March 30, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 10

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings the Chair would

like to welcome to the Speaker's Gallery today Ms Brenda Fitzgerald, CEO of Health &

Community Services St. John's, Mr. Allan Bradbury, CEO of St. John's Nursing Home Board

and Mr. John Peddle, Executive Director of Community Health Care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: As well, I want to welcome on behalf of

all members to the gallery today forty-seven grade IX students from the Social Studies

Class at Carbonear Integrated Collegiate in the District of Carbonear-Harbour Grace,

accompanied by their teachers Mr. Jonas Anstey, Mr. Sparkes, and bus driver Mr. Dan

Clarke.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury

Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of great

urgency to the people of our Province. Government has been informed by the Newfoundland

and Labrador Health and Community Services Association - the health care professionals who

manage our hospitals, nursing homes and provide community nursing - that unless nurses

return to work as soon as possible, the health care system will not be able to adequately

care for patients and the public. They have formerly requested "...that government

take the necessary steps to ensure that nurses have ceased their work stoppage and return

to the workplace as soon as possible."

Government has a responsibility to protect the health of

our people. That must take priority above all else. Government is responding to this

urgent request. We call upon this hon. House to do so as well.

We take this step reluctantly. Government has worked

hard to reach agreement with the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union. We had a

tentative agreement in October 1998 which nurses turned down by a narrow margin. We have

been responsive to nurses' concerns about workload. My colleague, the Minister of Health

and Community Services, has announced important new measures to address workload concerns.

Government has been seeking to negotiate intensively

with the nurses' union since March 16. We have had the assistance of a conciliator, but we

were not able to meet face to face with nurses' union representatives since last Wednesday

morning. The nurses' union has been unwilling to move on compensation issues. On Sunday

evening, the nurses' union demanded 14 per cent; that is double the 7 per cent being given

to all other public employees. When we said we could not agree, the nurses' union withdrew

from conciliation. Essentially, the nurses' union brought negotiations to an end.

Later on Sunday evening, the nurses' union indicated

publicly that they want the 7 per cent increase, plus a $2 per hour premium equivalent to

a further 10 per cent. In other words, the nurses' union said that they want a 17 per cent

increase, almost two-and-a-half times more than other public employees.

Government has tried diligently to reach agreement. We

have not been able to do. More importantly, the health care system has run out of time.

Nurses are needed back at work with other health care professionals to protect the health

of patients and the public. We have reached a point where, for every additional day that

treatments are postponed, lives are put in jeopardy. The association has told us that:

"It is becoming clear that the abilities of individual organizations to continue to

meet the levels of services identified in their contingency plans are becoming

compromised. Examples include postponement of medical procedures such as cancer care and

surgeries and deferral of services provision to clients requiring home care such as

palliative care." We must act now.

For that reason, government is now bringing forward a

bill entitled

An Act to Provide for the Resumption and Continuation of Health and

Community Services. This legislation provides for nurses to return to work, and for

government to put in place a settlement that is based on the tentative agreement

negotiated with the nurses' union last fall and that is consistent with settlements

reached with other public sector unions. It will provide for 7 per cent over thirty-nine

months.

The Health and Community Services Resumption Act

requirement for nurses to return to work and the penalties for failing to do so are in

line with recent federal back to work legislation, Bill C-76. Also similar to the recent

federal legislation, the Act legislates a settlement to the dispute. This is done rather

than going to binding legislation under the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act.

Government, and more importantly the taxpayers of our

Province, cannot afford increases of more than 7 per cent for public employees. Every

additional 1 per cent increase for public employees costs $16 million. On the weekend, the

President of NAPE, Austin Deir, made clear that anything government gives to nurses must

be given to NAPE members. He indicated he expects wildcat strikes by NAPE members unless

any wage increase above 7 per cent given to nurses is also given to NAPE members.

To give nurses the 17 per cent increase they have

demanded and to provide the same increase to other public employees would cost $160

million a year or $800 million over five years. The provincial government does not have

this money. We would either have to raise taxes - for example, raise personal income tax

by 20 per cent - or add $800 million over the next five years to our Province's $6.5

billion direct debt. I don't believe the people of our Province want us to do either.

In 1990, the government of the day gave unsustainable

increases to nurses and a year later rolled back those increases. This government believes

it is far more responsible to provide pay increases that can be sustained.

Thirty public sector collective agreements, providing

for 7 per cent over thirty-nine months, have been negotiated for more than 30,000

government employees. Seven per cent is as good as or better than other public sector wage

increases across the country. Seven per cent is fair for nurses, fair for other public

employees, and fair to the taxpayers of our Province.

What is fundamental today, Mr. Speaker, is the need to

act now to ensure that the health of patients and the public is not compromised.

Government is taking action that is both necessary and responsible. We have been advised

by the Health and Community Services Association that swift action is needed because

"once that point of crisis is imminent, all organizations agree that the maximum time

frame in terms of their ability to continue to provide essential service is 24

hours." I call upon my colleagues in the House of Assembly to give speedy

consideration to the legislation so that the health of patients and the public can be

adequately protected.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford

Valley.

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

We note with concern the ministerial statement delivered

by the minister. We point out to the minister that the tone of the statement has more to

do with casting blame for the current state of collective bargaining with the nurses of

this Province than it does with a genuine concern to find a resolution.

We in this Province have in existence now, in

legislation, a mechanism to resolve disputes of this nature. It is, as you know and as you

have referred to it, the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act.

Madam Minister, we feel that act was designed to address

a situation similar to that which we are now facing in this Province, when collective

bargaining has reached an impasse in an essential service. We feel that it is time that

you give more consideration to that particular process.

Madam Minister, what your new draconian measures will do

is essentially destroy the entire process of reasonable collective bargaining in

Newfoundland and Labrador.

Reference was made to the fact that you and your

government cannot change its wage offer to nurses because it would be unfair, as you say,

to other collective bargaining groups. What does that say to nurses and their collective

bargaining processes?

Government today sees itself with the consequences when

it goes into a bargaining process in bad faith; when you go into a process with your mind

made up; when you go into a process with a pretention to bargain in good faith; when you

go into a process in an insincere manner; when you make a mockery of collective

bargaining. What we have happening today is predictable, when you enter into that kind of

process with predetermined conclusions.

Madam Minister, we have not yet received your

legislation. We hopefully will be able to get that before the afternoon is out. However,

we on this side of the House say to you that, in the laws of Newfoundland and Labrador

today, there are binding arbitration procedures. We feel that is the right process. That

is what the law was designed to address, and the law should be allowed to take its course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am quite disturbed by the approach taken by the

minister in her statement with respect to the negotiations with nurses and health care,

and the approach that government seeks to introduce into the Legislature.

Looking back to October of 1998, she says that the

nurses turned it down by a narrow margin. She neglects to indicate that 97 per cent of

nurses supported a strike vote and agreed to go on strike to insist on an agreement with

government that was better than was negotiated, or at least on the bargaining table, back

in October.

What we have seen, Mr. Speaker, is the government going

in without any willingness to negotiate on the very important issue that is before us, and

a point of view that fails to recognize that different bargaining units have different

histories and different needs and different ways to resolve a collective bargaining

circumstance.

Now I am aware of the request by the Health and

Community Services Association that government take necessary steps to ensure that nurses

have ceased their work stoppage and returned to the workplace as soon as possible. There

are at least two honourable ways in which that can be done. One is by going back to the

bargaining table and treating the last position of the nurses' union as being a

negotiating position, which I think they will find to be the case. The second honourable

way that the government can resolve this strike and get the nurses back to work - and we,

here, stand ready to consider such a resolution if that is the decision of government-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HEN. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: - under

Section 30 of the Public Service

Collective Bargaining Act; where the House of Assembly resolves that a strike is or would

be injurious to the health or safety of persons or the security of the Province, it may

make a declaration.

We stand ready, when and if government determines that

such a state exists, to debate such a resolution in this House because it is a way under

law that we can - if it is necessary to do so - bring an honourable end to this strike and

still respect the principles of collective bargaining and our existing legislation.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

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

The Premier indicated yesterday - as everybody is aware

- that collective bargaining with the nurses' union had ended, but the truth is that good

faith bargaining never began. Government indicated that there was a pre-determined 7 per

cent benchmark and unilaterally passed the limit on the number of casual positions that

would be made permanent, and finally intimidated nurses by threatening huge penalties

which we are about to see - I have not seen the legislation yet - if they did not come

around to seeing things his way.

Isn't it true, Premier, that over the last little while

the process of good faith collective bargaining was never on the table?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not true and

the evidence that that is not true is that government has settled collective agreements

with over thirty other bargaining units. Settled two as recently as last Friday, or at

least signed two tentative agreements, one with NAPE and one with the Newfoundland and

Labrador Teachers' Association. It strains credibility to suggest that government could

settle with over thirty other bargaining units, representing over 30,000 other public

servants, and would somehow have some kind of mission to want to come to disagreement with

nurses.

Nobody wants to be in this circumstance today and nobody

wants to end a strike with back-to-work legislation, but what we have before us today, the

Leader of the Opposition knows, is a request from the health care associations, made today

to government - and representatives are in the House today -, where they met with Cabinet

this morning and put their request, and put the reasons for their request; and subsequent

to Cabinet met, albeit briefly, with the Leader of the Opposition and met with the Leader

of the NDP, and extended the request for co-operation to them as well.

The reality is we have now been told, not by politicians

on either side of the House, but by those who have the responsibility to manage the health

care system, that the health care system is approaching the point of crisis. What we are

being told is that it ought not to be allowed to go into crisis before we act. The request

that is being made is being made to all the parties. The request does not take a side as

to whether or not one side or the other is right or wrong in the dispute. The request does

not ask one side or the other to vote yes or no to legislation. The request merely says to

the Legislature that the Legislature now has to put the prerogative of government - or for

that matter, the prerogative of the nurses' union - aside and put first the prerogative of

patients in our health care system and move to end the strike.

I am asking the Leader of the Opposition, and asking the

Leader of the NDP, whatever their position on the legislation, to at least allow it to

come to a vote without undo delay so that we can respond to the request that has been made

to all hon. members of this House.

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

the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Premier that first you

have to see the legislation before we are about to pass judgement on "aye" or

"nay" with your request, sir. Unless that happens, and the appropriate amount of

time is given for this Legislature to debate the legislation, then it will not happen.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the Public Service

Collective Bargaining Act foresaw the very situation we are now facing with the nurses'

dispute, and the act provided a mechanism to bring the dispute to a successful resolution.

Government has in its power today a mechanism to debate this today, by invoking

section 30

of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, to invoke that resolution today, to have

it passed today, to send it to binding arbitration, to get nurses back off the street.

They have that power already today. The question is: Why won't they use that mechanism

that is on the books right now to resolve this dispute?

Historically, if you take the time to look at it,

binding arbitration is neither foul nor fair for either party because it has come down on

both sides of the equation. The question is: Will you not invoke that

section of the

Public Service Collective Bargaining Act and do what you have requested of us, put nurses

back into the system today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have given a very

clear answer yesterday to a very clear question to the Leader of the Opposition.

Government will not go to binding arbitration at this time. I said very clearly yesterday

that that is the process that was followed in this Province in 1990 with a variety of

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

were settlements that could not be afforded.

We went through in this Province perhaps one of the most

difficult times - and this is not an easy day today - but this was a far more difficult

time in 1990 when we actually had wage rollbacks, agreements that were put in place rolled

back. Rolled back because the government of the day came to realize it could not afford

the binding agreements that were put in place. The government had to roll back, at great

cost to the labour environment of this Province, those settlements.

I am not prepared, and I have said very clearly to the

Leader of the Opposition, and this government is not prepared, to go down that road. We

think that will cause tremendous turmoil. Neither are we prepared to go down the road to

saying that we can afford to give one union, an important one, and an important employee

group amongst many, a settlement two-and-a-half times greater than all others. Because

that too, and the Leader of the Opposition knows it, will cause great labour turmoil in

this Province.

We have set out a framework we think is fair. We have

negotiated in good faith. We have dealt with the three main issues that were put on the

table by nurses. We were not able to come to terms on compensation. Although we offered

something new and more in compensation it was not accepted. Now we have to take our

responsibility to respond to the request which has been approved unanimously by the

fourteen chief executive officers and the chairs of all of the health boards in the

Province.

What they have said to us is this: Based on the

association's assessment of the Province-wide situation we recognize that a couple of

organizations are now close to no longer being able to provide an acceptable level of

essential services, and therefore are quickly reaching a point of crises. We therefore

request that government take the necessary steps to ensure that nurses have ceased their

work stoppage and return to the workplace as soon as possible.

Government is taking its responsibility, but the reality

of the parliamentary rules is the following: that we cannot pass this bill until the

middle of next week without the co-operation of members opposite.

I understand that members opposite may disapprove of the

bill, may disagree of the bill, may speak against the bill and may vote against the bill,

but the reality is the timing of the passage of this bill which will be introduced today

is entirely in the hands of the Opposition. I am asking the Opposition, recognizing their

philosophical difference - and I recognize that - in opposition to this bill to understand

that government has made its decision in response to a request from the health care

associations. I am asking the Opposition to cooperate to allow this bill to pass before a

crisis point is reached in the health care system and before people who innocent and not

part of this debate are asked to pay a price because of a prolonged debate about a piece

of back-to-work legislation.

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

the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the

solution lies in your hand Premier today, right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Once again it is obvious to me today

that this Premier obviously did not understand the collective bargaining process and

obviously does not understand the sections with respect to the Public Service Collective

Bargaining Act. Because he is standing in his place again pre-judging what he does not

know will happen if he refers this dispute to the existing laws, regulations and rules

that govern us all.

I ask him this question. If he is so adamant that he

will not invoke the mechanism defined in the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, and

you are so convinced that your position and government's position is the best one, then

why don't you consider another dispute resolution mechanism, known as final offer

selection, which allows an independent arbitrator to choose between the final offers of

both parties? Both parties put forward to the independent arbitrator their final position

and the arbitrator must choose one or the other.

Maybe that is another mechanism that has worked across

the country in other jurisdictions, and I suspect that given half the chance and the

opportunity by this government may in fact work here.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, government has a request

from the Leader of the Opposition who appears not to want to recognize that there is a

request today - we have to remember where we are in the process. The talks have broken

down. They broke down when the nurses' union said: Here is our final offer. If you do not

accept that final offer we will ask to be released from the conciliation process. We did

not accept the final offer, nurses asked to be released from the conciliation process,

subsequently went public and said: We want 17 per cent. That is what happened.

The reality is that from the day of the strike began

until that breakdown occurred there were no face-to-face negotiations, none between

government's side and the nurses' union, despite repeated requests by government for face

to face negotiations. We were told repeatedly by our negotiator and Treasury Board that

when those requests were made, the conciliator, and the conciliator only, would speak to

them.

Mr. Speaker, we are where we are today, with a request

from the health care associations to deal with the issue of the provision of health care.

We have much time in this House - weeks, months, years, and many hours - to debate the

merit of government's actions. The Opposition can make its case both here and elsewhere

for a long time to come. No doubt government will be judged at an appropriate time and

place on whether we have behaved in the best interest of the Province or not.

The issue today is the request before us, saying that we

are approaching a crisis point in the delivery of health care, and whether or not the

House - because the request is not just to government, it is to the full House - will

respond to the request to decide on the back-to-work legislation which we have provided.

Mr. Speaker, one more point. I point out to the Leader

of the Opposition the following quote from the Budget Speech of 1984. This is Premier

Peckford, then speaking, saying: Government has decided to implement a new wage restraint

policy. The policy is that there will be no increase in the salary or wage scales of

employees of the provincial government or its agencies for two years.

I can go on to read you the rest of the speech where the

Premier of the day, Premier Peckford, points out that the alternative is either to borrow

substantial sums of money or to raise taxes in a very substantial way, and he sets out

arbitrarily a wage restraint policy.

Our policy is two, two, two and one. The policy of the

government of the day, because of the circumstances of the day, as I read Mr. Peckford's

speech, was zero and zero. That was a policy unilaterally applied by the government of the

day because of its fiscal circumstances of the day.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, the

only question now - government is taking its responsibility. We will move back-to-work

legislation today. We will legislate a settlement, in line with all other public servants,

for nurses. That bill will come to the House, it will be debated, and we on this side will

vote for it. We will pass that bill.

The only question before the House and before the people

of the Province is: How long will that bill be before the House? How long before the House

responds to the request that has been made? How long before the health care pending crisis

is halted? How long before we begin the process of putting our health care system back to

work?

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

the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: The Premier knows I am aware of the

request. We had a briefing prior to the House opening today, at about 12:15 p.m. There is

no question that a request has been made by those who run the system; however, we must be

clear that we have not seen the legislation. This is not going to pass in twenty-five or

thirty minutes.

There is an obligation on behalf of each and every

member in this House to every taxpayer, to each and every taxpayer. Government has not

laid before the House yet what that legislation is. If the Premier and government are

expecting me, as Leader of the Opposition, and my caucus, to say today that we will do it

today before 12:00 tonight, he can forget it; because we have not seen that legislation.

If you want to talk about cooperatively and in the

spirit of cooperation in responding to a request, due process will take place in this

Assembly. It will not be hijacked. Due process in this Assembly has always served,

ultimately and primarily, the people of this Province, and the same will hold true today,

I say to the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I do not expect the

Opposition to suspend the rules, the normal rules, in due process to pass this bill. I

expect there will be a vigorous, complete and full debate on this bill, and I expect that

members of the Opposition, in both parties, will participate in that debate.

We are prepared, if the Leader of the Opposition deems

it appropriate, to move immediately to table that bill right now, this minute.

We understand that the Opposition parties will take all

the time that they require or need. The reality is that the Opposition parties - and we

have looked at the rules - can take until next - is it Tuesday?

AN HON. MEMBER: Tuesday.

PREMIER TOBIN: - next Tuesday.

I do not think that taking until next Tuesday to respond

to the request that is before us would be a reasonable response to the request that has

been made in these circumstances, and I do not believe that the Opposition parties, either

one, are going to do that.

I do say to the Leader of the Opposition, it seems to me

that there is an ability, when the Legislature cooperates - not on the bill but on the

process, on bringing the bill to a vote - there is a capacity for every single member in

the Opposition to speak on this bill - every single member - to speak, if necessary, twice

or three times on this bill.

If we understand that the priority today is not the

rules of the Legislature, or British parliamentary tradition, but rather the need to

respond to a request that has been given, this bill can be tabled this afternoon.

Ordinarily it would require that notice be given and it could not be looked at for at

least another twenty-four hours, but that provision could be suspended by unanimous

consent. The bill could be tabled today and we could begin the debate today. The

Opposition can decide how long that debate should last. It is entirely in their hands.

Mr. Speaker, I would submit this: What is more important

today, what other subject is more important today, than to begin the debate on this bill

and to respond in a responsible fashion to the request which has been made to all members

of this Legislature?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford

Valley.

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

My questions are to the Premier. Premier, you continue

to bombard the media with outrageous numbers in connection with the cost of the public

service wage settlements, that the government should not settle with nurses for more than

7 per cent over three years. That assumption, of course, is an erroneous assumption. It is

a weak argument and just shows your lack of commitment to the collective bargaining

process.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Premier: In view of the fact that

he knows that the recent wage settlements extend for thirty-nine months, and not five

years, why is he so consistently using data that says five years, $800 million, in

reference to negotiations with nurses, when he knows that information is misleading? In

the public forums he is using five-year exponential data that drives the numbers up.

Will he not admit that using five years and $800 million

in expenditures is designed more for a public relations exercise and is not actually based

on facts?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, why do I insist on

saying - the hon. member asked - that if we give a 17 per cent wage settlement to one

group - in this case nurses - that other groups will insist upon it?

I ask the member who has just made that statement to

walk around the corner. There he will find support staff in this building. He can start at

the security desk, or anywhere else he wants to go, and ask them whether or not they are

going to be content to be saddled with a 7 per cent settlement that they accepted on the

basis that was the framework for a wage settlement, while somebody else gets a settlement

two-and-a-half times as large.

I would invite the member to go into the staff rooms of

the teachers of this Province and ask the same question.

I would invite the member to talk to the hospital

support staff, who work side by side with nurses, and ask them if they will accept a 7 per

cent settlement when another group has a settlement two-and-a-half times as large.

Mr. Speaker, I put this challenge to the member: Does he

have information, because I do have information to the contrary, that would suggest that

the Newfoundland Association of Public Employees, the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers'

Association, and CUPE, would be prepared without any actions - strike actions, work

actions - to accept a larger wage settlement for nurses? - let us take 17 per cent, that

is what is on the table - and that there will be no difficulties for government over the

life of the existing collective agreements? If he has that information, because that is

the assertion he is making, he should table it.

I can tell him, before he speaks, that I have spoken to

senior officials in some of the unions that I have just mentioned and I have information

to the contrary.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member

for Waterford Valley.

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

What the Premier has done is try to pit one group of

public servants against another group of public servants, and has been doing it for days

and days, and has been using quotations out of context, particularly as it relates to

Austin Deir.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we know where that has

led in terms of the collective bargaining process.

I want to refer to a Ministerial Statement made

yesterday by the Minister of Health and Community Services. She said that she was going to

add 125 new nursing positions to the system. We know that is the same 125 new nursing

positions that she announced last fall, and that yesterday was just a re-announcement

designed to give the impression, I am sure, that she was doing something immediately now

to address the current nursing situation.

I want the minister to confirm whether or not, of that

125 nurses that you said were new, to be added as of yesterday, in fact 116 of these

nursing positions have already been filled and, in fact, are now active in the nursing

system? Why did you pretend yesterday to create 125 new nursing positions when the truth

is, you just have provision to add an extra nine?

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

Community Services.

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

No, Mr. Speaker, I announced yesterday that 125 new

positions - there was never an offer for new positions. At the last offer that was made to

the nurses' union there were conversions.

MR. H. HODDER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, Mr. Speaker, there were 125

conversions offered. In addition to that, we are adding seventy-five conversions of casual

to permanent, and a new offer of 125 new permanent positions.

Mr. Speaker, if you want to conclude what was in the

Ministerial Statement yesterday, we also offered - because going around the Province we

heard a lot of nurses say that they found twelve-hour shifts very taxing, with an older

workforce, and with the announcement of new nursing positions that would be an ideal time

to introduce a pilot study to allow nurses, if they decide, because they decide whether

they work twelve-hour shifts or eight-hour shifts, that we would work with them and the

boards to pilot going back to eight-hour shifts if that is what they would want, because

that kind of shift would require new nursing positions.

Now that we are putting them out there, and we have

discussed this with the boards as well, and I know it was raised by many nurses on the

campaign trail, that we would be willing to work with nurses to identify ways to address

the twelve-hour shift problem.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member

for Waterford Valley.

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

Yesterday in the House, as well, the Minister of Health

and Community Services announced that the 125 new nursing positions will cost $7.5 million

annually. A quick calculation would show, that is $60,000 per nurse with 125 positions.

I want to ask the minister: Is not something wrong with

that picture? Because my discussions tell me that the new nurses are paid on the average

of $30,000 to $35,000 with a top of $40,000. In your discussions with the profession, when

you talk about 125 new nursing positions, the figure was put in of $4.5 million; then it

went to $5 million.

Why did suddenly this figure jump from $5 million to

$7.5 million, and we are still talking about the same 125 new nursing positions? Are you

intending to pay all of these $60,000 a year? Was that your intent? Because that is what

your data shows.

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

Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pay

them $90,000 a year if I could, but the reality is -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: - that the calculation is based on

the fact that we pay benefits, and you are not assuming that they are all full-time

equivalents. There will be a combination of full-time and part-time. One-third, two-third,

part-time and full-time, so you just do not equate bodies with numbers. You have to look

at the number of full-time equivalents and identify how that would be broken out. You have

to look at the number of persons, and that would include full-time and part-time new

positions as deemed appropriate by the people who decide where those positions will be,

and that will be through the boards.

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, career or full-time emergency room doctors here at the

Grace, at St. Clare's, at the Janeway and at the Health Sciences Centre, have served the

required notice - almost all of them - of the resignations to take effect in just over a

month.

I ask the minister: Will she confirm that the reason for

this mass resignation is that doctors who work full-time at the emergency department are

paid $17 an hour less than doctors who are in private practice and work only occasional

shifts in the emergency department?

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

Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, last year when the

whole issue of paying emergency physicians became an issue, in consultation with the

boards and the Medical Association, there were proposals put forward for a rate fee

structure of $65 an hour and $85 an hour. The $85 an hour was an amount allocated for

physicians that had other commitments related to a private practise. Those working as

full-time casualty officers would get $65 an hour. Or any physician that is working

fee-for-service has the option of converting from fee-for-service to salary, depending on

where the greater salary allocation will be achieved. So that option is there.

As we speak right now, there is - as part of the

Tripartite Committee - looking at trying to find a way to address this discrepancy. It has

been brought forward by the physicians in rural areas as well as urban areas and there is

a committee in place to look at it.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are aware of the issues around what

is happening in the emergency departments, just as we were aware of the issues around what

was happening in the long-term care areas. We worked with all the parties to find a

resolution to that process, and we will work with all of the parties to find a resolution

to this part of the process.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the

Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is ducking the question. It has nothing to

do with fee-for-service or a basic rate. That is not the question I asked you. I will ask

it and make it simple again, Minister. It is a very simple question.

Today, doctors who work full-time in an emergency

department during slower periods are paid $17 an hour less - it is not $65, by the way, it

is $71, to my knowledge - than doctors who have private practices and come in and probably

work a shift on a weekend. They get $17 an hour more than people who are full-time working

there. I ask the minister will she confirm that? I am not asking about rural Newfoundland

long-term care. Just on that simple fact, will you admit that?

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

Community Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, last year, when we put

the process in place it started off at a $65-$85 split. Over the period of time there has

been increases. Yes, they have increased. They are probably - I do not know - $68, $71 so

that the gap will be bridged.

Yes, we are aware of those discrepancies. We have never

denied that there has been discrepancies. In fact, we announced what the two pay fee

structures were and that we are working with all of the parties to try to address that.

Because there have been some concerns raised about that rate of pay based on the fact that

yes, some physicians who have a private practice, working in emergency, get compensated

because they often miss their practices the next morning,

whereas casualty officers are

paid based on the fact that they do not have a private practice. That was one of the

agreements that was reached with the parties involved in the whole process.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour

Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for

the Minister of Education.

Last week I questioned the Minister of Education on the

government's decision to take 182 teachers out of the system during an extremely difficult

restructuring year. The government justifies the cut in teachers by saying: We have the

lowest pupil-teacher ratio in the country. Again, I question whether this is really the

case. Doesn't the government include non-teaching positions in its calculation? Doesn't

the government calculate its teaching positions differently than other promises? Wouldn't

you admit that the ratio is artificially deflated which masks the fact that schools in

most areas have classroom sizes of more than twenty-five students?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, when I responded to the first

part of the question in the House a couple of weeks ago it was clearly to point out that

we recognize that formulas are calculated in different ways in different provinces.

At the end of the day we all look at student ratios when

we are looking at doing our calculations. In this Province we have seen a decline, this

year alone, in a 4 per cent student population in our Province. If you look at the

calculation that we have done, in fact we put back 236 teachers into a system where we

have seen about 4,000 students coming out of the system, for a re-investment of about

$11.8 million.

Clearly, we recognize that we need to have the best

possible education system we can possibly have in this Province. How we do that we will

decide in consultation with the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association and with

the School Boards Association. I have undertaken to meet with them on a regular basis to

look at how teachers are allocated in this Province, to look at whether or not the formula

we have in place is working for us as a province in terms of quality of education. I am

anxious to do that, but the reality is that we do have a severe declining student

enrolment. Our peak enrolment at one point was 162,000 students. Today we have 97,000

students in our system. If you want to project that out and look at where we are going to

be in seven, eight or ten years from now, we are going to be looking at down to about

70,000 students.

The number of teachers we have in the system, we are

going to have to work at that in consultation with the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers'

Association and with the School Boards Association to make sure that at the end of the day

we do have the best possible education system.

We do have, and we have to recognize, we have a

declining student enrolment. Whether or not we need the same number of teachers as when we

had 162,000 students in the system, whether or not when we have 70,000 students in the

system we will need the same number of teachers that we have when we have 97,000 students

in the system, this is a question we have to look at, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, I have nine special warrants

to table in the amount of $119 million relating to various expenditures of the Crown.

Thank you very much.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury

Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will

on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Provide For The

Resumption And Continuation Of Health And Community Services," (Bill 3).

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the hon. member giving a notice?

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

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

Government House Leader.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, in light of the Minister

just giving notice of the motion to table Bill 3 and in light of the request that we have

been given by the Newfoundland and Labrador Health and Community Services Association -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: I will get to my point of order. The

point of order deals with the process, and that is a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, the House will know that order to deal with

this particular piece of legislation it would require eight calendar days, or in the

parliamentary form it would require six parliamentary days. Tuesday, of course, today, it

is (inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: No, let me explain why it is six.

Tuesday, today, is the period required under the rules and regulations of the House to

give notice. Tomorrow is Private Members' Day. We asked for consent from the Opposition

leaders to waive that a number of days ago and it was rejected.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Well, it was rejected when I asked a

couple of days - may I -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: I will let you speak. Perhaps you will

waive it today.

In the parliamentary calendar, it is a Private Members'

Day, so therefore you have two days. When you move to Thursday, Mr. Speaker, it is

required on first reading another parliamentary calendar day must pass. So before we can

actually get to debate and second reading of this particular bill we are into Friday. The

House will adjourn for the weekend unless we have unanimous consent, which adds two

calendar days to the parliamentary days.

AN HON. MEMBER: The weekend.

MR. FUREY: That is right, the weekend. When we come

back Monday, Mr. Speaker, we move to Committee. A set number of hours are required for

Committee to continue that debate, and so we are into Tuesday on third reading, assuming

that members who want to speak on third reading were into Tuesday night.

That is the truth of the matter and those are the

regulations and the rules the House is governed by, which gives us six parliamentary days,

eight calendar days. The hon. the Opposition House Leader can argue: We may waive the

Private Members' Day or may do this or that. That is fair enough. I am just trying to

point out to the House what is required under the regulations and under the rules.

In light of that, I am going to ask leave of the House

today to proceed to first reading and to second reading and to begin this important debate

immediately because of the urgency, because of the letter tabled by the hospital

associations, by the text in that letter that talks about patients who cannot be treated,

and particularly with their conclusion and recommendation where they the professionals,

the care givers, the administrators, those who are working in the system, have said to us:

We therefore request that government take the necessary steps to ensure that nurses have

ceased their work stoppage and return to the work place as soon as is possible.

Mr. Speaker, to me, those words underline the urgency.

We on this side cannot, using any rules or any regulations or any Standing Orders, command

this House to do the will of the government. We cannot. There are no rules.

We have six full parliamentary days. If the Opposition

parties wave tomorrow, there are still five full parliamentary days under the regulations

and rules.

What do those parliamentary days equal in real time? In

real time, they equal nineteen-and-a-half hours. We can debate for nineteen-and-a-half

hours and still comply with the five parliamentary days that are in our rules and

regulations.

I am asking - no, I am pleading to the House - based

upon the request that we have been given, I am asking the House to take seriously what we

are placing before them. I am pleading to the House to move to second reading, to take all

of the nineteen-and-a-half hours that you require to disagree with us, but to put us in a

position in this House to say to the hospital associations and to the people working out

there under very stressful circumstances, you may put this hospital situation back on its

proper course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

What is that, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy?

Pardon me?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: You must not be very busy these days,

are you?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the request, obviously,

by the Government House Leader is a serious one, but so too is the reality of debating

legislation. You have asked for something extraordinary today, to debate first and second

reading, and we have not even seen the legislation.

I said yesterday, when asked, if we were to deal with

this situation, how would you respond -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: What is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I said yesterday, when asked publicly

how we would respond to this situation, that we would not unduly obstruct; but I am not in

the mood to facilitate overnight the passage of a bill that circumvents the laws of the

Province, either, without due process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: That is the reality of it.

Neither am I in the frame of mind in the next eight

hours, because the Government House Leader stood, on such an important public matter, to

respond expeditiously.

What I will say to you is: Let us see the legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am speaking to a point of order, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is speaking on a point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: I am speaking to his point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

MR. E. BYRNE: That is correct.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition has been

recognized.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Government House

Leader said that he cannot table the legislation until its first reading. There have been

many situations where the Government House Leader, government, on particular bills of

legislation, have always given a heads-up with respect to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, one second. We have all night, I

say to the Government House Leader. We have all night.

The reality is that they could table this. Nobody in

this Legislature, on this side of the House, has been briefed on this situation.

At 12:15 today, legislation coming down. It is 2:55 p.m.

right now, and we have not even seen the legislation. We have not had the time to discuss

it, to look at the implications of it. We will respond appropriately, but due process will

be served in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. FUREY: To the point of order, I think that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: He was responding to my point of order,

and I am responding to his response to my point of order. There must be too many lawyers

in the House.

Mr. Speaker, with respect, the legislation is first

tabled upon first reading, not upon Notice of Motion, but by leave of the House I would be

most happy to table the legislation immediately.

Do I have leave of the House to table the legislation?

Do I have leave of the House to table the bill?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the point of order raised by the Government House

Leader, the legislation is so vitally important to this Province and we have not been

privy to anything on it.

If it is so important, we should have been privy to the

legislation so we can expedite the process - if he considers it so important!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, the procedures

outlined by the Government House Leader are simply not accurate. We do not need -

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Hear me out, I say to the Government

House Leader.

We do not need six legislative days. We need four

legislative days: notice, first reading, second and third on separate days, and if we do

not give leave on Private Members' Day, it is five days.

The Government House Leader should know that committee

can be carried on the same day as second reading or it can be done on the same day as

third reading. We do not need an extra day to deal with committee, I might inform the

Government House Leader. It is four legislative days, plus Private Members' Day.

I, as House Leader, and our leader, have never refused

to give leave on Private Members' Day. We have not indicated, basically - I am not sure if

they have risen in this House and asked it. I do not think they have. Outside they might

have made reference, but they have not done it. We will deal with that accordingly, I say.

The days it can be dealt with - even if we did not give leave on Private Members' Day

tomorrow - it can be dealt with no later than Tuesday, I say that, in four parliamentary

days, if we give leave.

It is not six, as the Government House Leader outlined,

and I am sure the former Government House Leader would vouch that as being correct.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I will ask yet again: May I

have leave for first reading to table the bill?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We would be delighted to have a copy of the bill today,

without first reading. Notice has been given today. We would like to be privy -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: This Government House Leader is

telling us it is so important and we will not be able to see it until he introduces first

reading.

On the education bill and other bills, the Premier

provided me, as Leader of the Opposition, copies of bills. The Government House Leader has

done it on occasion. Now, with something as important as the health of people in our

Province, you are telling us: Forget it; you are not privy to any of this.

The only time we became privy to anything that was

happening, was today when we got a call to attend a briefing session at 12:15 p.m. That is

reprehensible. That is inappropriate. Give us the bill and we will decide accordingly what

we will do.

I say to the Government House Leader, because we do not

give you permission for first reading today, in any way it is not going to compromise what

we are going to do in the process anyway. Let us have a copy of the bill. What is wrong

with it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the

points raised by the Opposition House Leader.

The Opposition House Leader is quite right when he says

that the Opposition have only been made aware of this request today, and that is for the

very good reason that the government has only been given the request today.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) legislation.

PREMIER TOBIN: The government has only been given

the request today and we had said consistently that, unless and until the health care

system itself was being compromised, we would respect the right of nurses to be on the

picket line and to be on strike. That is what we have said very consistently. Indeed, many

people had made predictions of back-to-work legislation, going to last week. Each and

every one failed because we never, ever would have moved until such time as the health

care system itself became compromised, which is now the case.

I think we have to remember that those outside this

place, listening to this debate about the rules of Parliament, will be confused because

what they are concerned about is a health care system that works. There are times when our

rules have to take second place to the needs of our society, and I know members opposite

will agree with that.

I would say this to the Leader of the Opposition, to the

Leader of the NDP, and to the Opposition House Leader: In the interest of doing what is

best and giving the Opposition a full opportunity to examine the bill, why do we not

suspend the work of this place - because at the moment we are not going to be allowed to

debate the bill today - for up to an hour, or whatever period of time is requested

opposite, we will give you the bill, we will give you full time to analyze the bill, to

examine the bill, to understand the bill. We will make all officials available, from

Treasury Board, from Justice, to answer each and every question on the bill, and then we

will come back, when you have had that time of study - at 4:00 p.m., at 5:00 p.m. or at

6:00 p.m. - and we will ask you the question again, when you have had a fair opportunity

to examine the bill. Government is prepared to take that action right now.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to speak to the point of order originally

raised by the Government House Leader. He got up and told us all that it would take eight

calendar days to pass the legislation that they have chosen to put before the House. Now,

if I may, my understanding of

section 30 of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act

is that such a resolution be put before the House with notice today, and be debated on the

next available day. Or in fact, if we did have a state of emergency, perhaps we could

debate that resolution all in the same day as notice was given.

The fact of the matter is that government has chosen a

course of action that has the complication that he has to pass new legislation, in fact

change the law, instead of using the law that exists, which allows a simple resolution of

the House of Assembly.

Under these circumstances, it is a question of the

choice of the government, not the Opposition, which is deciding how long it takes to end

the nurses' strike. If the government wants to end the nurses' strike under the

legislation that exists then it has the opportunity to do so, and we would be prepared to

facilitate that, if it can be established that we have a situation, that the strike would

be injurious to the health or safety of persons in the Province.

The second issue that was raised has to do with the

Premier's remarks right now about the thirteen health care boards saying we have a state

of crisis. What I hear, and from the briefing and from other public comments, is that one

or two organizations are having some difficulty because they may not be getting the right

amount of nurses in to provide the services that they have.

If that is the problem and they are anticipating that

the problem is going to get worse as time goes on, then perhaps the thing to do is to sit

down with the nurses' union, outline the problem, and say: Here is where the problem is.

The problem is in this board or in that board, and we need this or that many more nurses

in order to provide satisfactory service.

If that is the problem, I would say that the nurses'

union is going to go along and cooperate, as they have done from day one of this strike

throughout. As it was pointed out in this document, the nurses have been cooperating. If

there is a problem then perhaps someone in here - I would certainly be willing to do it,

to act as a go-between between the nurses' union and the organizations that are having

difficulty to see where the problem is and ensure that the problem is resolved.

I do not think we need to throw the whole Province and

the whole House into a state of crisis because one or two organizations seem to be lacking

the cooperation that they need or are saying they are.

If the government is choosing to use legislation that is

going to take them eight days, well then that is their choice. They have another

alternative under the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act to choose to take a course

of action, a resolution under

section 30 which can be done in the twenty-four hours that

has been suggested by the health care organizations might be the limit of concern once

this crisis starts to develop.

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the Premier and the

government have stated their position unequivocally with respect to binding arbitration.

The hon. member can couch it under any act he chooses,

Section 30 of the Public Service

Collective Bargaining Act. It leads to binding arbitration.

The government has given notice today of the piece of

legislation that will require nurses to go back to work with a legislated settlement,

because we have been requested by the care givers and the professionals who know better

than any politician or most politicians in this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: They did not ask for that. That is not

what I said.

In order to get us back to normal, or the system working

properly, to give comfort to those care givers who are out there, we have to legislate a

settlement.

Mr. Speaker, let the House be very clear. Let the House,

and the record, and Hansard, and history, and the people of this Province understand and

be clear that we asked for leave. We were denied leave by the Official Opposition. We

asked for leave from the New Democratic parliamentary rump caucus. We were denied leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: No, this is fair. I think the record has

to be clear on this. It is not something that we savour. We do not like to be in this

position, we do not want to be in this position. We would have preferred a negotiated

settlement but that is not possible.

Not being possible, the next alternative was to wait

until the system came to us and said: We believe there are major cracks occurring, and if

those cracks continue and the dam breaks, and somebody is hurt, or somebody loses their

live, or there is a casualty because of this -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FUREY: Well, you may not like to hear it -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: - but it is the truth. You may not like

to hear it but it is the truth. Let the record show that this government attempted to use

the rules and procedures and parliamentary regulations to do what was right and proper but

were denied today by both parties.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There was no point of order, but the hon. member had

asked for leave.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: No leave?

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Leader.

MR. FUREY: I forgot to address that issue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: On a point of order. The Premier did

offer, and I offered, to move to first reading to table the legislation -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I am on a point of order.

May I?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member (inaudible).

MR. FUREY: This is important.

To table the legislation, recess the House for an hour

or two hours to allow the Opposition members to read the text of the legislation and to

look at it clause by clause, then come back to the House and we will ask again for leave

to proceed to second reading.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the Opposition House Leader to

deal with that first.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

MR. FUREY: A further point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

Government House Leader.

MR. FUREY: I just want to be clear, for the record,

that the Opposition House Leader who has asked for the legislation is now denying me the

opportunity to present him with the legislation. Let's be very clear on what is happening

in this House. I have never seen it in my fifteen years in this House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: The member is asking for the bill and

then not giving us leave to table the bill. It just does not make sense.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

Notices of Motion.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. FUREY: I move that Bill 3 be tabled and that the

House recess for an hour so that the Opposition parties can consider it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will recess for a moment to see if the motion

that is put forward by the hon. Government House Leader is in order.

Recess

[There was a commotion in the gallery.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has asked that the galleries be cleared.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has looked at the motion made by the hon.

Government House Leader. The motion is to adjourn for one hour. Under Standing Order 22, a

motion to adjourn is always in order, so the motion is in order.

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible) adjourned for one hour?

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has not put the question yet.

MR. FUREY: Okay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion before the House is that the

House would adjourn for one hour.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. FUREY: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. On a point of

order.

Just prior to doing that - because I had said, as part

of your ruling Your Honour, that we would table and make accessible the bill to both

Opposition parties, then recess for an hour so that they could look at the content of the

bill, absorb it, and then come back to the question of whether we can have leave to move

to second reading to begin debate. So I will table the legislation right now, Your Honour,

and then you can put the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The motion before the House is that the House adjourn

for one hour.

All those in favour, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

MR. SPEAKER: Against, `nay'.

Carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The House is adjourned.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

We are now back to Notices of Motion.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House not

adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that the House

not adjourn at 5:00 p.m.

All those in favour, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Leader.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, prior to adjournment we

tabled with the Opposition parties, the legislation that they asked, and we gave an hour's

recess so they could review this legislation which essentially is about four pages. I

think the Leader of the Opposition also has the side agreements. What are in you hands now

are the return-to-work agreements which would normally have been tabled with the

legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Yes, I know, and I apologize. I am

apologizing for that.

The reason we took the break was to table the

legislation. I moved the motion to adjourn for one hour, to give the Opposition parties

the opportunity to review this four page piece of legislation and to ask leave to proceed

to second reading of Bill 3. I would ask the Opposition House Leader to...

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

MR. SULLIVAN: I have a notice of motion, Mr.

Speaker. We are still on Notices of Motion, I understand.

MR. SPEAKER: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member asked leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Pardon?

MR. SPEAKER: No leave?

MR. SULLIVAN: No leave, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, (inaudible) point of order.

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

MR. FUREY: (Inaudible) Opposition parties, so we are

now hearing from the Official Opposition that there is no leave to proceed to second

reading.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: We would like to hear where the other

party is from.

Mr. Speaker, we moved a recess so that both parties -

not just the Opposition. It is important that we hear from both parties, and I would ask

the Chair to recognize the Leader of the NDP.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We are now calling Notices of Motion and the Chair has

recognized the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

The Chair understood that there was no leave for second

reading.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, if the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi wishes to pass his opinion, I certainly do not mind just giving leave to

allow that opportunity. I do not want to circumvent that process. I just had a Notice of

Motion that I wanted to present, if that is okay.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Yes, I understand, Mr. Speaker, that

unanimous consent was required and it was not granted, so I do not see what difference it

would make whether I also refuse unanimous consent or not. For the record, I am not

prepared to consent to go to second reading today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that on tomorrow I ask leave to introduce

the following Private Members' Resolution:

WHEREAS the government has failed to reach a tentative

agreement with nurses of the Province and, as a result, the nurses' strike which commenced

on March 24, 1999, continues; and

WHEREAS talks between government and the nurses have

broken off; and

WHEREAS the reduction in the nursing workforce

associated with the unresolved labour dispute has diminished operations at the Province's

health care institutions and deprived people of access to certain medical procedures; and

WHEREAS the government, by its own admission, cannot

assure Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that their health care system will be able to

respond adequately to the health care needs if this labour dispute continues unresolved;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House call upon

the government to submit the dispute to binding arbitration as provided for in the Public

Service Collective Bargaining Act.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, the Chair would like to inform the visitors that

no disturbance of any kind is going to be tolerated in the galleries. Visitors cannot show

approval or disapproval, or interrupt the proceedings in the House in any way by clapping

or applauding. I ask them to respect that.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to present the following petition:

To the hon. House of Assembly in legislative session

convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland:

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to bargain with nurses in good faith, to be fair to nurses, to

provide a better focus on patient care, to address the issues of casualization, to provide

a fair and equitable wage and benefits package, and to live up to the commitments given by

the Premier on the eve of the election to deal positively and constructively with nurses

and their issues;

And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly my pleasure to again have

an opportunity to speak on those issues that are so critical to nurses in our Province

and, more importantly so, critical to the care of those who are entrusted to nurses here

in our Province.

Our memories are not too short. It was during the past

election campaign that the Premier made many commitments to nurses in this Province. The

Premier indicated that he has now seen the need to hire nurses in this Province. Still,

the Minister of Finance just last Monday stood in his place and delivered a Budget - over

$3 billion in this Province - that did not recognize the hiring of any nurses.

We had to have a nurses' strike for the Minister of

Health to stand and announce in this House that we are now prepared to hire some more

nurses - 125 new nurses, she indicated - at a cost of $7.5 million, $60,000 a nurse.

I would like to the see the mathematics in those

figures, because I do not for one moment believe that each nurse in this Province is

costing this Treasury $60,000. I do not know which one she is talking about.

We have looked at, and I have said before in this House,

many times before - I asked the Premier one day in this House - I said that the hiring of

nurses is not just a collective bargaining issue. If you want it, deal with it at the

collective bargaining table, more nurses, in terms of workload. You do not have to be told

by nurses that we need more nurses here in the Province. It is an issue of concern to

people who are in hospitals today, people who are out in the community looking for

post-operative care, people who are discharged early.

One of the things that was said here today, or said by

the people representing the hospital boards in our Province, which was very significant, a

very important thing, was that probably the reason they were not able to discharge as many

people from hospitals as they had hoped is because of the acuity level of those people in

this Province.

That is a telling tale. It is telling us today that the

acuity level in hospitals is so grave that nurses are overburdened, stressed and

overworked, in trying to care for as many patients per nurse as they had years ago. You

cannot compare twenty years ago, more than that. When I worked down at a hospital, I spent

thirteen months in three different years working in a hospital. You cannot compare the

workload then to the workload now.

The acuity level, the increase in new technology, the

added responsibilities of nurses, they have nurses' managers who have been away for

awhile. Even the Minister of Health herself, who has been away from the actual practice,

is not even qualified to go back to the same position today, for example, in this Province

because it is now requiring a master's degree. That just gives you an example of the

advancements and the extra responsibility and the extra care that they have to exercise in

our Province. You have to recognize that.

We had a problem here with doctors. We could not keep

them here because there was too big a gap between here and Atlantic Canada. I said out

there in that lobby, in front of the media, we have dug the hole so deep that we cannot

get out of it.

I am saying today, we are digging the hole deeper on

nurses. We will not get out of that, and we will not be able to find those nurses when we

need them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Because what we are doing is, we are

starting an export market for nurses here to export all over the world. If we do not stop

digging that hole deep, we will not get out of that hole on nurses either and we will have

a crisis every single day here in our Province, not just a pending crisis or close to a

crisis as your advocating we are having today.

You have to wake up and realize it; the market place

dictates what people get paid. The demand for that person, the ability of that person, the

skills they bring to the job, all are factors in a competitive marketplace out there

today. Let me tell you, there is an undersupply of nurses today on an international level,

and we are going to be left training and educating nurses here to ship them all over the

world when they do not want to have to leave here. We do not want to be without them, and

we are digging that hole very, very deep.

I just hope this government will wake up, come to its

senses, and start to do something about this or we will be here telling you the same thing

in a year or two years' time: Look at what you have done to nurses, the same thing you

have done to doctors.

You had to throw extra money in - 20 per cent or

whatever - you had to deal with it. I say to the Premier, you have to deal with it now or

you will have to deal with it and pay a lot more in spades for it in the future, if you do

not do it now.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford

Valley.

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

I am pleased to rise and support the petition put

forward by my colleague. The prayer of the petition is that the Government of Newfoundland

and Labrador bargain with nurses in good faith. That means that you go to the collective

bargaining table and each side presents its proposals. We all know the process, and we all

know that in this particular case that has not worked, because the government went to the

bargaining table with predetermined positions. Therefore, they said, you can bargain with

us as long as you agree to what we want you to agree to. They pretended to be bargaining

in good faith. We see today the results of that lack of good faith.

Nurses want to be treated fairly. We have forty-one

students graduating from nursing in this Province in the next few weeks. I spoke to a

great number of these a few days ago. They tell me that they intend to seek employment

elsewhere in this country.

We know that there are a great number of nurses who were

trained in Newfoundland and Labrador who are working in Ontario, Nova Scotia, Texas,

Florida, Arizona. One of the reasons is not that they want to leave Newfoundland and

Labrador. They care about our people here and they want to practice their profession here;

however, they tell us that the wage benefits that are offered to nurses of this Province

simply do not compete.

Just this past weekend there were recruiters in

Newfoundland and Labrador - in St. John's - looking for nurses to apply; not just the

newly graduating nurses but nurses with experience. They are offering them very attractive

packages.

Mr. Speaker, we know that nurses went into this

bargaining session in good faith. They laid their issues on the table. They were issues

that we all know about - compensation, casualization - and also, because they were forced

to do so, they were forced to argue to have new nurses put into the health care system.

Nurses want to be treated fairly. They are not

unreasonable people. They have as much care for the system as anybody in this House or

anybody else in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Just a few days ago I read to this Legislature, a poem

written by a nurse who said it all. She talked about the workload. She talked about the

fact that she does not have time to reach out, to extend that caring that is so typical

and so much needed in that profession.

This petition talks about the commitments made. It also

talks about the commitments broken. It talks about the promises that were made and the

promises that were broken.

We say to the government, today we see the impasse. We

say to the government as well that there is a resolution to this impasse. A resolution is

in binding arbitration. That is what the law of this Province provides for. If there was a

time when that law should be exercised, it is today.

We say to the government that it is possible to have the

nurses back in their jobs tomorrow morning. That is possible. The legislation is there to

do it. The nurses would be willing, I am sure, to accept binding arbitration as a vehicle

of resolution, but government will not accept it. They choose instead not to abide by

their own laws - the laws of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador - but to create a

new law. That is what we are facing.

If there is a crisis in health care, it is because this

government chooses to go its own route rather than the route that is provided for in

legislation in this Province. Therefore, if the system has difficulties, the blame has to

be resting solely and completely on the shoulders of the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's West.

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition today from the residents of St. John's

west. It is requesting that neighbourhood schooling, K-XII, for the west end of St. John's

remain intact, as was agreed upon during educational reform.

During the provincial election, and in the House of

Assembly on Thursday, the Premier repeated that if at the end of the day there was a

community consensus, he gave a commitment that he would intervene without hesitation. I

think that the 6,000 signatures here from the people of St. John's West do in fact

represent a community consensus.

The community of St. John's west, the west end of the

city, is under the jurisdiction of the Avalon East School Board. There are approximately

35,000 pupils under the jurisdiction of the Avalon East School Board, of which 3,995

reside in St. John's west. That is not the electoral district of St. John's west, not to

be confused with that, but rather the residential geographic west end of St. John's.

On behalf of these 3,995 students, the Avalon East

School Board has been allocated $15 million out of $125 million that is allocated to the

Province. The Province of Newfoundland has approximately 97,000 students. Where almost 40

per cent of them reside in the Avalon East School Board, it seems that an allocation of

$15 million, which is 12 per cent, does not quite measure up to the 40 per cent of the

students that reside in the Avalon East School Board.

Whereas the Premier has said that he would in fact

intervene, I would like to make a part of the petition today that he would intervene on

behalf of those students. He can intervene. It is okay to say it would cost more money to

implement the proposal that the people in St. John's West want. Yes, it will cost more

money, but it will not cost any new money. All the people of St. John's west are asking is

that there is a fairer allocation of the money. In other words, if 40 per cent of the

pupils reside in the Avalon East School Board and they only get 12 per cent of the

allocation, something is radically wrong.

That is what the people are asking. If 40 per cent of

the pupils reside in Avalon East School Board and they get 12 per cent of the allocation

of funds, then this is not: a fair and equal share, as has been promised to the people of

this Province.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to the

petition, because the hon. member has chosen to interpret what I had to say in the House a

few days ago about wanting to allow the process to be completed, the very difficult work

being done by the Avalon East School Board. These are all volunteers. They do not get paid

for the work they do, and the work they do is an attempt to rationalize the dollars that

are available to provide the best system possible for the children within their school

board district.

They have been out listening to the community. They have

already begun to indicate, in their responses, that they are proposing some amendments to

their original plan. It appears that some members of the community are responding

favourably to that.

I have to take exception with the point being raised by

the Member for St. John's West. I would doubt that it is the position of the Opposition

party - although I would be interested in hearing - that we should spend dollars or

resources on a purely per capita basis. In other words, the position the member took is:

If a district has 40 per cent of the students, that district should get 40 per cent of the

department's budget. Because I know that members opposite, like the Members for Lewisporte

and Baie Verte, for example, will recognize that whether you are talking health care,

education, municipal affairs, water and sewer, or transportation, it always costs more, on

a per capita basis, to provide those services to rural Newfoundland and Labrador.

While we in the House have to ensure that there is

equity for all of our students, no matter where they live, in particular equity for the

students of St. John's west, we cannot accept in this House the argument which has just

been put by the hon. Member for St. John's West that if the school board district has 40

per cent of the students they should get 40 per cent of the entire budget of the

department. Because, Mr. Speaker, if we accept that argument in Baie Verte -

MS S. OSBORNE: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for St. John's

West.

MS S. OSBORNE: I said they should get a fairer

share. I did not say they should get 40 per cent.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the record of the House

will show, and Hansard will show, that that is indeed the point. Perhaps the member would

now want to amend that point. That is exactly the point that was made. You said words to

the effect - I do not have the exact words, but I am very confident that Hansard will show

this - that if the students of St. John's west represent 40 per cent of the budget they

should get a 40 per cent share.

If you are standing to qualify that, to say that you no

longer hold that position, and that you understand that that is not fair to the rural

parts of this Province, areas like the Great Northern Peninsula, or the Baie Verte

Peninsula, or the northeast Coast, or the Bonavista North area, or Placentia, or St.

Mary's, or Bonavista South - the gentleman next to you will tell you that it costs more up

there -, if you have since qualified your position, in qualifying your position you are

exhibiting the kind of reasoned thinking we have to bring to this process.

We have to give the school board a chance to do its job.

We have to recognize they are living with a limited amount of money and that they have to

provide services the most efficient way possible with the money they have. We cannot use a

cookie cutter formula ever. We cannot say that per capita considerations will drive the

budget of the Department of Education. We have to give every child in this Province to the

best of our ability - and our ability is limited.

This year we have basically a budget balance. Next year

we have a $30 million deficit. We are not projecting surpluses next year. Therefore we

have to live within our means. Whether we are talking about the Department of Education,

or the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, or the Department of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs, or the Department of Health and Community Services, there is a

limit to the monies we have. We can either live within our means, or we can tax more, and

that will surely depress this economy, or we can borrow and add to the current provincial

debt.

I thank the Member for St. John's West for qualifying

her petition and for changing that formula and recognizing that we cannot have a per

capita system. We have to do the best we can within the limited means we have in this

Province.

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

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

I stand to support the petition presented by the Member

for St. John's West, and to say that your comments need no qualification because you were

clear.

We met with the school board officials yesterday in

caucus. What was also clear was that while we do not support, obviously, for all the right

and appropriate reasons, per capita funding within the system, what was also clear

yesterday is that a fairer share is required. We were told categorically -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Hold on now. I listened to you. You

can (inaudible) to listen to me.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I listened to you. You can pay me the

same courtesy to listen to what I have to say. I appreciate that, sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: School board officials said: What

government have asked us to do we can do. Government have asked us to provide reform. We

can do it, but we cannot do with what they have given us thus far. That is what they have

indicated.

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that what people in terms of

the petition as presented by the Member for St. John's West - it is a legitimate, bona

fide petition. Many of the people who signed it come from my district. I stand to support

their concerns as articulated the only way that they can in this House of Assembly,

through petition or through their members. They have gone through a process - still not

complete - and are going through a process whereby their concerns are being presented to

the school board, and making representation, because demographics allow it, demographics

dictate it, the amount of population growth.

It is clear that the declining enrolments in and around

the St. John's area are occurring not in the St. John's west, not in that district

whatsoever. Anybody who has taken the time to look at the numbers, to do the research, to

see what it is, it is very clear. What this petition is asking for essentially is what was

promised and committed to in recent weeks. That if the process is followed through, and if

the process at the end of the day does not meet the needs and concerns of the citizens in

all of the districts - St. John's East, or of the Avalon East Board, all of it from

Ferryland -, that government made a commitment that they would step in and do the

appropriate thing.

That is what was said. That is what the petition is

calling for. I am proud to stand and support it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on a petition to the House of Assembly on behalf

of constituents in my district who are seeking - I will read the prayer without the

`whereases.'

WHEREAS the undersigned petition the House of Assembly

to direct the government to take whatever action is necessary to ensure that Virginia Park

School remains open, to maintain the current levels of staffing and programs in the

school, and to replace the building with a new school as part of a long-term plan.

It is very similar to the situation that the students in

St. John's West find themselves in, where they have a facility, they have a location that

needs a school, they have a school population that needs a school, and yet the school is

slated for closure in this case, or a change in the case of Beaconsfield. We have a

perfectly legitimate school population that needs a school in its neighbourhood. The

Virginia Park Elementary School provides an integrated support network, along with the

Virginia Park Community Centre, for a school population that is going to be there, in that

neighbourhood, for the next fifty years.

What we have is a school there that is still

satisfactory, although it does need to be replaced in the medium term. It consists of what

used to be called portable classrooms that have been there for about twenty years. When

the school board did its evaluations of the school building it came out very low, lower

than the average, because of the state of the building.

In terms of a site for a school, in terms of a place, a

neighbourhood in which a school is needed, it sits on a five-acre site where students can

walk to school, where students need a school in that neighbourhood because they do not

have transportation to go farther afield, and where it makes rational sense to maintain

and to continue a school.

I say to the Premier that the parents of Virginia Park

have just as much right to fight for and insist on a school in their neighbourhood and

community as someone does in Baie Verte, Grand Falls, Labrador West or anywhere else in

the Province. Just because these people happen to live in a neighbourhood in my District

of Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi does not mean they are not entitled to the same kind of

consideration for a school that serves and meets their needs.

The Member for Virginia Waters knows the school very

well because he represented that neighbourhood as part of the District of Pleasantville

before it was changed a few years ago in 1996. He understands that the parents and the

families who live in that neighbourhood do have special needs for a school that

understands the social and economic circumstances the families are in, that tries to meet

those needs in a directed way, that works with those families and with the Virginia Park

community centre, and provides a more than important, a vital need for those families to

give their children an equal opportunity for a good quality education that addresses their

special needs to put them on the same footing as other students.

What has happened instead is the proposal is to close

this school, send some of the students of this area down to Bishop Field downtown, send

some of them to Vanier, and some of them somewhere else, to Mary Queen of Peace. To spread

them all out and force them into situations where school busing is going to be required at

some cost, or they are going to have to find their own way to school.

The parents here have decided to ask this government and

ask the school board to reconsider this, to keep that school open, and even though the

government has only given $15 million this year, to look at a plan that in year two, year

three, year four, or year five of that plan, to replace that school with a school that is

going to have a population in that neighbourhood, all around that neighbourhood, for the

next fifty years, for the foreseeable future. We have Newfoundland and Labrador Housing

units around there, we have single family dwellings, we have two apartment houses. There

are going to be families there with schoolchildren for the foreseeable future for the next

fifty years.

What those parents want and what I support is the

concept of school reform based on neighbourhood schools and based on community schools. In

this case the Avalon East School Board does need more money. No one is suggesting that it

be taken from another school district, but more money is needed in order to properly

conduct school reform in this Avalon East area. More money is required, not necessarily

this year, Mr. Speaker, but in the next two or three years as part of a longer term plan

to provide a new school for Virginia Park.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to add a couple of words to the petition by

the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I can certainly understand what these petitioners

are saying, and I certainly agree with the spirit and the thrust of this petition.

In my own district, for example, I would just like to

list some of the schools that are going to be closed. These include the following: Brinton

Memorial School; St. Pius X Elementary School; St. Patrick's Hall - all set for closure in

September of 1999 - St. Joseph's School down in the East End, where many of the students

who attend that school are actually constituents of St. John's East; a viable high school,

namely Brother Rice High School, which is now going to be reconfigurated and will now

become a junior high, according to the present proposal. In fact, we have a viable high

school that has existed now in excess of some thirty years, a very proud school of lasting

and long tradition, now being changed; and, of course, we have also reallocation in Mary

Queen of Peace. All, I would say, in one district.

I may add, because this is why I wish to support the

spirit and the thrust, that another school in my district which closed last year was St.

Bonaventure's. Of course, we all know in this Province what many of the parents went

through.

The reason I stand is simply to say that I realize that

it is the school board that makes the decision. I realize that it is the legislation under

the Schools Act that governs by allowing school boards to make these decisions, but there

is certainly no harm in this particular House of Assembly and in this, the people's

Chamber, to present these types of petitions so that the people of this Province can know

that the parents are going through a very painful and difficult exercise when in fact

community schools, schools that are very close to them, are set for closure or for

significant change. From that point of view I have no difficulty whatsoever in supporting

the petition of my colleague.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the

petitions. Clearly, as the Minister of Education, you get arguments on both sides of the

issue, particularly in the rural areas of this Province as well as in the urban areas.

This is a process that has been going on for two years

now, and it is a three-year process. I do not know how many people realize it, but eight

of the ten boards have in fact undertaken their restructuring process. A lot of parents

have gone through difficult times, not just the two boards that are going through it now

but others that are still going through the process; because, even though they have

identified their restructuring, it is still ongoing. It is not something that happens

overnight.

I appreciate what the hon. members opposite are saying.

Yes, these are difficult times and change is always difficult, particularly when you have

to move a child from one school where they have been going for a period of time to

another, but I have to say that I have yet to see a child who cannot accommodate change,

maybe more so than some adults can adapt to change.

When we talk about neighbourhood schools, for a lot of

the children who go to school in rural Newfoundland, a neighbourhood school is in another

community and a bus ride of maybe half-an-hour or longer. None of us like that, but

clearly we are working with the resources that we have. There are inefficiencies in the

system. There are schools that are half occupied.

In my district alone, I have a community where we have

two schools half filled. One school has to close, much to the chagrin of the parents and

the children who have been going to that school for years and years, but they must come

together to realize efficiencies.

I recognize as well that it is difficult on children, it

is difficult on parents, but when you say, keep this school open or keep that school open,

my question always is: Where do you find the money to do that? Where do you find the money

to make sure that all of these schools can stay open, all of these so-called neighbourhood

schools?

If we look at what is happening now with the Avalon West

Board, they have a difficult job to do. These are volunteers, they are working very hard,

and I would not want their task for anything in the world. I recognize that they put in a

lot of time and effort.

When we went through school reform it was clear to us,

and clear to everyone in this Province, that they wanted an elected school board. Well, we

have elected school boards. These are not government appointees. These are people who have

been elected by the people to whom they will have to serve. These are the people who

reside in the communities. They know better than I, they know better than almost anyone

else in the House, what is best for their areas.

We are leaving it to the boards to decide which schools

should stay, which schools should remain open, what consolidations need to take place,

what redevelopment needs to take place. These are not easy decisions to make, and they

come with a price tag. Regrettably, we only have so much money. It would be great if we

had the money to keep every school open, where a child could walk to school. That is not

possible.

I go back again to rural Newfoundland, for the members

from the St. John's districts. In most of the rural Newfoundland communities - I know hon.

members opposite know this, those that represent rural districts - most children have to

spend a considerable amount of time on a bus to get to what is called a neighbourhood

school.

When we look at the West End of St. John's - and I know

the sentiment out there about wanting to have a K-XII system in the West End of St.

John's. I am not going to prejudge the board. I do not know what they are going to come

back with, but regrettably we have right now in excess of 8,000 spaces in our school

system in St. John's - 8,000 empty spaces - which means we -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: In St. John's.

St. John's West is not the issue here. It is in St.

John's, the Avalon East Board, which means that we have schools, high schools in the

middle of St. John's, that will be empty.

Mr. Speaker, the board can either choose to close these

schools and build a new one, which means you close down a perfectly good building because

you do not want a child to ride on a public transit system for ten or fifteen minutes to a

school in the centre of St. John's. Now any board knows, and we know, that if you had a

choice today you would not build five high schools in the centre of St. John's; but,

reality is reality and that is where the schools are.

How the board accommodates that I do not know, and again

I am not going to prejudge them, but when you look at the dollars available to us, we have

to work with what we have. We cannot take it from health. We certainly cannot raise taxes

- or we could, but can you imagine the outcry if we tried to do that?

Mr. Speaker, you should know that at this point in time

20 per cent of the provincial budget is spent on education -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS FOOTE: - $700 million, and where we would find an

extra dollar, I do not know.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House

Leader.

MR. FUREY: Order 2, Bill 2.

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of

the Whole.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee

of the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just have a few comments. I am not going to unduly

delay this Interim Supply bill. In Interim Supply, government is asking for

$1,057,878,300, a little bit of pocket change, I might add, to keep them going until the

Budget is passed sometime in late July or August, possibly, I might add; or May or June at

the normal time, whenever that occurs.

That is a lot of money. I said to the Government House

Leader that we understand the purpose of Interim Supply. Its importance is to ensure there

is sufficient funding in the Government treasury to meet the payroll burden of this

government, to meet ongoing costs, to meet the costs of the public relations campaign they

are carrying on, and all other types.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, those full-page ads, to meet

those costs. To be honest with you, we would very much to delay (inaudible), but Interim

Supply itself, this bill, is standard procedure to allow government to spend and meet its

payroll of its employees and so on. It is important, and of course we will certainly, in

due course in a few minutes, allow that.

It was very unnecessary to have to take an hour out of

the House today to take a break and deal with something we knew already, that the normal

process will be followed. We will have an opportunity, I say to members of the House, to

debate this legislation that was given notice today. In due course they will get through

the regular readings of that, the first, second, and third readings. We will have an

opportunity to stand, when the time comes and that bill is called again and introduced at

the first reading level again, and at second reading, and debate the merits or demerits of

that bill, and whereto on these specific issues.

There are things here I want to comment briefly on. Just

looking through those special warrants tabled today, I see one unnecessary one. Yes, I

might add to the Premier, $3,199,300 for having an election after less than three years.

It is an unnecessary one. I have gone through four elections in six-and-a-half years in

the House. It is criminal, with a $2 million or $3 million-plus price tag every single

time.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

1993, I will tell you. That is when elections were called by the Premier of this Province

who sits on that side of the House, I might add, at the cost of almost $10 million to the

taxpayers of this Province.

The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture stood in the

House, and I wanted to correct a few things. I have been waiting for my opportunity on

where we are on our debt. I follow the debt of this Province very closely, I might add. I

am sure the Minister of Finance who sits across there does also.

He is talking about the debt totally brought on by the

PC Government. Regardless of who brought on the debt, I would like to let him know that in

1972 they inherited $1 billion in total debt. Since 1989 there has been a 40 per cent

increase in the direct debt of this Province in the last ten years.

PREMIER TOBIN: How much in the last three years?

MR. SULLIVAN: The Liberal Government is in since

1989, Premier!

PREMIER TOBIN: The last three years.

MR. DICKS: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. SULLIVAN: Since -

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The record will also show that during the previous

Conservative governments taking an office for seventeen years from 1972 to 1989 they ran

up the provincial deficit by more than 400 per cent. Forty percent by comparison looks

quite modest.

CHAIR: No point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just wanted to have an opportunity to set a few things

straight. The Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, who was there, he could not sit and

take the real truth, that the direct debt of this Province has grown by 40 per cent since

PREMIER TOBIN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, the Opposition House

Leader is known to be a very detailed and to be factual when it comes to matters of budget

and deficit. I know he would want the record to show that in the last three years the debt

of the Province has not increased; it has decreased by $100 million.

CHAIR: Order, please!

No point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. GRIMES: Is it true or not, Loyola? Is that true

or false?

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, it is. It is true or false, yes,

I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy. He asked if it was true or false and I say yes,

it is true or false.

They do not even want to hear the truth. The figures I'm

taking are taken from this government's own documents. In 1989 there was a debt of $4.316

billion, a direct debt. Today the direct debt is shown as $6.033 billion. That is a 40 per

cent increase in our debt since your government took over in 1989. There has been in total

debt - it was at $4.845 billion in 1989, today it is $6.508 billion, a 34.3 per cent

increase in debt in this Province since 1989.

Let's get back prior to 1972. There was one year in

particular in which the previous Liberal government spent 40 per cent more than they took

in in revenue in one fiscal year. Now if you call that fiscal responsibility you have

something else coming to you. There was $1.026 billion in debt incurred in 1972. When you

look at the increase in total debt - and I'm just correcting the minister who indicated

that the total debt was incurred from 1972 almost to 1989. That is incorrect. The record

speaks for itself. I ask you to research and look at your statements on that particular

issue.

I just wanted to make that particular point. I had an

opportunity to speak on this several times before, and I say to the Government House

Leader that we will not delay this Interim Supply bill. We know it is important for the

normal functioning of government, for people who come to work here every day in this

building and people all over the Province, employed through public funds. They need to get

a pay cheque. We realize that and we will not delay that process there.

I say to the Government House Leader that basically will

conclude the remarks on our side of the House here representing the Official Opposition on

Interim Supply, and then we will get on with other business and other legislation, I am

sure, that the government will have coming here. Hopefully there is some good legislation

coming that we can debate during this spring session of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to address a few remarks on the issue of

Interim Supply prior to the vote being taken on whether or not the government should have

the right to spend some $1.1 billion. It is Interim Supply, not designed to pass the whole

entire Budget. The full figure is $1.057 billion to tide the government over for a few

months till the Budget is passed.

It is certainly not the intention of me and us to hold

up the process of government and stop the payment of cheques for salaries for public

sector workers, nurses, and everybody else who is entitled to receive them. This is an

opportunity to debate the situation that is facing the government, to look at some of the

issues of finance, and to look at the issues of the day as reflected in financial

measures.

Just a few moments ago, in discussing and debating the

issue of whether or not there should be a high school in St. John's west, or whether or

not the people of Virginia Park are entitled to have a school that meets their needs, that

debate, at the end of the day, is in part about money.

The Minister of Education gets up and says: We would

like to have the money for this but I do not know where the money is coming from. We just

had tabled today a whole bunch of warrants for money for whatever it suited the government

to spend the money on. Not legislated, not in the legislation, not covered by last year's

Budget, money not available and approved by the Legislature: the Lieutenant-Governor's

warrant for $8 million for one topic, $58 million for the Ministry of Education, $3.1

million for the calling of an election - or $3.2 million, it is very close -, $8 million

for Human Resources and Employment, $1 million for the Newfoundland and Labrador Legacy

Nature Trust; I do not think anyone has really explained as to why that had to be done

then, March 2, and why it could not wait, what urgency there was to spend that money in

the first week in March.

There is a whole series in here, but obviously the

government, when they decide they want money to do something, they find the money, either

in the Budget or through a special Lieutenant-Governor's warrant without legislative

approval.

I know they have the authority to do that and it is not

illegal for them to do that. I am not suggesting the government is committing illegal acts

in undertaking these Lieutenant-Governor's warrant. What I am saying though is that when

it suits the government to do something they find the money to do it. If they do not want

to do it they say: We are not a bottomless pit, we do not have the money to do everything

we want to do. That is true, but they do have the money to do the things they want to do.

They make choices, and the choice they are making, in this particular case, is to put very

heavy pressure upon the Avalon East School Board to reduce the number of schools they have

operating by taking away the number of teachers they have and forcing them into a

situation where school closures are inevitable.

They have done that, and the school board in this

Province that is hurt the most by that is the Avalon East Board because they do have, I

suppose, some flexibility, in the sense that even if they cannot close down some of the

more remote schools in St. John's, they can consolidate schools, close down schools and

force people around St. John's.

I suppose the clear example has been raised by the

Member for St. John's West. It is a very important issue in her constituency and

throughout St. John's, and that is the absence of a high school in St. John's west.

Historically there was always at least one high school

in St. John's west. Holy Cross was there for many years as a high school until it burnt

down. There was a regionalization process that went on in the 1960s when Brother Rice High

School and Holy Heart of Mary were built. I think that at one time Holy Heart of Mary had

in excess of 1,500 students, close to 2,000 students. Somebody's idea of the latest trend

in education was to have big schools so they decided they were going to have a 1,800

student massive mega-high school. That is not what people want in the long run. In fact,

there was a high school built in St. John's west, Beaconsfield, which served not only the

Catholic population of St. John's west but others as well.

Now where are we going? We are going backwards. We are

moving back thirty years to the point where there is going to be no high school in St.

John's west? Is that what this government wants to impose on the people of St. John's,

just because they happen to be in St. John's?

If you take the Premier's words, it is okay for that to

be imposed on St. John's because we have to look after other places. The people of St.

John's, the citizens of St. John's, the parents of St. John's, the students of St. John's,

deserve to be looked after too. If the government wants to solve those problems they have

the opportunity to do so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, Oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the hon.

member, whom I have know for a long time, to withdraw what he has just said. He knows that

is not true. I live in St. John's west, and my children go to school in St. John's. My

children will complete school in St. John's, and they happen to go to school in the centre

of the city.

To get up and make that kind of a statement and try and

divide the Province on the basis of rural versus urban... The only thing I said was that

if you take the per capita formula of the notion that if you have 40 per cent of the

people you get 40 per cent of the money, it will leave rural Newfoundland without the

capacity to have a proper school. That is all I said.

My children go to school in St. John's, they live in St.

John's and they are part of this community. I am not prepared to say that schooling for my

children or yours - you live in St. John's too - should take priority over consideration

for children in rural Newfoundland.

I would ask the hon. member, whom I have known to be an

hon. member, to withdraw that suggestion, because it is not true, and he knows it is not

true.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The comments certainly were not unparliamentary and do

not call for being withdrawn. What I have to say is that the debate was started by the

Member for St. John's West quite properly getting up and saying: We need a high school in

St. John's west. We do need a high school in St. John's west. The member pointed that in

the allocations of capital funding for schools the Avalon East School Board was receiving

12 per cent of the funds and had in excess of 40 per cent of the students. I do not think

she suggested a per capita formula was the only way to go, but what she said was that she

thought that perhaps the students in St. John's were being under-represented in terms of

capital funding.

I do not see that as dividing the townies and the

baymen, as they used to call it in Memorial when I went there thirty years ago. I do not

see that as dividing St. John's and rural Newfoundland. It is the Premier who jumped into

that debate and accused her of doing that very thing. I think he was wrong to do that. He

was wrong to do that just as he is wrong in thinking that I am accusing him -

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, a point of privilege.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of privilege, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi is now quite frankly conjuring up things that have been said, and Hansard

will show they have not been said, by me in this House. He just made the statement that

the Premier was saying that the people of - I think the words you said were: From St.

John's, just because they were from St. John's, won't get a high school.

I have never said any such thing and the member knows

it. There are a lot of people sitting in the House who have listened to this debate. I

would ask him to withdraw that. He needn't look confused about it. Hansard is going to

show what the member said, and I would ask him to withdraw that.

You are practising the politics of region, of pride and

prejudice, of dividing, as you said, to quote your words - and I do not think they are

very good words - townies and baymen. I do not think that is the proper language in 1999

in this House. I would ask you to withdraw the allegation and withdraw that description of

people who live in urban centres or rural centres.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair will review Hansard and will get back to the

House after that review. We will make a decision on the point of privilege.

MR. HARRIS: I don't understand the Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Are you speaking now on the resolution?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: The hon. the member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wish to make it very clear. I'm not sure what words

the Premier is putting in my mouth, and that is what I was confused about. I am quite

prepared to review Hansard, whenever it comes out, to find out what it was the Premier was

accusing me of saying and see whether or not I said it. What I do want to make clear is

that there is no place in this House -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Resolution

"That it is expedient to introduce a measure to

provide for the granting to Her Majesty for defraying certain expenses of the public

service for the financial year ending March 31, 2000, the sum of $1,057,878,300."

CHAIR: Shall the resolution carry?

All those in favour, `aye.'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!

CHAIR: Against.

Carried.

On motion, clauses 1 through 3, carried.

A bill, "An Act For Granting To Her Majesty Certain

Sums Of Money For Defraying Certain Expenses Of The Public Service For The Financial Year

Ending March 31, 2000 And For Other Purposes Relating To The Public Service". (Bill

Motion, that the Committee report having passed a

resolution and a bill consequent thereto, carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee

rise and report progress.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and

ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Trinity

North.

MR. OLDFORD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole

on Supply have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report they

have adopted a certain resolution and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect

to the same.

On motion, resolution read a first and second time.

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

MR. OLDFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to report

that during Committee of the Whole on Supply, a point of privilege was raised by the

Premier. I am pleased to report that point of privilege to you, and I trust that you will

consider it and report back to the House in due course.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will take the report of the

Chairman on the point of privilege under advisement, will review Hansard and report to the

House at the earliest possible time.

We have not finished with the report of the Chairman of

the Committee of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Pardon? You cannot hear? Oh, I am

sorry.

We have not finished with the resolution and the bill.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. FUREY: I move that the loan bill be introduced

and read a first time.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and

Recreation to introduce a bill, "An Act For Grantin