses to strike.

The reason I raise it, Premier, is that yesterday,

because of the goings-on in the House, if we did not commit to an immediate debate to be

taken care of in a number of hours the place was going to fall apart. The question is -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, that is not what I am saying at

all.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The question is: What does it say

about the statement made yesterday? These are the very corporations that were supposedly

part of the writing of the letter yesterday, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have been very puzzled

by the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition. I have been in politics for nineteen

years, in parliament for sixteen years, and in the House of Assembly for three years. I

have often seen, and I have myself, as an Opposition member, raised questions to hold

governments accountable, but I have never seen a Leader of the Opposition act as a

cheerleader for a public service union on strike. That is the behaviour that is being

undertaken today by somebody who says he wants to be the arbiter of the public purse.

We have seen something else which is totally

irresponsible. I sat in yesterday on a meeting with the health critic and with the Leader

of the Opposition where they met personally with the Chair of the St. John's health care

board, with the Executive Director of the Newfoundland and Labrador Health and Community

Services Association, and with the Executive Director of the community services group as

well. They were told directly in my presence - the Minister of Health was also present -

that a crisis was pending; a request was made to end this labour dispute for the sake of

the health care system and those that depend upon it. Questions were asked, it was a short

time frame, and an offer was made to the Opposition party that if they wanted more

information a more detailed briefing could be provided.

We have just seen the Leader of the Opposition

deliberately take out of context words spoken by the St. John's Health Care Corporation to

say the crisis has not yet arrived, to say that there is no problem and no issue. Mr.

Speaker, I have a release which has gone out in the last hour by Mr. Peddle, the Executive

Director -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer quickly,

please.

PREMIER TOBIN: - of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Health and Community Services Association. Let me quote Mr. Peddle: The health system has

concerns over the length of time that may be required to pass this legislation. Delays

will further compromise the system's ability to continue to provide a safe level of care

to the public.

Let me quote one other line, from Eileen Young, the

Chair of the Association's labour relations committee. Let me quote this line, it is about

an hour old: The issue is not over politics but over the health safety of the public. All

parties need to come together to end this work stoppage.

Leader of the Opposition, take your responsibility!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I completely concur with

the Premier. If he would like to end the strike I will ask him one more time: If you are

so convinced of that statement, send it to binding arbitration.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the government has taken

its responsibility. We have a bill which is proposed and will come before the House, we

hope, this afternoon.

The Leader of the Opposition last night said that while

his party could not accommodate debate of this bill yesterday, and could not accommodate

debate of the bill last night, could not accommodate debate of the bill this morning, that

he would be ready to debate the bill if: the Premier would give up his gala.

Every member on this side of the House will be in this

Legislature tonight, not at any gala, ready to debate this bill and to respond to the call

of the Chair of the St. John's health care board, Eileen Young, to ensure that all parties

come together to end the work stoppage. We have taken our responsibility, I say to the

Leader of the Opposition. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition sees some

political opportunity here but, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Leader of the Opposition -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier to conclude his answer

quickly.

PREMIER TOBIN: - it is time to take your

responsibility seriously and to facilitate this debate and to respond to the request to

end this urgent and emerging situation, to prevent a crisis before a crisis occurs and

lives are lost, I say to the Leader of the Opposition!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I can say this for

certain, that I will not stand in this Legislature and let you, sir, hijack the democratic

process on behalf of the people in this Province. That is for sure!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: The Premier should know - if he does

not know then he has not been communicating with his House Leader - that we are prepared

to facilitate debate. I have said it publicly and I will say it for the record here again

today. We are not going to obstruct for the sake of being obstructionist, but we are not

going to facilitate to the point where the proper and due process of this Assembly, which

belongs to everybody, Premier, not you, is hijacked. That is not going to happen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to ask the Premier this

question. For someone who relies so heavily on public opinion polls when designing and

proceeding with policies and legislation, which we have seen in the past, obviously I

think government must have been polling over the last three or four days, maybe longer.

The poll released today shows that 88 per cent of the people of the Province support

nurses in their request that the law on binding arbitration be upheld as it now exists.

The question is again - and the Premier fails to answer

it, fails to understand it, because he is predetermining what is about to take place in

binding arbitration if he refers it to that. There is no predetermination.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Just submit it to a binding

arbitration. The question is again, Premier: Why won't you end the strike, do what is

appropriate and proper, abide by the law of the land, and send this outstanding dispute to

binding arbitration?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the

Opposition is asking the same question over and over. I can only assume that in giving him

the answer four or five times the Leader of the Opposition is playing to the captive

audience in the galleries. That is all that the Leader of the Opposition is doing.

I would go further. I would say that what the Leader of

the Opposition is doing is becoming very transparent to the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador. Yes, I do not think there was a high degree of maturity last evening in standing

and saying: That providing we can put aside the gala - and only on that basis - will we

sit and legislate this matter in the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, that is not a very

mature approach to a very serious public policy question, I say to the Leader of the

Opposition.

Let me say this. I have not seen any polls because

government has not done any polls -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if I could finish.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer quickly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: I can say this, Mr. Speaker. I have

not seen any poll that says that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador believe that a

settlement two and one-half times larger than that given to any other public servant

should be given to one union. If such a question was asked it was not released. I have not

seen a statement or a poll saying that 17 per cent is fair for nurses and 7 per cent is

fair for every other public servant. If that is the question I did not see that one

either. I have not seen a poll that says that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want to see

their wage bill increased by $160 million a year or their taxes increased to pay for them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the Premier to conclude his answer

quickly.

PREMIER TOBIN: Those questions are not in the poll,

Mr. Speaker, by design.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and

Community Services. Minister, as a former practising nurse and a former head of the

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union, you should know that nurses over the last several

years have taken on greater responsibilities and more duties as they deal with an ever

increasing higher level of acuity among their patients. Don't you agree that nurses

deserve to be judged and paid accordingly on the skills and the demands of their job and

not on a comparison with other public servants?

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

Community Services.

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

During the whole process of negotiations a number of

proposals were put on the table by the nurses' union and responded to by the government

which I believe would have begun to address those very same issues. They are over and

above the classification and review process which is available to anybody in the system at

any point in time based on workload.

We all recognize, and we value, the work of nurses and

other health care workers in our system. We did try to find ways to address those in a

very special way, for nurses only. We did that with all sincerity at the table. We also

know that we have a limited ability to pay and we are only able to do what we are able to

do.

If you ask me personally what I would like to do, if you

ask personally what every one of us would like to do, we would like to quadruple what is

on the table, but right now we cannot do that because we cannot afford it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the

Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister refused to answer my question, if she

thinks they should be judged on the demands of the job, the skills. She refused to answer

that.

Nurses in this Province, I say to the minister, are paid

significantly less than in every other Canadian province. Starting nurses are paid

anywhere from $5,000 to $15,000 less per year, I would say. Nova Scotia pays its starting

nurses 29 per cent more, and small Prince Edward Island pays them 17 per cent more. Other

provinces treat their nurses better, I say to the minister. Why, Minister, do you place a

much lower value on the work that nurses do in our Province?

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

Communities Services.

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

No, I will not let the former Leader of the Opposition

put words in my mouth. I do not undervalue the work of nurses. In fact, I have the

greatest respect for nurses and I know how hard they work.

[There was a commotion in the gallery.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I do.

[There was a commotion in the gallery.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I also know, Mr. Speaker, that it

is important to recognize -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take her seat, please.

I want to inform visitors to the gallery that

interruptions of this nature will not be tolerated. If it continues then the Chair will

have no choice but to clear the gallery.

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

I think it is also important to note that our wage

package is comparable with other wage packages right across the country. If you are going

to compare the base salary, you have to be fair and look at the base salary of every

worker. If you were to look at the base salary of the people that work in our hospitals,

the base salary of those who work in the public sector in this building, the base salary

of physicians, the base salary of anyone, it is lower in this Province. There is no doubt

about it. In terms of the percentage, I think it is important to note that we have done a

lot in this round of negotiations to try to begin to address those needs, including

identifying the extra staff to put in the hospitals, 125 new nursing positions, 225

conversions all together.

I think it is important to note that while I know there

are people who are not happy and not pleased - and I know I am not undervaluing what they

are saying - that we are doing the best that we can with the financial situation we have.

We have also put in place workload measurement systems so that we can actually look at

that, so we were able to measure the workload and identify the staff, particulary the

staff mix. Also, we are one of the only provinces in Canada that has the highest skill mix

ratio, particularly in our long-term care sector, of nursing assistants, or more recently

called LPNs with RNs.

We know there is challenges, and we know it is not easy,

but we will continue, Mr. Speaker, to try to address the issue as we can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On March 20, 1990 the President of Treasury Board stood

in this House and announced government had reached a tentative agreement with nurses. It

cannot be considered precedent setting, the President of Treasury Board said. He said: We

have to recognize nurses are a special case. Our objective is to provide a settlement to

nurses which recognizes that they have fallen behind other sectors and other provinces in

Atlantic Canada.

He went on to say, "With this offer we hope to slow

down or stop the loss of nurses to other jurisdictions and to other professions within

this Province." He said, "Other bargaining groups are not in the same situation.

Each group will be dealt with based on their own particular needs and the Province's

ability to meet those needs."

I ask the minister this. With the very same Liberal

government in in 1990, why, with many of the same Cabinet ministers sitting in the very

same Cabinet, are nurses any different today when the wage disparity is different?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this question put by the

Opposition House Leader and the health critic gives me an opportunity to correct the

record -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: I want to respond to your question.

It gives me the opportunity to correct the record as set out by the Leader of the

Opposition and now by the Opposition House Leader. Because the Leader of the Opposition

has just gotten up and suggested there were no disputes settled by binding arbitration,

therefore no binding arbitration settlements rolled back, and why was the Premier

misleading the House yesterday?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, for the record, NAPE

contracts, hospital support - Waterford Hospital, central laundry, correctional officers,

lab and X-ray - in 1991 these five contracts were finalized through binding arbitration

under the Public Service Collective Service Bargaining Act and the act representing

restraint -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am delighted to hear the answer. The Premier rose in

his place to correct what he considered a misstatement by the Leader of the Opposition. In

no way was he attempting to answer a question. It is not in order. I have indicated that

if he wants to answer the question it is his prerogative.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

Will the hon. Premier conclude his answer quickly,

please?

PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will.

Not only were these rolled back, but so too was the

agreement referred to, in 1990, with nurses also rolled back. The point is that every one

of these agreements, because they were not affordable, were rolled back. That is why it is

important to be careful, to be honest about what we can afford to pay, and to make

agreements we can keep, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure today to present - I do not know how

many names, in the thousands I would assume, I received this just before coming into the

House here - petitions from people all over this Province.

I will read the prayer of the petition:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned

residents of the district - Mr. Speaker, in this specific one it is Labrador South; I have

ones from Bonavista South, and all over the Province - in the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador, humbly submit:

WHEREAS the nurses of our Province are the heart of

health care; and

WHEREAS the nurses of our Province deserve to be

respected for the work that they perform; and

WHEREAS there is a need for more nurses; and

WHEREAS this Province is facing severe nursing shortages

in the future; and

WHEREAS nurses have a right to binding arbitration as a

final dispute settling mechanism;

WHEREFORE we request that the hon. House of Assembly

respect the work of nurses, providing a more permanent and stable workforce, and permit

nurses to have the right to binding arbitration as provided by the laws of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, there are petitions here, just to make

reference to some of the areas, from Labrador South, I have seen them from Forteau, L'Anse

au Clair, L'Anse-au-Loup, Southern Labrador, Elliston, Bonavista, Little Catalina, all

over that area of Bonavista South. They have petitions here from Lake Melville, Burgeo,

Exploits, Grand Falls-Windsor, the town. You name it, these are from all over this

Province. Thousands of people are calling on this government to be fair.

I made reference today to the Liberal government of the

former premier, Clyde Wells, whose President of Treasury Board stood in the House of

Assembly and said: This tentative settlement reached with nurses cannot be considered to

be precedent setting for all bargaining unions to come to the table. We cannot treat all

bargaining unions alike. He said, "Mr. Speaker, this settlement recognizes that

nurses are a special case." He said, "Newfoundland is not the first province to

recognize this."

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I might add, I say to the Minister of

Mines and Energy, we are rolling the clock back. I am not sure but you were in Cabinet. If

you were not, you were parliamentary assistant.

MR. GRIMES: I (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You were in Cabinet at the time. Your

President of Treasury Board said: Our objective is to provide a settlement to nurses that

recognizes they have fallen behind other sectors of the public service, and they have

fallen behind other provinces that have special problems that need to be addressed. I

might add that we are 50 per cent with starting nurses behind one particular province in

Canada. They are 50 per cent more. With this offer we hope to slow down or stop the loss

of nurses.

I might add too, I say to the Member for Terra Nova, who

rose the last day on something that was completely inaccurate - and I will give him a copy

of that from Hansard. He was trying to distract away from the intent of this petition, to

give more nurses to the Province.

Mike Harris in Ontario said he will give 12,000 nurses.

There are 6,456 hired already. If we were going to give that same ratio that Ontario was

adding to theirs, we would need 600 more nurses in this Province today to deliver and care

for the people in our Province. We have different demographics than Ontario, we do not get

the economies of population like Ontario does.

Minister, in comparison, we would need 600 more nurses,

not the 125 that you claimed is costing us $60,000 a nurse. That is what you stated in

your statement. That is on the public record of this House and in the public of this

Province. The minister stated it, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. The

minister stated it in her statement, and I responded to that particular statement. They

are trying to twist and make political this particular issue. It is not political, I tell

you.

We are very sincere about this issue. We have been

sincere about issues of health care since I came into this House of Assembly and have been

raising those issues, not just during a nurses' strike. It has been raised in almost 90

per cent of the days in this House. I have stood and raised important issues in this

House, and presented petitions from people all over this Province.

The public is not buying the manipulations and so on

going on, when over 90 per cent of the Province feel they are wrong in the process they

are going; 90 per cent in the particular poll that was done. The Premier is pretty apt at

telling us what polls are, and governing by poles.

If the Premier would govern by polls, he will do what is

right and do what 90 per cent of the people in the Province are telling us: put this to

binding arbitration. Still, he would stand here in the House and tell us that the

precedent of binding arbitration, we did it before and we had to roll it back. That is

wrong, Premier. I will not advocate -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just wanted to speak to some of the issues raised in

the petition and some of the comments made by the hon. member in presenting the petition.

Let us recollect accurately and correctly what happened

in 1990. The government of the day, of which I was a part, did absolutely buy and believe

the argument that nurses were a special case, and we were advised - because we were asking

in the Cabinet, if we give this level of increase to the nurses, will the rest of the

hospital support workers and others who have not yet negotiate understand and agree that

nurses should get a raise at this level when we know we can only pay them at a lower

level?

The answer given was yes, that would be understood in

the system because of the special and unique role of nurses. We settled with nurses and,

following with that, when the rest of the groups that the Premier mentioned in terms of

binding arbitration came to the table, there was a strike because not one of the groups,

not a single one of them, agreed that they should take a lower level of pay than the

government had just agreed weeks before with the nurses. As a result, there was a general

health care strike in the whole Province. We had management people working at places like

the Hoyles-Escasoni and others, after less than a week. The same people who are here today

came to the government and said: You must stop this strike because people's lives are at

risk.

We stopped the strike and did what the Opposition is

suggesting; we triggered the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. We went to binding

arbitration. They gave the same settlement to the rest of the public service as they gave

to the nurses. The arbitrator did not buy the case of a special status for nurses, gave

the same settlement, and seven years later - which we now finally (inaudible) - after

seven consecutive years of a wage freeze, because of the fact that the government could

not afford the increases that were arbitrated, we thought we could afford a raise just for

nurses, which is the proposition being put here -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Do not worry about anybody else, says

the president of the nurses, just for nurses. We tried that, nobody else bought the

argument, and seven years later we are finally getting to the point where after seven

consecutive years of zero we can finally offer a 7 per cent increase.

It is unfortunate that people do not understand that if

we go through the same cycle again we will here in seven or eight years time, no matter

who is the government, doing exactly the same thing, saying: We went through a process. We

did not stand firm enough; we did not convince people of the economic arguments.

This particular government has thought about this long

and hard. We do not want anybody, nurses or anybody else in the Province, to go down that

road again. That is why we will gladly debate the motion before the House today, if we get

permission.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is now 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, and we go to the

private member's resolution.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, in discussion with the

Opposition House Leader earlier, he suggested they had some other petitions they wanted to

put through and we are quite prepared - because you had some stacking up, you were saying

- by leave to allow a few more petitions. Then I would like to address the House with

respect to Bill 3.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We certainly do not mind passing today on Petitions. We

will get an opportunity tomorrow, I am sure, to get some petitions in that some members

have. They certainly want to do it before Easter recess. They have been waiting, but I

guess tomorrow is as good as today so we will pass on that.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave of the House to

revert to government business, and in particular to give first reading of Bill 3, and to

move to second reading.

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

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Official Opposition will certainly consent today to

doing first and second reading of the bill but we do not consent to move beyond second

reading today. We will certainly agree to forego Private Members' Day to do that.

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

By leave.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, if that is the case then the

rules will permit us then to begin first reading, and second reading then will take us to

nine full hours of debate, with one speaker from this side and, under the rules, the

required sixty minutes for the Leader -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: - sixty minutes for the Leader of the

Opposition, of course, and sixty minutes for the critic, and then thirty minutes for each

section 4 is guilty of an offence and is liable on

summary

conviction to a fine of $10,000 and, in the case of a continuing offence, to a fine of

$10,000 for each day or part of a day during which the offence continues.

(3) Every employee who fails to comply with

section 5 is guilty of an offence and is liable on

summary conviction to a fine of $1,000,

and in the case of a continuing offence, to a fine of $1,000 for each day or part of a day

during which the offence continues."

Clause 8, the last clause, indicates that this bill

takes priority over the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act.

This is strong legislation; however, it is necessary. We

have tried every way possible to reach a deal, an agreement, with nurses, and the nurses

have not been willing to recognize the financial situation of this government. I have

outlined the situation earlier and I am not going to waste any further time by going

through that again.

I would like to conclude my remarks today by reminding

people why we are here today. We are here today for a very serious reason, and I think all

members of this House should realize how serious it is.

Last night I had on the Open Line show and I heard a

caller whose wife had been to her physician and had determined that there was a lump in

her breast, and the scheduled mammograph could not occur because of this situation. That

is only one example. Anyone who watched TV last night during the news saw another one, and

more will come forward every day. We have a responsibility, as a government, to act on

this important situation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: We have received clear indication from

the Newfoundland and Labrador Health Care Association, both yesterday with a formal

correspondence, a briefing both to ourselves and the Opposition, and today a news release

saying we have about twenty-four hours to put our health care system back where it should

be. It is a very serious situation and it should not be taken lightly. Would I be standing

in this place if this were not a serious situation?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: No, I would not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I am confident that all

members appreciate the extreme gravity of this situation. We are in a position where

government has to act.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the question be now put.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board has moved the

previous question. Honourable members understand that the previous question precludes all

amendments to the main question, and that once all members have spoken on this question

the question will be put and, if carried, a vote will then be taken on the second reading

without any further debate.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. FUREY: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. FUREY: Just briefly, Mr. Speaker. I had said

earlier in the session that it would be limited to nine hours and that is accurate, but

when you moved the previous question it reduces the debating time for the Leader of the

Opposition and the critic. We by leave will revert to make sure that they have the proper

time to debate this bill and give the hour each to them.

MR. SPEAKER: Agreed?

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is not a happy day for collective bargaining in

Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not a happy day for nurses in particular in our Province.

In fact, this piece of legislation that we are debating that is entitled

An Act To Provide

For The Resumption And Continuation Of Health And Community Services is a piece of

legislation we should not have before the House at all.

The laws of this Province are clear. This piece of

legislation is not necessary. It circumvents the laws of this Province. It says that when

we do not have laws that we like or which we feel do not address our particular political

purpose, then we will create new laws. The implications for that in a democracy are

obvious. They certainly say to everybody that the law of this Province can be changed at

any time to suit the political agenda of the government in power.

A few days ago an

article appeared in the local paper

and it was from Nancy Healey Dove of Gander. In the Letters to the Editor of The

Telegram - she did not write the headline, but it says it all; it says, "Nurses

want a little respect" - Nancy Healey Dove tells of her trauma on the last night when

she was leaving the hospital in Gander knowing that the next day she might not return to

her place of work. It tells about her trauma last Tuesday evening. She says:

"I can't describe the emotions I felt as I stepped

through the hospital doors, not knowing when I would return. I am sure I was not the only

nurse who was torn. We are in the business of caring. It was not an easy decision for us

as professionals to go on strike. This was, indeed, a desperate measure in response to the

desperate working conditions we face daily."

She also writes:

"Every day, we are instrumental in the life and

death situations facing our patients. We are patient advocates. To say that we are not

worth extra money is an indirect reflection on how the government sees the patient as

well."

She says: "I do not want to be on strike. Frankly,

it goes against the very core of who I am." She says that she feels that Cabinet was

counting on her work ethic and the work ethic of nurses in believing that they would not

take strike action. This nurse says that what she wants more than anything else is respect

for who she is, what she does, and what her mandate is in the community.

Nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador today are saying

that they do not feel that this government respects them in the way that the government

should. Day after day we have seen in the last week here petitions arriving to this House.

What is the prayer of these petitions? What do these petitions all have in common? They

have one theme in common. They are saying, clearly: We, the nurses of Newfoundland and

Labrador, want to be respected, we want to be bargained with in good faith, we want

government to be fair to nurses, we want government to be focused on patient care, we want

government to provide a working atmosphere where the nurses themselves feel valued, and

where they feel they can give more than is dictated in any collective agreement.

Because you can never write into a collective agreement

the kind of work ethic that nurses bring. Words are words on paper. Professionalism cannot

be put down in all cases to words on the printed page. What nurses want is to be treated

as professionals, to be respected for who they are. They want the government not to lose

sight of what it is doing here today, not to lose sight of the impact it will have when

nurses are asked to go back, or forced to go back, to their workplaces. Because if we are

going to have good health care we have to have well paid, well respected, caring

professionals in our hospitals and in our nursing homes.

The nurses want the government to be more focused on the

care of the patient. They want the issues of casualization addressed. I am told that up to

25 per cent of all nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador - up until some modifications made

and announced by the minister in the last day or so - are casuals.

I know what it is like to be in the administrative

position, to know what it is like to have to call in - in the teaching profession -

teachers who do not have permanent jobs but who sit by their phones day after day and

morning after morning, wondering: Will I get a call? I also know what it is like to have

on my staff a teacher who waited eleven years before that teacher was told: You have a

permanent contract.

Casualization can never, ever be totally eliminated. We

on this side recognize that. It is necessary in the management of health care to have some

nurses who are going to be casuals, but 25 per cent of a profession is far too high. Even

with the changes that have been announced by the minister and the government the last few

days, it will still put the ratio of casuals to full-time far higher than it is in most

other places.

Nurses want a fair and equitable wage and benefits

package. They want government to live up to the commitments that have been made to them.

Sometimes when you are told you are special, or when you are told you are important, or

when you are told you are necessary, and when you are told you are valued, and then when

it comes time to deliver on that, when you go to your government who has told you all of

these things and you are asked the question: Would you please put some monetary value on

that?, Mr. Speaker, that is what nurses are asking for in Newfoundland and Labrador today.

I want to address Bill 3. The bill's intent is obvious.

We all know it, it has been stated many times. It is a bill to circumvent the normal

collective bargaining processes. The Act is rather self-explanatory in its purpose. It

directs the union, when this act is passed, to put into action a process that will ensure

that all nurses who are on strike return immediately to their work stations. It causes the

union to cease and desist its collective bargaining rights that it is now engaged in.

It also imposes on nurses a new collective agreement. It

says that all of the weeks of bargaining, all of the time that led up from the last summer

and since 1995, all of the presentations that have been made to Treasury Board and to the

health care boards, they have all come down to what we are doing here this day. They have

all come down to what is going to happen in this House partially today. Unless the Premier

decides that the current law of this Province is to be employed, then the law will be

changed. We on this side can only debate this legislation for limited numbers of minutes

and hours.

We recognize the parliamentary democracy here. We

disagree with it, with the actions taken. That is our right. We have offered alternatives

to the government. They have chosen not to accept them and for that they will be judged

and judgement will, I am sure, be swift in some cases, more long term in others, and

severe as well. What really bothers me with this piece of legislation, other than it is

going directly against the current law of the Province and circumventing the Public

Service Collective Bargaining Act, is

section

Section 7 talks about offences and penalties. The

minister started to read it, she got to the end of the first clause, and she must have

been rather embarrassed because she stopped. She quit because she only got to the first

part of it where it says in 7(1): "Where the union fails to comply with

section 4 or

subsection 5(2), it is guilty of an offence and is liable on

summary conviction to a fine

of $100,000, and in the case of a continuing offence, to a fine of $100,000 each day or

part of a day during which the offence continues." That is rather severe. It

certainly puts into place a severe set of penalties.

Clause 7(2) reads: "Every official or

representative of the union who fails to comply with

section 4 is guilty of an offence and

is liable on

summary conviction to a fine of $10,000 and, in the case of a continuing

offence, to a fine of $10,000 for each day or part of a day during which the offence

continues." In other words, every single member of the executive, and I guess all the

locals and their executives, all of these people are officials or representatives of the

union, can be fined up to $10,000 per person per day or part of a day.

Clause 7(3) reads: "Every employee who fails to

comply with

section 5 is guilty of an offence and is liable on

summary conviction to a

fine of $1,000, and in the case of a continuing offence, to a fine of $1,000 for each day

or part of a day during which the offence continues." Every nurse in Newfoundland and

Labrador who fails to comply with this legislation can be found guilty on

summary

conviction to a fine of a maximum amount of $1,000 per day.

My colleague the Opposition House Leader said, when the

minister was reading

section 1 and part of

section 2, this was draconian.

Mr. Speaker, it is stronger than that really. I cannot

think of all the words I might use, but it is certainly rather absurd. It paints a picture

that nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador are all potential, I suppose, offenders at the

court. They certainly must have great fears. That is not the kind of people I know in

health care. These are not the kind of people who need this kind of strong, intimidating,

absurd, illogical, preposterous, outrageous and wild kind of penalties imposed.

Mr. Speaker, nurses are not like that. Nurses in

Newfoundland and Labrador do not need that kind of measure put into legislation to tell

them that when this House passes this legislation - which it will do by a vote of a

majority of the people elected, not with the will or support of the Official Opposition -

nurses do not need that kind of thing. That is the kind of thing that was occurring at the

bargaining table.

I have never heard of it before - and I have it directly

from people involved in the negotiations - when you go into negotiate, you do not go in

and say: You had better agree with what we are doing or else, if you do not, here is what

is going to happen to you.

This kind of information came back to me some days ago

with these very same, identical fines and penalties put in place. I had to say to myself:

That is not what bargaining is about. What is going on here? Why would a reasonable,

sensible, caring, employer going into bargaining and say immediately: I want to tell you,

folks, if you do not agree with what we want, this is what is going to happen to you.

Mr. Speaker, that certainly is not the process that is

implicit in the word "collective" when we talk about collective bargaining. The

word "collective" means coming together.

When you go into bargaining, and when you start off with

the premise that we are going to threaten you, we are going to be high and mighty, we have

written the conclusions - it is like the wild West; we will give you a fair trail before

we hang you. When you go into a collective bargaining process and you start from the

beginning and say: We want to tell you, this is what we are going to do, we will win...

That is what was said at the bargaining table. At the

bargaining table it started off -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: I say to the hon. minister, it

started off - the phrase was used and was said repeatedly: Don't forget, we will win.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, this particular bill

reflects that kind of single-mindedness, that kind of pointed direction, that kind of

absurd and illogical approach to collective bargaining.

The truth is, collective bargaining with the nurses

failed before the first session. It would not have mattered if there had been face-to-face

bargaining.

The minister, when she rose a few minutes ago, made a

great deal out of the fact that there was not face-to-face bargaining from last Wednesday

until conciliation broke off a few days ago. It is no wonder.

In my time I have sat across the bargaining table, most

often as a employer, and I have been associated with a union for a long, long time. I can

only imagine the atmosphere that is created when your bargaining team is confronted with

these kinds of statements; when it is known, long before the legislation is printed and

circulated, what the penalties are.

I have known for days and days what these penalties

would be. In other words, the action that was taken at the bargaining table predisposed

what the result would be, there was a predetermination of the end, and it was also ready

and known to the bargainers what the penalties would be for noncompliance. It is no wonder

that we in this Province today have difficulties.

Madam Minister, when she rose a few moments ago, seemed

to have cast the blame on nurses. She talked about 7 per cent being a good offer. In fact,

she said that the government have bargained in good faith; it was all the nurses' fault.

They are the ones who did not come back to the bargaining table. She spent a great deal of

her time, in her rather short presentation - a good deal of it was giving a

rationalization of why the government is doing what it is doing. A good bit of it was, in

a backhanded way, bashing nurses.

We know there is stress in the system. We know that

there has to be a resolution. We on this side have said, and said again today by the

Leader of the Opposition, we believe that this matter is exactly what the Public Service

Collective Bargaining Act was designed to address.

The government's heavy-handed approach to collective

bargaining is an affront not just to nurses; it is an affront to everything that we

believed in this Province about collective bargaining. It is an affront to every member of

every bargaining unit in Newfoundland and Labrador, and it is an affront to the citizens

of this Province, because what the government seeks to do today is to railroad its will.

It is seeking to say that we will get our way, regardless. It is going to railroad into

legislation its will. It is suspending the legislation contained in the Public Service

Collective Bargaining Act. It is circumventing the laws of our Province. Not only that,

but its approach is unprecedented. It is reckless, it is wrong, it intimidates the nurses,

and it is an insult to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It is an affront to the law, and

it makes a mockery out of good will and the very term of collective bargaining.

We on this side today, and we did so yesterday as well,

say to the government: It is still not too late to change your mind, come to your senses,

and to say that this senseless and absurd action that we are doing, this road we have

taken, is wrong. This pathway we are on is leading us astray. It is leading us to a

direction and a destination that we do not want to be in. It is time - and there is still

time - for this government to say that they will change their mind and let the laws of

this Province be used as they are supposed to be used.

We on this side believe that binding arbitration as

contained in sections 30 to 37 of the Public Services Collective Bargaining Act is an

approach that should have been considered. We on this side as well have given the

commitment that if that approach were used, we would give our word and we would rapidly

pass the necessary resolution to give effect to that particular

section of the act.

It would take us about twenty minutes to do it. In

twenty minutes from now we could have this particular strike on the pathway to binding

arbitration. It takes about twenty minutes for the process to be put in place, and that

means all of the procedural things that would occur in the House.

We say to the government we will facilitate that

resolution. We will give our word that we believe that is the best pathway to go. We would

compliment the government, we would give them credit for realizing that what nurses really

want is respect. They believe so sincerely in their cause that they are prepared, and I

note the President of the nurses' union, Debbie Forward, has said publicly that she would

be prepared to go today and accept binding arbitration as a resolution.

I will get to it a little later on in the afternoon, as

my time goes on, to the press release that was released today in which there is an olive

branch out to government, that says: We want to be cooperative, and when she says what she

and her union would be prepared to do.

In the hard-nosed world of Liberal politics in

Newfoundland and Labrador today, when people have their minds made up - and they have been

made up for weeks and months in advance - we do not expect the government to be standing

in the next hour or so and saying to nurses: We are sorry, we were wrong. They should do

it, but they will not.

We on this side say to government again now: Look at the

options, consider the options, consider closing this particular debate that we are into

now, and reverting to a procedure which would invoke the Public Service Collective

Bargaining Act. We could have the nurse back on the job in twenty-four hours.

I made reference a few moments ago to the statement made

at 11:00 this morning by Debbie Forward. She is the provincial President of the

Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union. I will read from that article. She says: We will

end this legal strike if government will agree to submit all monitory matters to binding

arbitration. Although present law gives us the right to binding arbitration on all

outstanding issues, we are willing to entertain the establishment of studies and a

mediation panel to deal with the issues relating to workload and casualization. This is an

offer we believe to be fair to all parties. It is a compromise. Although we have no

guarantees we would win a binding arbitration, we are legally entitled to this process. It

is a process that would provide nurses, who have sacrificed so much this past eight days,

their right to submit at least a portion of our dispute to an independent third party for

resolution.

Be it noted for the record, that 11:00 this morning,

three or fours before this debate was to take place, the President of the nurses' union,

Debbie Forward, put forward a compromise proposal. Let the record also show that when the

Leader of the Opposition stood in his place today and raised this very question with the

Premier it was rejected outright.

Debbie Forward and the nurses want to resolve this

dispute. They want to resolve it in a manner provided for in legislation. They do not want

to see their rights taken away by an arbitrary piece of legislation imposed by this

government. She also says, and I will read from the article: Since the beginning of this

process government has threatened nurses. That is strong language. They have made

statements like: You cannot win. They told us that we had the right to strike but that if

we did they would legislate nurses back to work and impose a 7 per cent settlement.

Today we see government living up to those threats. We

see what happens when you bargain in bad faith. We see what happens when you do not live

up to your promises. We see what happens when you say one thing on the eve of an election

and you say something else some weeks later.

Nurses have won in Newfoundland and Labrador today.

Nurses are winning in this Province today. Nurses have won one thing that government

cannot take from them, and that is they have won the hearts of Newfoundlanders and

Labradorians from coast to coast, from Cape Chidley to Cape Race. They have won the hearts

successfully because the people of Newfoundland and Labrador believe that nurses have a

just cause. The moral high ground in all of this belongs not to the government; the moral

high ground belongs to the nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As Debbie Forward says in her statement, this is not a

happy day for them. It is perhaps a dark day for collective bargaining in all Newfoundland

and Labrador. It is probably the darkest day in the last twenty-five or thirty years. It

probably goes back to the time when collective bargaining did not exist, and when

employees - and I was one of them. When I started teaching I had to come into the Province

with our association - we essentially came in with our hand out. We said: What have you

got for us this year? What can you give us?

I thought we had gone beyond that. I thought we had gone

beyond the time when collective bargaining amounted to employees going into government

with their cap and saying: Would you put a few pennies in our collection plate because we

need to live too?

Throughout the time when I was a teacher in Newfoundland

and Labrador - I began teaching in September 1961 -

MR. SULLIVAN: How old are you?

MR. H. HODDER: How old am I? The Opposition House

Leader knows. Mr. Speaker, I was a very young teacher in 1961.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're still young, Harvey.

MR. H. HODDER: Still young. Mr. Speaker, I digress

only to say that we in the employee groups connected to government over the last forty

years have won the right to bargain collectively. We have moved on from the days when we

would come to government and say: What do you have to offer us? We finally got to the

stage where we wrote down some of the things we wanted. We did not go in and say: What do

you have for us? We even had the nerve, had the audacity, to sit down and say: Employer,

here are some of the things we would like to have. (Inaudible) to them we said: We do not

know whether you want to have this or not but we would like for you to consider this and

so on and so forth. Then finally we got collective bargaining. It was a great day for

employees in Newfoundland and Labrador when they were given the right to have collective

bargaining.

Today nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador have had that

right taken away. They have been told: We do not mean what we say. They have been told:

You can come to bargain with government but we are going to predetermine the outcome. That

tells us a great deal about bad faith. It makes a mockery of collective bargaining

processes. For nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador today this is a sad day. For the whole

entire union movement in Newfoundland and Labrador this is a black day. It is a day of

regret. It is a day of shame on government. It is a day when government should be

embarrassed to be bringing this affront to the process in this Province. This action will

have long-lasting and negative implications to collective bargaining in Newfoundland and

Labrador; not only for the nurses, but for all of us.

I know some members on the opposite side of the House,

they struggled with this because they too are advocates for rights. It is sad when they

could not convince their colleagues and their caucus to do something different. What we

see on the other side of the House today are the people who have traditionally stood up

for individual rights - some of them are in Cabinet -, people who have a history of

standing up for union personnel in this Province. Some of them have long histories, not in

the union movement, for standing up for the rights of individuals. They have been

trampled, they have been pushed aside, or they have been convinced that what they are

doing here is right. I just hope it is not the latter. There has to be a human

consciousness in that group on the other side of this House.

I cannot believe that people can vary so far from the

pathways they have walked in such recent times. Some members on the other side of the

House have walked the pathways of the union movement. They have stood shoulder to shoulder

with me when I stood in the galleries of this House in 1983 when teachers were on strike.

I spent day after day here for three weeks. I know what it is like to be in the galleries.

I have been there.

I say to members opposite, examine your consciousness,

remember the pathways that you helped the union movement make in this Province, look again

at where you have been, and ask yourself the basic question: are you happy where you are

going? That is what it is all about. It is all about having the will to stand and say: I

believe in what I have done. I believe in the pathways that I have walked. I will not

abandon my principles just because it is convenient, or because some political stripe

tells me that should be the way.

I call upon members opposite, some of whom I have known

for thirty or thirty-five years. I know what they are about, or I know what they were

about - because they have varied so far from where they walked in previous times.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I want to address for a few moments a telephone survey,

a public opinion poll that was done by the nurses to let the members opposite know what

the public is saying. I am going to read some of the questions, and I am going to read

some of the responses. I want to enter them into the public record.

This telephone poll was done over the last few days.

There were 400 fully completed interviews with heads of households in Newfoundland and

Labrador. Numbers were generated randomly from the directory of all phone numbers in the

Newfoundland and Labrador telephone directories, so every person in this Province had an

equal chance of being selected. The telephone survey was done on March 29 and March 30,

Monday and Tuesday of this week, so it is very much up-to-date.

We know that the government opposite is always

interested in surveys. Traditionally in the past we have had a survey-conscious

government. They have done surveys over and over again.

Last year, I forget now how much money was spent on

public opinion polls but it amounted to tens of thousands of dollars - $60,000?

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) more than that.

MR. H. HODDER: More than that, all tolled. These

results are accurate within a plus or minus 4.78 per cent. Simply put, the results can be

generalized. I want to say that these results have a high degree of validity, a high

degree of reliability; therefore, we want to read into the record what ordinary

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are saying. What is the opinion of the rank and file?

What is the opinion of the people in the Port au Port Peninsula? What is the opinion of

the people in the Great Northern Peninsula? What is the opinion of people in Pouch Cove,

or the opinion of the people in Grand Bank?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Smith): Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the first question that

was asked was one of what was called forced choice. The question was: Overall, if you were

forced to chose, which side would you support the most, nurses or government?

Mr. Speaker, before I give the results, I want to make

it clear that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are very versed in this situation. It

has been in all the media. It has been in the public press. It has been in - I suppose

with all the advertising that has been done by government, I am sure the results will show

that they have had a tremendous impact on public opinion, because they have been

advertising with the idea that they want to turn the public of Newfoundland and Labrador

to the government's side, making sure they do not listen to president of the nurses'

union.

The question was: Overall, if you were forced to choose,

which side would you support the most, nurses or government? Nurses, 80 per cent;

government, 8 per cent; don't know, 11 per cent. That says that support for nurses in

Newfoundland and Labrador today is ten times higher for the nurses than it is for the

government; 80 per cent to 8 per cent. That tells the government: You are on the wrong

track, folks.

That says that if the people of this Province were

forced to choose today, 80 percent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians all over this

Province would say that the nurses would have their support and the government would not.

The second question talks about the incidence of

thinking that nurses should be able to negotiate their own salary increase over 7 per

cent, knowing that arrangements have been made for other unions who have a wage increase

of over 7 per cent. I will read the question. It said: Eighty-five per cent of the public

service have settled for a 7 per cent wage increase; however, other arrangements were made

for the Province's physicians, water bomber pilots, judges, and Marine Institute

employees. In fact, physicians received a 22 per cent settlement. Knowing this, should

nurses be allowed to negotiate their own settlement over 7 per cent?

Four-hundred and twenty people surveyed, in answer to

the question, 80 per cent of the people surveyed said yes. Yes, nurses should be able to

negotiate a settlement; no, 15 per cent; don't know, 5 per cent.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador, all over this

Province, are saying that nurses should be able to negotiate a collective agreement in

good faith with good, hard-nosed bargaining; and if it went over 7 per cent, the people

are saying that they would be willing to support that. That is what this survey says.

MR. LUSH: (Inaudible). The question does not say

that at all.

MR. H. HODDER: I am sure the hon. Member for Terra

Nova will avail of the opportunity to stand in his place and render his decision. He has

not spoken in the House - other than to make a point of order a few days ago - for so long

that we on this side would enjoy a presentation on this matter from him. I am sure that we

on this side would even give some of our time, if that were necessary, because we have not

heard from him in so long now; but I digress a little bit.

The next question was on the incidence of thinking that

nurses should keep their right to binding arbitration if government forces them back to

work.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I will read the

question. It reads: If government decides to end the strike, the law today requires both

sides to go to binding arbitration whereby an independent third party would settle the

dispute in a fair and unbiased manner, and both side would have to accept the decision. If

nurses are forced to return to work, do you think nurses should be allowed to keep their

right to binding arbitration where an independent third party would settle the dispute in

a fair and unbiased matter and both sides would have to accept the decision?

Everybody will know it is a lengthy question. I will

repeat it because it is a lengthy question and it is the core of what we are talking about

here today. It said: If government - and we know now that is what is going to happen -

decides to end the strike, the law today - and that is referring to the Public Service

Collective Bargaining Act - requires both sides to go to binding arbitration whereby an

independent third party would settle the dispute in a fair and unbiased manner, and both

sides would have to accept the decision. If nurses are forced to return to work, do you

think that nurses should be allowed to keep their right to binding arbitration where an

independent third party would settle the dispute in a fair and unbiased manner and both

sides would have to accept the decision? A very clear question.

Yes, the people of Newfoundland replied in the

affirmative. Eighty-eight per cent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians believe that nurses

should be able to have binding arbitration. Six per cent said no; do not know was 6 per

cent as well.

What we have happening here today is government sidling

up to the 6 per cent that said no. Eighty-eight per cent of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, in a survey done just yesterday and the day before, are saying: Government you

are wrong, you are doing the wrong thing.

You cannot have it more clear than that. If you can get

88 per cent in this kind of a survey, 88 per cent of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador believe that nurses should have binding arbitration.

Moving on to the next question, the next question deals

with the perception of fairness of government in passing a law that forces nurses back to

work and denies them their right to binding arbitration. How fair is that process? In

other words, it follows from the previous question. It also tests the issue of internal

consistency in a survey poll. Let me read the question. It reads: As you know nurses are

now on a legal strike. In Newfoundland today, the government could pass a law ordering

nurses to return to work. If nurses are ordered to return to work, the current law says

that nurses have the right to binding arbitration to settle the dispute with an

independent third party making the decision. However, government could make a new law that

ends the strike by forcing nurses to return to work with a forced settlement and thus no

right to binding arbitration. The question was: Do you think that it would be fair for

government to make this law whereby nurses would lose their right to binding arbitration?

There were five categories: Very fair, 1 per cent; fair,

6 per cent; unfair, 34 per cent; very unfair, 56 per cent; do not know, 3 per cent. In

unfair and very unfair, the total the two of them together, that is 34 per cent, and that

is 56 per cent. That makes a total of 90 per cent of the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador who are saying that it would be unfair of government to make the very law that we

are passing here today.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not we, they.

MR. H. HODDER: I said they. I did not say we. Did I

say we? That had to be a Freudian slip, because it is "they" who are going to

pass this particular piece of legislation.

MR. SULLIVAN: It will not be us.

MR. H. HODDER: It will not be us on this side of the

House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, 90 per cent of the

people surveyed in this survey said that what we are doing here today is unfair, it is

unjust. Therefore, it is no wonder we on this side are so adamant in saying that we will

not support this piece of legislation.

This piece of legislation we are talking about here

today sends a very clear message to all people in Newfoundland and Labrador. It sends a

message that says that bullying by government is still alive and well in Newfoundland and

Labrador. It says that intimidation by government is still alive and well in Newfoundland

and Labrador. It says that double-meaning promise-making at election time is still alive

and well in Newfoundland and Labrador today, because what nurses were told at election

time is not what is happening here. Nobody stood up at election time and said: Oh, by the

way, if you do not go the way we want you to go then we will impose binding arbitration.

There has to be some truth in political life. You cannot live forever on double-meaning

promise-making and intimidation, and that kind of thing.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has

distinguished himself by a capacity to stand and speak what is not the truth, with a

straight face, with apparently no effort whatsoever.

Mr. Speaker, what the member is saying is absolutely

untrue. I went through the election campaign and met nurses every day, at every location,

and told nurses every day, at every location, that we would negotiate fairly on workload

issues but that we could not promise a settlement on salaries beyond that given to every

other public service worker.

[There is a disturbance in the galleries.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Clear the galleries, please. We will recess for a couple

of minutes while the galleries are cleared.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Premier is on a point of order.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think I have concluded

the point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

AN HON. MEMBER: His time is up, isn't it?

MR. SPEAKER: No, he still has four minutes.

MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In concluding my comments, I want to refer to the fact

that the hon. the Premier, on February 8, in a report by Doug Greer - that is from CBC TV

- is quoted as saying that the Premier says that - I am quoting from the

article here - he

tells the nurses they can trust him to handle their concerns over cutbacks to health care.

Mr. Speaker, what that told the nurses is that they

would be treated fairly, they would be treated honestly, they would be treated with

respect, they would be told that their concerns would be brought to the bargaining table.

What we see and what we hear from nurses is that they

have been told in bargaining that there was no hope of their ever winning at the

bargaining table. They were told that they -

AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.

MR. H. HODDER: I am quoting the president, who was

there. When the president of the nurses' union puts in print what she has told me

privately, then I feel free to say that here in the public Chamber. When the nurses' union

puts it in print and she says that we were told at the bargaining table that we will win,

that certainly goes against everything that the Premier said on the eve of the election.

The Premier said that he would be bargaining in good

faith. He said: I will see you at the bargaining table. Then he said: The nurses can trust

me to handle their concerns over cutbacks in health care.

Mr. Speaker, when I say double-meaning promise-making,

that is exactly what I mean. I mean to say that you have to read the words and you have to

take the actions that follow from them. So when we say to the Premier that he engaged in

double-meaning promise-making, you only have to ask the nurses of Newfoundland and

Labrador whether or not the commitments that they heard are consistent with the actions of

government at the bargaining table. We on this side say, no.

The President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses'

Union, Debbie Forward, says no. You do not go into bargaining and say we will win; here

are the penalties.

When I was told four to five days ago, long before this

legislation was ever tabled, I was told exactly what the penalties would be for

non-compliance. That is not bargaining in good faith.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: While the Member for Humber East may

call across the House and disagree with that, let the record show that the Member for

Humber East is saying, that is the right thing to do. That is what I am hearing on this

side. If that is not correct, he should exercise his right to stand and correct it.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side believe that government

engaged in bad faith bargaining. They have shown no respect for nurses in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: They should go back to the law of

this Province, go back and look at the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, and give

the nurses binding arbitration. It is the right thing to do, the honourable thing to do,

and the only thing to bring success and peace in the union movement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to move the

striking committee?

I move, pursuant to Standing Order 84, the appointment

of the striking committee to consist of the following: the Member for Bonavista North, the

Member for Topsail, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, the Member for Ferryland, and

the Member for Lewisporte.

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

introduce the motion?

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we give leave to put the

Committee in place.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to give

leave, but I would want to put on the record the interest of my caucus to participate in

committees of the House. I would ask that the Committee, in its deliberations, take this

into consideration. Perhaps we could have a meeting with them to discuss this issue.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motion,

`aye.'

AN HON. MEMBER: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

Carried.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: I asked my House Leader to let me up

next because I am waiting with baited breath to hear the Minister of Mines and Energy, who

ensures me that after I'm finished he will be on his feet telling us exactly how he is

going to vote when this things comes to a vote, where he stands on the nurses' issue, and

(inaudible) he got his marching orders this morning. I look forward to such a speech. I

have been here since 1996 and I do not know if I should congratulate him or not. It is

probably the quietest time he has ever been in the House of Assembly. I do not know if he

has me amazed or exactly what he has done. Anyway, maybe it is good to see him quiet once

in a while.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take some time this

afternoon to speak on this bill that I think is probably, certainly since I have been a

member of this House, one of the worst pieces of legislation I have ever seen.

I spoke the other day on a petition in support of the

nurses' union where we talking about collective bargaining, what had transpired. I sat on

a negotiating committee several times to negotiate contracts and I do not ever believe

that I sat on any committee under fear or under any pressure of a threat of being

legislated back to work, or anything else. I will say that it was a federal Crown

corporation and I was vice-president of a union, part of the PSAC, and we negotiated.

Sometimes negotiations, as we all know, are certainly not very nice and sometimes they can

be very difficult, very hard. I would never want to sit on any committee where the fear of

back-to-work legislation was always hanging over your head.

I believe my colleague for Waterford Valley when he says

that the President of the Nurses' Union told him that that was a threat that was always

over the head of the nurses' union in Newfoundland and Labrador. If that be so, then that

is not right, that is criminal, that is dictatorship in my opinion, pure and utter

dictatorship. I really do not know what word I would use to describe it, other than

dictatorship, to try and negotiate a collective bargaining agreement. I say that in all

sincerity, and I mean it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I have not been told anything. Nobody

has been up on a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, I say that in all sincerity. This is the

worst piece of legislation I have seen since I have been in this House, since 1996.

We have all heard what transpired during the recent

election: We will do our utmost to help you out. Legislating nurses back to work when we

do not have to do it, when there is already legislation in place which could put the

nurses back to work in twenty-four hours with binding arbitration. I do not buy the

Premier's comments on binding arbitration, because at the end of the day neither he nor us

knows what will come out of binding arbitration. After all, we cannot set ourselves up as

judge and jury. We may want to, but we cannot do that.

I find it very strange to be in this House today. The

constable who normally sits in this House is not here. Today we are graced with a

lieutenant.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. FRENCH: I do not know. I would like to know why,

Mr. Speaker. Every member of the RNC, they tell me today, is back on call,

time-and-a-half, double time.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. FRENCH: I do not know, but I would like to know

why. I would like to know why we have done that. The constable is not sitting here today,

but we have a lieutenant here today. Very strange, very interesting. I would really like

to know why we have come to that in this House and in this Province. I do not like the way

their dispute was settled.

I have never had as many phone calls on any particular

issue - and that goes back even to the education reform issue - in this House as I had

from the nurses' union. I would like to relay some of the stories I have had told me. Last

night several of them called me and talked about how this procedure works. Every single

one of them mentioned to me the senior Cabinet minister who thought so much about the

nurses who sat in the gallery, that yesterday afternoon he spent his time reading a

magazine. They wondered if that was the care and concern this minister had for them, for

their plight, and for the position they find themselves in. If it is, then I say to that

minister, shame on him. Not shame on him, disgrace on him.

The least we can do is sit in this place and respect the

people who are on the picket line, but I see a trend over the last several days, and I do

not like where we are going. I hear comments from the general public, and from people whom

I never expected to hear them from, of how upset these people really are. I do not buy the

argument that every health care board in this Province is in crisis. They have a letter

here today which certainly says one of the largest ones in the Province is not in crisis.

Again, I have to wonder what we are doing. Why do we

have to bring in back-to-work legislation without binding arbitration? The Leader of the

Opposition has been asking for several days for an answer to that question. None, in my

opinion, has been forthcoming. I do not know why we have to legislate these people back to

work.

My colleague from Waterford Valley a few minutes ago

talked about a press release that was issued today on behalf of the nurses' union. My

colleague went to great length to read out some polls: a government as well that lives on

polls, glorifies itself on polls. This poll, of course, is all nonsense because it is

probably a poll they did not commission. The facts are there, the figures are there, the

percentage of right or wrong is there. They do not accept it because it is not their

polling. They did not use their firm to do this. Such nonsense. Is it really nonsense? Is

it really nonsense when these things were put forward, not to government, not to

Opposition, but to the people of this Province? These are the results that have come back.

Most of those figures are over the 80 per cent mark.

We wonder, or we really do not need to wonder, exactly

where we are, or where we sit, or where we stand with the public of this Province. I think

it is quite clear how the people of this Province feel about the nurses' union. When I

spoke here several days ago on a petition, I said that I would not support back-to-work

legislation, and my mind has not changed. I will sit here for however long it takes to

debate this issue, to debate it fully. I have no intention of supporting this legislation

and would ask all of my colleagues,

Document details

Collection	Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	1999-03-31
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	1999-03-31
Language	en
Format	htm
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	54937bb31eedfd88990ae9f77a1944cbbf492ba1

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (htm).