Newfoundland and Labrador Hansard — Oral Questions; Statements by Ministers — 29 March 1999 (44th General Assembly, 1st Session, Vol. XLIV No. 9)
1999-03-29
Newfoundland and Labrador — Debates (Hansard)
March 29, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 9
The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
MR. HARRIS: Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of privilege, the hon. the Member for
Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of privilege with
respect to my being able to perform my duties as a member of this House, and as the leader
of a recognized party under the Elections Act. It relates to the ability of me and my
party to participate in Question Period.
To date there have been eight sittings of the House of Assembly in this
session and six periods of Oral Questions. To date, despite repeated attempts to be seen
by the Chair, I have not been recognized. Those six Question Periods would have consisted
of a total of 180 minutes whereby questions are able to be asked of the government.
As a leader of a recognized political party in the last election, and
as a leader of a party that now, with a caucus of two, falls within the definition of a
recognized parliamentary group as determined by the Speaker McNicholas on March 2, 1987,
it is my contention that I, as a member and as the leader, have my privileges breached,
they are negatively affected, by not receiving recognition and being able to participate
in Question Period.
We meet the criteria set out by Speaker McNicholas in his March 1987
ruling, and we meet any criteria that exists in the Elections Act with respect to a
recognized party, both in terms of the qualifications as a recognized party, and the only
other qualification there mentioned, the ability to participate in a advisory committee to
the Chief Electoral Officer, which requires that a recognized party can participate as a
member of this advisory committee if that party contests one-half of the seats in the last
provincial election.
The only statutory criteria that exists we meet, and the only precedent
of this House that relates to the recognition of a party we also meet. Given the numbers
that are here, even our respective weights, we are not getting recognition and I am not
getting recognition as leader.
I canvassed one other jurisdiction in New Brunswick where the numbers
are nine Conservatives in opposition, one New Democrat in opposition, to forty-five
Liberals in government. I am advised that in the last session of their House, in which
there were thirty-three days of Oral Questions, that the Leader of the New Democrat Party,
even though she represents only one seat, was recognized for nineteen of those
thirty-three days. Not that that is a standard, but it is just by way of example. Given
that we have been open for eight days now, and on six of those days we have had our Oral
Questions, as the leader of a party and as a member I am expected to raise questions in
Question Period on the important issues of the day.
We have had very important issues. We have had a lot of visitors to the
gallery who are certainly interested in hearing questions from both parties in opposition,
and we have seen Question Period - and that is not a criticism of the Official Opposition.
They have members standing. The last two Question Periods there have only been two people
asking questions of the government and no recognition was given to our caucus or to me as
leader.
I say that this is not a criticism of the Official Opposition. They
have the duty, obligation and right to stand and seek to be recognized by the Chair. Just
in terms of the allocation of time and the opportunity for other people to ask questions,
this appears to have been denied by the operation of Question Period for the last six days
of Oral Questions.
I raise that as a point of my privileges both as a member and as the
leader of what I contend, based on our precedents and law, is a recognized parliamentary
group.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the precedent the hon. member talks about,
Speaker McNicholas', I recall it, I was here in the House. There were two sitting members
I believe at that time for the NDP, Mr. Fenwick and Mr. Long. The Speaker ruled at that
time that they would be recognized as a parliamentary group for purposes of responding to
ministerial statements.
I think Your Honour has recognized that precedent and, in fact, for the
eight days we have been open has allowed this parliamentary group to respond in kind with
half of the opposition time for ministerial statements. With respect to questions, Your
Honour, you are the sole arbiter of the House and you must recognize people who stand in
their place to choose to ask questions. We cannot question you in that regard, Your
Honour.
MR. SPEAKER: To the point raised by the hon. member, I want to
refer members to the 1976 ruling by Speaker Ottenheimer. Our Standing Orders and our
statutes are silent with respect to the definition of, and the entitlement of, any
parliamentary group.
We have however had two rulings on the subject which have limited
application. One was in 1976. Mr. Speaker Ottenheimer ruled that the leader of a
parliamentary group consisting of at least two persons could respond to ministerial
statements. The Speaker ruled in addition that a member who is not a leader of such a
group could exercise the right on behalf of the leader.
In 1987, Speaker McNicholas ruled, citing the 1976 ruling, that
recognition as a group did not entitle such members to any privileges over and above those
of private members.
The speaking time set out in the Standing Orders are set by our
Standing Orders and they do not make any reference to third parties; nor do the Standing
Orders concerning committee representation or Question Period make any reference to third
parties.
The spokesman of a third party has been accorded the opportunity to
respond to the Address in Reply, but this is actually a right shared by all members,
although never exercised. It is the practice to allow a response by the Official
Opposition to ministerial statements.
As was stated by Mr. Speaker in 1987: It is not unreasonable to allow
the leader of a third party or group or his designate to respond using half the time of
the Official Opposition, provided the ministerial statement is not so brief as to make
this impractical.
We therefore confirm the practice approved by the Speaker in the above
mentioned ruling.
As regards to what are entitlements or privileges of parliamentary
groups in this House, it is the Chair's opinion that this decision and matter should be
dealt with by members themselves.
There is no point of privilege.
Before we begin our routine proceedings for today, the Chair would like
to take this opportunity to welcome to the Speaker's Gallery the hon. Flora MacDonald and
Mr. Don Harron, who are visiting the Province as the co-chair of the Canada Co-ordinating
Committee for the International Year Of Older Persons. They are accompanied by Mr. John
Murphy, the Chairman of the Newfoundland Co-ordinating Committee for the International
Year of Older Persons. Please join me in welcoming these people to the gallery.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would also like to welcome today, forty
students from the Social Studies class in Grade IX from the Carbonear Integrated
Collegiate. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Jonas Anstey and Ms Legge, and bus
driver Mr. Dan Clarke.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, in 1996 when I was appointed Fisheries
Minister, I looked at the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador and I also
observed the fishing industry in Iceland. Iceland is a world leader in harvesting, quality
and marketing of their products, and I said back then that there is no reason why we
cannot be the leader in the fishing industry. So, we set our goals and are working hard to
achieve them and to become number one in the fishing industry in the world.
On March 14, I had the opportunity to attend the Boston Seafood Show;
and as hon. members know, this seafood show is the foremost show for seafood products in
North America.
While in Boston, I had the chance to meet with a number of fish
companies and their U.S. brokers and I am happy to report that the response I received
about the Newfoundland and Labrador fishing industry was very positive. Local industry
representatives and their brokers briefed me on strides we have made in our quality
initiatives, and acknowledged our disciplined approach to how we produce and sell our
products.
This positive market response is the result of hard work through our
Quality Assurance Program, as well as through our consistency of supply to the markets.
The world markets are very competitive, and developing and maintaining markets is vital to
the future of the fishing industry if we are to derive maximum benefits from our fishery.
I must point out that the very positive response we have been getting
is also a result of our fish price settlement pilot project. Participation by the
Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Fish, Food and Allied Workers
Union in the price settlement mechanism last year resulted in early fishery openings and
an orderly fishery throughout the entire season. I would like to acknowledge the efforts
of these groups to supply the markets with top quality products throughout the season to
meet required market demands on a timely basis.
Again this year, both the FFAW/CAW and FANL are working diligently
within the price settlement pilot mechanism to achieve price settlements and establish
collective agreements that focus on the harvesting and processing of top quality fish
products. Prices have been settled for both the crab and shrimp fisheries, and
negotiations for other species will take place shortly. As a result of this pilot
mechanism to negotiate fish prices, these fisheries will open on a timely basis again this
year. This is an important indicator that the fishing industry will provide optimum
employment opportunities in both the harvesting and processing sectors.
I am confident that the performance of our fishery this year will
exceed that of last year. The value of our fish landings reached an all time high in 1998
at $380 million.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. EFFORD: The export value of Newfoundland and Labrador fish
products last year was $700 million. Our fishery employed over 30,000 people last year.
The new diversified fishery that we have built is alive and growing. I have every
confidence that the fishery will experience further growth in 1999 and for its
post-moratorium value to reach a new record. Our fishery remains the backbone of this
Province and a vital contributor to our economy.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for a copy of his statement before the House
opened. I say to the minister that the world is no longer a big place. Fish processors in
Newfoundland and Labrador now sell their product all over the world, and people's buying
habits and people's eating habits have changed from what they were. We have a choice,
either to change with that or to be left and be passed by. We have elected to change with
the world.
When we go into modern processing plants, like the minister visited at
the official opening in my district, in Port Union, just a few short months ago, it is a
prime example of how much we have changed; a new modern fish processing facility where you
don't know if you are walking into a fish plant or a hospital, I say to members opposite.
It is a testament of how far we have really come.
I firmly believe - and I congratulate the minister for the part that he
has played, but it is not only the minister's part - people have played a big
part in the
change as well. The union and all workers have come out and agreed, including processors,
on a mechanism whereby fishing boats are now out fishing at the opportune time, instead of
being tied up at the wharf when they should be fishing, trying to negotiate a price for
their catch. This is all behind us now. I think it is a good beginning and it is serving
us well in the marketplace.
Mr. Speaker, this is what the minister is hearing when he goes to
places like Boston, to the seafood show.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: It is a reflection of a product that is produced
here in Newfoundland, fit for the world, I say to members opposite.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want also, on behalf of my party, to recognize the efforts of
individuals and people in the industry with the support and encouragement of the minister
and the department in making great strides in improving the quality of our product.
Obviously we have had success in the markets as a result of that.
I wonder if the minister would be prepared to consider a proposal put
forth by our party in the last election, that the provincial government establish a market
research and development agency to improve the type of products that we can put forth so
that small producers can do the same kind of things as FPI and others in introducing new
products into the market -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: - to continue value-added for our fishery.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community
Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, today I am announcing measures to
address workload issues for nurses. Time and again, nurses have told us they need
additional resources to provide improved patient care and to reduce stress levels in our
health system.
In the offer to nurses last fall, government agreed to convert 125
casual nursing positions to permanent nursing positions. Today, I am announcing that a
further 75 casual nursing positions will be converted to permanent nursing positions for a
total of 200 conversions. In addition, 125 new permanent nursing positions will be
created.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: In total, these 325 new permanent nursing
positions represent the largest single increase in permanent nursing positions in our
Province's history.
By adding 325 to the current permanent nursing workforce, government is
increasing the number of permanent nurses by approximately 10 per cent. This will bring
the percentage of casual nurses down to approximately 18 per cent of the current
workforce. These new positions will benefit both institution and community-based services,
enhance the Province's ability to retain nurses, reduce stress on nurses and improve
patient care.
Mr. Speaker, these new permanent nursing positions will cost government
$44 million over the next five years. Annually, it will cost $7.5 million for the 125 new
positions and $1.3 million for the 200 converted positions.
Today's announcement demonstrates government's commitment to address
nurses' workload issues. Government has heard, as well, that twelve-hour shifts are more
stressful in these challenging times. Government recognizes that nurses themselves decide
whether they work twelve-hour shifts. The creation of new permanent positions provides the
opportunity to study with nurses and the boards, the practice of twelve-hour shifts to
seek ways to reduce stress and improve working conditions. In other words, Mr. Speaker, if
nurses want to end twelve-hour shifts, we are willing to work with them to end twelve-hour
shifts.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: We are taking these measures today because health
remains this government's number one priority. We demonstrated that recently in the
provincial budget when government invested $40 million to pay down hospital board
deficits, $21 million for hospital equipment, $15 million additional funding for board
budgets, and an additional $1.8 million for new drug therapies. Today's announcement is a
further strategic investment of $44 million over the next five years in the health and
well-being of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am a little perplexed today in this House by the statement, when the
Premier stood in his place last week and said, in response to my question, that more
nurses are needed because there are sick people who need help, not because nurses want
more nurses. He said, it is a collective bargaining issue and not an issue of public
concern that should be negotiated outside of collective bargaining. I am glad the Premier
sees it my way today!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: I am glad he does, and I look upon this today as an
affront, in a certain sense. He had an opportunity last Monday to stand here in his place,
through the Minister of Finance, and to tell the people of this Province we care about the
sick people and we are going to put new nurses into the system. But he waits until there
is a strike to stand today and use this, that he had planned as a bargaining chip for
nurses now. To shift public support away from nurses is the plan.
It is a strategic plan, this statement today - nothing more than a
strategic plan - because we are on strike, Premier, today in the Province. We are on
strike, with certain levels of nurses put there. That is a plan that you tried, and now
you are trying to move away from that.
You had an opportunity to show your sincerity, that you expressed
during the election campaign, when you are now convinced, you said, that the staffing
issue needs to be addressed. It is one I will intervene on personally, you said; you
cannot have stressed out people working double shifts. Then, to have your Minister of
Finance stand here last Monday and tell us that not one new nurse is going to be hired in
this Province - allocated in that Budget!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I agree that this Ministerial Statement today has all to do with the
strike, not about taking care of sick people in hospitals. It is a strategic plan to sort
of isolate the public from the nurses' strike.
There are over sixty institutions in this Province that are staffed
with nurses. I believe that the numbers, even introduced today, will fall far short from
providing the type of help that is required in those hospitals.
It is all well and fine to spend money on the buildings, brick and
stones and everything else, but I think we have to remember that the most important thing
in health care is the human element. That has to recognized by this government, first and
foremost.
Florence Nightingale is a name that has gone down in history. She never
exactly had her web page on the Internet.
The twelve-hour shifts in the Ministerial Statement -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board has
announced their 1999 Call for Bids for the Province's offshore area. There will be ten
parcels of land up for bid this year, with two in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin, six in the
Flemish Pass, and two adjacent to the Newfoundland West Coast area. This amounts to more
than 1 million hectares of land in the offshore that will be up for bid this year.
As you are aware, last year's Call for Bids resulted in record offshore
land sales. It attracted total work expenditure commitments of $175 million, an increase
from the previous high of $126 million in 1996. This is truly indicative of the confidence
and strength of our offshore industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.
The offshore activity in this Province, despite low oil prices, is
strengthening and gaining local, national and international attention. This is evident in
projects like Hibernia, Terra Nova, further delineation at the Hebron/Ben Nevis complex,
White Rose, and more companies are investing in drilling projects each year and for this
year.
Companies interested in bidding on land parcels must submit their bid
by November 17, 1999 to the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board. Winning bids are
solely based on the amount of money a bidder plans to commit to exploration on the parcel
during the first five years. Further details on the 1999 Call for Bids are available by
contacting the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board.
This 1999 Call for Bids is another opportunity for companies to invest
in a Province that has a stable economic base, immense natural resources and development
potential, world-class research facilities, and $1.2 billion worth of onshore
infrastructure for our offshore oil and gas industry, and a dedicated and competent
workforce.
We look forward to a strong expression of interest in this year's
bidding process to help raise the funds needed for other initiatives such as those
announced here today.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for the advance copy. I am pleased with the
announcement of the C-NOPB with respect to the Call for Bids for this year; however, when
we hear of and discuss the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, of course, we are
reminded, in this Province, of the Atlantic Accord; because it was the Atlantic Accord
which, in fact, helped establish the C-NOPB dealing with the concept of joint management
of our offshore industry.
There are two principles that I think we, as Newfoundlanders and
Labradorians, have to remind ourselves - and particularly government has to remind itself
- with respect to this particular industry. I would like to refer to both of them: To
recognize the right of Newfoundland and Labrador to be the principal beneficiary of the
oil and gas resources off its shores, consistent with the requirement for a strong and
united Canada; and secondly, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the equality of both governments in
the management of the resource, and to ensure that the pace and manner of development
optimize the social and economic benefits to Canada as a whole, and to Newfoundland and
Labrador in particular.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We are pleased to see the increased interest in our offshore
exploration. Perhaps it is time to start making the bids not on the basis of how much
money the bidder plans to spend, but perhaps offer a competitive bid where actually there
are some direct revenues to the Province accruing from exploration rights in our offshore.
We would like to see the C-NOPB be far more aggressive in their pursuit
of benefits for the people of this Province. We are very concerned when we see places like
Nova Scotia building ships for their offshore when our shipyards do not get a look in,
because there is no priority given to them.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Premier today. The readers of The Telegram ,
the local paper, were treated again on Saturday with two full-page ads, while negotiations
were going on with the nurses' union, and another full-page ad on Sunday, paid for by the
taxpayers' money, presumably to provide the public with critical information on
negotiations and government's position with respect to the nurses.
A full-page ad is a huge amount of space to provide information, so it
is quite surprising, I say to the Premier, that your ad provided so little information.
Yes, there was information on the percentage increases given or offered to various public
sector unions across Canada, but that was all there was. There was absolutely nothing on
the actual wages the respective provinces offered their nurses, or on the relative
benefits offered by provinces to nurses, or on how other provinces maintain, recruit and
retain their nurses, or on the number of nurses per capita for provinces with comparable
demographics to ours.
If you are going to spend taxpayers' money, Premier, money on an
information ad, why would you not take advantage of the opportunity to provide all - and I
repeat, all - of the relevant information to the public of this Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I know the Leader of the Opposition
would note that there have been ads run by the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses Union as
well, setting forth the position of the union in these negotiations. As these negotiations
involve two sides at the table, both sides seeking to give the people of the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador information pertaining to their position, I do not think there
is anything wrong at all with government putting forward its position in an information
campaign. Certainly the party opposite when it was in office did so on a regular basis. In
fact, not by newspaper ads but by putting brochures directly into every house in
Newfoundland and Labrador. So I do not think this is a valid criticism.
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition is not
asking me today - and I think this is what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador would
have expected - about the fact that negotiations have now ceased.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, last night, the negotiators for the
Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses Union put forward a position to the government
negotiating team through a conciliator. The people of the Province need to know - it is
important that everybody knows - that since the strike started on Wednesday there has not
been one face-to-face negotiation between the government negotiating team and the
Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses Union negotiating team. All dialogue has been through
conciliation. The request which had been made by the government for face-to-face
discussion has, on every occasion, been turned down.
The last communication we had was to say to government: Here is a wage
position which we put to you. If you accept it, well and good, we can settle the other
issues. If you do not accept it, we will ask to be released from conciliation.
That position which was put was for a 14 per cent increase in wage and
benefits. We could not accept it. The Nurses Union asked to be released from conciliation,
and the talks formally ended. I heard in a public statement from the President of the
Nurses Union that in fact they left the table not because of the position that we actually
had communicated to us, but because of a different one. The President of the Nurses Union
said they left because they wanted 7 per cent plus a $2 retention bonus or responsibility
bonus, which would equal a 17 per cent wage increase.
Mr. Speaker, to set the record straight - and I accept that is the
nurses position, if the president says so - but to set the record straight, the issue that
was put on the table was 14 per cent.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: Government said no, and the nurses have ceased
negotiations at this point in time.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, obviously collective bargaining has
broken down. That is obvious. We will get to that in a few moments. Stay tuned Premier,
you will have a chance to answer the questions as we ask them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Last week the Premier talked about the argument that
7 per cent was the benchmark, and it would be unfair to give any other public servant more
or less than 7 percent. Of course, in my view that logic flies in the face of good
collective bargaining, which guarantees every bargaining unit the right to work out its
own agreement with its employer individually. That logic, taken to its natural extension,
means that whoever comes in first and bargains with government, no matter whatever other
bargaining unit you are part of, that is what you have to take!
There are many different bargaining units in the Province, I say to the
Premier. The reality is, if we take government's settlement with other public sector
people in this Province, the benchmark was not 7 per cent. Wouldn't you admit Premier, by
your own logic, that the benchmark is not 7 per cent, in view of the fact that you have
settled with other health care professionals - namely physicians - for 23 per cent, and
you have settled with judges prior to other bargaining units for at least 13 per cent?
Which is it?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I hope that those who think carefully
about what it takes to make the decisions, to make the choices, and they are never easy,
to ensure that a province runs smoothly and that we live within our means are listening
carefully to the questions today by the Leader of the Opposition.
The judge settlement that the Leader of the Opposition refers to was
enforced by a court. The Leader of the Opposition knows that. He was very much aware it.
I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that he knows these first
wage settlements come after a six- or seven-year wage freeze. They are the first
settlements after a long period of freeze. He knows the Government of Newfoundland and
Labrador said, as we got into these first settlements, that we were setting out a
framework of 7 per cent that we thought was fair and within what the Province could
afford.
He knows that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador next year is
forecasting a $30 million deficit. He knows, because Mr. Austin Deir of the Newfoundland
Association of Public Employees has been saying so this morning in the paper, and I am
told he was on the radio last night at VOCM, that whatever is given by way of extra
entitlement over and above 7 per cent to the nurses he insists be given to the
Newfoundland Association of Public Employees. Mr. Deir is already talking about wildcat
action to back that up. He knows that other unions have held a similar position, that they
want whatever is given.
I want to say this to the Leader of the Opposition this. Every 1 per
cent more in wage settlements is worth $16 million. If everybody in Newfoundland and
Labrador is settled out at 17 per cent, that is $160 million more per year in wage costs
for this Province. That would give us next year a $200 million deficit. That would cost us
$800 million over the next five years. We have to be honest in this House and admit that
we do not have $800 million more for wage settlements over the next five years.
I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition this. Is he telling NAPE, is
he telling the teachers of the Province -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: - is he telling CUPE, that they are not to get one
nickel more than 7 per cent, but he is recommending 17 per cent for nurses? Give a
straight answer today, yes or no.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: This Premier would not know collective bargaining if
it came up and hit him square in the face, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: He wouldn't understand it if it hit him right between
the eyes. Collective bargaining is not something that you take out public relation ads on
while you are bargaining. It is not something where you try to pit a negotiated settlement
and a legal agreement by one former public sector union against the other, and put on the
back and shoulders of somebody else: You have to settle, or 30,000 more are going to go
out.
Collective bargaining, and the spirit of good faith bargaining -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: I will give you your answer, Sir. We gave it to you
in our health care policy, which some of it I understand you are about to follow on health
care boards.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Right here in that document where we said that we
would introduce the appropriate and proper measures to recruit and retain health care
workers in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: The reality is, wouldn't the Premier admit, there is
a precedent in the public sector for increasing the pay for a position commensurate with
significant increase in the responsibilities of that position.
Will the Premier acknowledge that many of our nurses right now are
doing work far different and far more gruelling and onerous today than they did when their
pay scales were worked out many - and I repeat, many - years ago?
Will he acknowledge this is because of reductions in staff levels,
changes in patient profiles, turnovers in our health care institutions, changing
technologies, as well as decisions to place more responsibilities on the shoulders of
nurses for health care delivery?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: Would he not admit that he is also aware of
precedents even in his own office for increasing pay scales according to increases in job
responsibilities, even beyond the 7 per cent benchmark that he has artificially set?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to complete his question.
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has just
heard the Minister of Health announce another $44 million over the next five years to
convert casuals to permanents and create new permanent positions in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition wants to avoid, and he is
doing so again today, the real question. He is not interested in participating in a debate
to bring about a responsible end - hopefully a negotiated end - to this dispute. What he
wants to do is to stand and grandstand without taking any responsibility or demonstrating
any understanding of the position of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition again today - every single
member of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, every member of the
Newfoundland Association of Public Employees, and every member of CUPE, wants to know
whether it is the position of the Leader of the Opposition that we ought to settle with
nurses at two-and-a-half times greater an increase than that offered to 30,000 other
public servants who settled at the collective bargaining table. Is that the position of
the Leader of the Opposition, yes or no?
I would ask him not to do what he did last week, to sit silently in his
place and to duck the question once again, because that is the crucial issue in this
debate.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: The role we play in the House - I ask the questions
and the Premier responds. In about two-and-a-half years I will be happy to answer all of
your questions while we are on that side of the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask him this. He wants to talk
about good faith bargaining. Is this how you bargain, Premier, when you sit across from a
bargaining union and threaten them: that if they do not accept what you put before the
table, you will impose half-a-million dollar fines per day on the bargaining team; that
you will impose $10,000 a day fines on individuals; and that for every individual employee
who does not agree with the eventual back-to-work legislation that this government
threatened, that they would impose $1,000 penalty? Is that how you bargain in good faith,
Premier?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I have never sat across the table
from anybody and set out those kind of fines that the Leader of the Opposition is
referring to.
I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that he has an obligation
not to say, I will not give you any answers until some day, some time in the future, when
I may become Premier of the Province. He is a participant in the political life of the
Province today, and you have to tell the people of the Province today whether or not you
are asking the government to settle at 17 per cent or you are asking us to settle at 14
per cent. Do you believe, in good faith, that it is fair for the people of Newfoundland
and Labrador to settle at 17 per cent for one employee group and impose, and keep imposed,
a 7 per cent settlement on every other group?
I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition, there are many other
public servants out there waiting for you to give, for once, a straight answer to that
question. My position is clear; I have given a straight answer. I have not ducked, like
the Leader of the Opposition!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Let me say, Mr. Speaker, again that this Premier does
not understand collective bargaining.
Here is what we would do: What we said six weeks ago during the
election campaign, we would not be playing to politics and convenience, like this Premier,
that we would live up to it today; that if, during the course of negotiations, no
settlement could be reached, we would invoke the law of the land; that if an emergency
situation occurs - which may occur, because the system cannot go on to the extent that it
is right now - we would invoke the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, put in place
an adjudicator, as is called for, let the adjudicator make its statement, and live by -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his
question.
MR. E. BYRNE: - as the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act
says, the judgement would be final and binding.
That is what the position of this party is. We would respect the
current Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. Is the Premier willing to commit to do
the same?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this is the leader who promised
hundreds of millions of dollars, only a few weeks ago in an election campaign, in tax
breaks, now being told that the settlement that is being demanded, if it applies to the
entire public service - and it would have to apply, by the way - would cost $800 million
over five years. When asked the question -
AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.
PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, it is true.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: That has been costed by Treasury Board. That is
true.
When asked whether or not that is what is being recommended, the Leader
of the Opposition refuses to give an answer.
Mr. Speaker, there is no point in any government standing up in this
House and suggesting to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we can afford $800
million more in wage bills over the next five years, because the fact is that we cannot
afford it. We cannot raise taxes enough to raise it, and we should not be out trying to
borrow it and imposing another billion dollar burden on our children. We have to live
within our means.
The easy thing, the popular thing, is to say yes. The right thing is to
live within our means, and that is what this Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is
doing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: The Premier knows full well that what was proposed in
tax cuts during the election represents about one-third of the spin-doctoring that he and
the Minister of Finance got on with.
The Minister of Health can shake her head all she wants. The reality is
that it was this party and only this party, during the campaign, that said the first call
on the public tax dollar will be health care. That was the commitment made by this party
here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: It is obvious to everybody in the gallery. The
reality is: Will government commit that if negotiations do not go anywhere and we find
ourselves in a position that an emergency exists and back-to-work legislation is required,
will government commit today - because the Premier did not answer it before - to invoke
the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, sections 30 through 37, which deal with such
an event, and invoke and put in place an adjudicator and a board to make a decision on
what would be reasonable for the settlement of this strike? Yes or no?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not give that commitment.
Mr. Speaker, the last time a government went to a binding arbitration process was back in
1990 - events triggered in 1990 - in which arbitrated settlements were put in place which
were not able to be afforded by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and
subsequently, in two different bills, wages were rolled back.
Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of this government that has to
set the spending priorities by a Liberal government. It was tried before; it did not work.
There is no point having an arbitrator set a wage level that you cannot afford to pay, and
having a wage bill that you cannot afford to finance.
Mr. Speaker, this government wants a solution at the table. It is the
nurses who walked from the table - regretfully.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
PREMIER TOBIN: The health care system in this Province today, we
are told by the health care boards, is continuing to cope, and as long as the health care
system continues to cope we will respect the right of nurses to be on strike and man their
picket lines.
How many more days that can be sustained, we will sit here in this
House available to deal with an emergency only if and when an emergency arises. Until that
point, the right of nurses to be on the picket line will be fully respected by this
government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the
Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: So there is no commitment to adhere to the principles
of law that exists currently in the Province.
Let me ask him this: Are there any other dispute resolution mechanisms
that government may look at, such as, final offer selection, which is one that has worked
in other public sectors across Canada - in view of the fact that the Premier likes to
refer to the rest of the country - that has worked in the settlement of disputes? Are
there any other dispute resolution mechanisms that government is looking at or speaking
with the union on so that this can be resolved and that health care, which is for the
benefit of everybody in this Province, can get on with the job that it was supposed to do?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, any reasonable process that anybody
wants to bring forward, be it the nurses' union, be it the Leader of the Opposition, or be
it any interested citizen, that has the capacity to bring the two parties to the table and
to bring about a negotiated settlement, is one that I would be prepared, on behalf of
government, to look at.
The last thing anybody wants is to legislate a union back to work or to
legislate a settlement. That is the absolute last choice that anybody wants to make, but
we cannot make a choice and say yes to a final offer - and that is what it was, a final
offer by the nurses: you accept this offer or we are going to be asked to be released from
arbitration - that we cannot afford, that would cost the Province, if it were applied to
all of our public employees, $800 million more over the next five years.
The reality is, there were no face-to-face negotiations since
Wednesday. Since the strike began - let everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador know -
there have not been five minutes of face-to-face negotiations. We have only been talked to
through a conciliator. When we have made requests for face-to-face negotiations, those
requests were refused. Our last communication was: Take this wage offer - it was 14 per
cent, that is what we were told - or we will ask to be released from conciliation. We said
that we could not afford it. They asked to be released from conciliation and then went
public and said, in fact, what they wanted was a 17 per cent wage settlement.
Those are the facts and we need to know those facts, because I believe
there is a perception out there that we have been at the table working hard, talking to
each other, hour in, hour out. There has not been one overnight session, not one extended
session, and no face-to-face negotiations.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier to conclude his answer.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we are still ready to negotiate but we
have to be at the table with both parties to get there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community
Services.
Friday before last, on March 19, there was a loss of normal power at
St. Clare's Mercy Hospital. Such a power loss should automatically trigger a generator to
start, and a switch then transfers to emergency power. This did not happen. Consequently,
respirators and cardiac monitoring machines in the ICU shut down and staff had to manually
bag the ventilators for almost an hour. This failure could have had fatal consequences for
people depending on those machines. I ask the minister: Does she feel this is adequate in
an acute care institution?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community
Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Telephone services were out for approximately two hours, I say to the
minister, and the paging system could not be used for emergencies such as 999. If an
emergency occurred, a staff member would have to be sent to a specific location -
physically sent in a hospital - to retrieve somebody to help apply any emergency medical
aid that would have been needed.
I am sure the minister was informed of this failure. I ask her: What
steps have been taken to prevent such a malfunction in the future?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community
Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Those issues, I am sure the member opposite knows, are not what I would
consider the day-to-day operations of what I would be doing in my department. We have been
very focused over the last two weeks, two-and-a-half weeks, in fact the last month, trying
to negotiate an agreement at the table with nurses. I have full confidence in the Health
Care Corporation to be able to manage a generator loss, the day-to-day activities of an
operation.
I have been in a situation where that very same incident has happened.
It is a very frightening experience. That is why it is important to have contingency plans
in place. It is also important to be able to have the nurses, physicians, and other
support staff aware that in that incident you do have to actually do manual work until
electricity is restored.
I will finish by stating that I have full confidence in the Health Care
Corporation of St. John's, and I am sure that they are working diligently to make sure
that this does not happen again. I am also quite sure that nobody every intends for this
to happen. It does happen from time to time. I will certainly, today, follow up.
As a matter of fact, I am speaking two to three times a day with all of
the members of all of the health boards right across the Island and Labrador to get an
update on the current situation.
For the member's information, I will certainly raise that at the next
conference call and report back on the most recent update on that particular situation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister indicated she is not in contact on those things and now
she is in daily contact with people there. I am not sure which is which.
I would say to the minister it is your responsibility. The health of
people in those institutions is entrusted to your care because the boards are appointed by
you, and you are responsible that that machinery to save their lives - such as respirators
- is working. I asked her a simple question. What steps are taken to ensure it does not
happen again? That is what I asked. What steps are taken?
I say to the minister, I have been informed that ongoing renovations at
the hospital have resulted in the installation of new switch gear. Hospital electricians
and other employees were not informed of this and they were not aware of these switches. I
understand that when the power went there was a scramble.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his
question.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In light of the fact that there was a power failure and there was a
scramble to find drawings - in fact, they had to find the contractor who did the work to
come in and solve this problem - I ask the minister this. Will she confirm that this was
actually the case, that the employees there responsible for maintaining those systems in
place did not know anything about the new switch gear that was put in the hospital?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community
Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do want to clarify again, because I think the last statement by the
member opposite speaks more to his intent than to his question, quite frankly. I want to
say that I am speaking to the boards two to three times daily. I am getting reports. I'm
not trying to minimize this event, but I am trying to say that on this side of the House
we are very much consumed with the current situation as it relates to the nurses and the
strike, and trying to find some way to resume a positive outcome, if at all possible.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to stand here and say that I oversee the
electrical construction of the work at St. Clare's, and I won't say it. I will say that I
am not speaking out of both sides of my mouth when it comes to boards. I am not saying:
Appoint them, elect them, and eliminate them all out of the same side of my mouth.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Premier and it relates to the legal nurses
strike we have right now, where nurses are obeying and complying with the law. I couldn't
believe my ears when I heard earlier today in Question Period the Premier - is this his
position? That the possibility of an illegal strike by some other workers is going to be
used by him to order back to work, and make the current legal strike by nurses illegal? Is
that his position? That he is going to do that, Mr. Speaker, on the basis that there is a
possibility there might be an illegal strike by somebody else?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what I have said is that it is the
preference of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to have a negotiated settlement
with nurses. What I have said is it is the last thing any government should want to do, at
any time, to legislate workers back to work. What I have said is there will be no back to
work legislation today because thus far today we have been told, by the health care
associations, that the system while stressed continues to cope. As long as that is the
case, and for as many days as that continues to be the case, or as many weeks as that
continues to be the case, we will respect the right of nurses to be on strike and to man a
picket line. That is what I have said.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal
Hill-Quidi-Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier should know that an adjudication board, under the public
service collective bargaining act, is required to look at terms that are fair and
reasonable in relation to the qualifications required, the work performed, the
responsibility assumed and the nature of the service provided.
Why, Mr. Speaker, is the Premier not prepared to look at that in terms
of negotiating a settlement with the nurses?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I just answered that question a moment
ago, but perhaps the Leader of the NDP was not paying attention at that time. I reminded
him that in 1990 there were a series of adjudicated wage settlements provided for in this
Province across a variety of unions. They turned out to be more than the government of the
day could afford. By the way, it started at that time with a negotiation with the nurses
union, and subsequently adjudication with other unions. As a consequence, the government
of the day rolled back wage settlements when those adjudicated settlements became more
than the government of the day could afford.
What I am saying is we know that next year, based on our current fiscal
plan, we are looking at about a $30 million deficit. We know that if we settle at 17 per
cent, which is the offer being asked for by the nurses union for nurses - and if we have,
and I would hope the Leader of the NDP would not try and suggest to the House we are not
going to have, a demand by NAPE and the teachers and CUPE for a similar settlement, we
know that will cost $160 million more each and every year, $800 million more over five
years.
All I am saying is this. At that stage it becomes academic. We cannot
afford that. We simply cannot as a province afford that. We cannot afford to raise taxes
high enough to capture that much new revenue, and I do not believe we should borrow
another $800 million over the next five years to pay a wage bill that we cannot afford to
pay.
What I am saying to the Leader of the NDP and what I am saying to the
nurses union is we would like a negotiated settlement at the table, one that addresses the
issue of workload through the conversion of casuals to permanent, one that provides for
the hiring of new permanents as announced today by the Minister of Health, and one that
looks at issues of compensation in a realistic fashion. I do not believe it is realistic
to say: It is 17 per cent or we walk. I really do not believe the Province of Newfoundland
and Labrador will believe that all other unions should settle for 7 per cent but that
nurses are entitled to ask for 17 per cent.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Question Period has ended.
The Chair would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the gallery
today the Mayor and Councillors of the Town of Musgrave Harbour in the district of
Bonavista North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have reports to table in accordance with the Financial Administration
Act, if I may have a moment. The first is in accordance with
Section 49(2) which is a list
of all the temporary loans raised by the Province since last year's report. These include
treasury bill borrowings on a regular Treasury Bill Program and special treasury bills
which we issued to cover temporary cash shortages in managing the Province's borrowings
and bank overdrafts. These fluctuate from time to time pending on our cash needs. These
are set forth in detail in the third portion of the reports which I will table.
Also, in accordance with
Section 55(3) we are tabling the amounts which
we paid out in the past year under our government guarantee. I am pleased to say that
there is only one guarantee paid out under the Fisheries Loan Act in the amount of
$64,000, to be exact.
Finally, for the first time I am tabling a list of guaranteed debt of
Crown corporations that are assumed by the Province. These are two. One is the past debt
of Newfoundland Farm Products Corporation in the amount of $10.2 million, and the second
is of Newfoundland Ocean Enterprises Limited in the amount of $70.9 million, both of which
amounts are now being assumed by the Province in accordance with the privatizations of
Newfoundland Farm Products and the Marystown Shipyard.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.
MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I will on tomorrow ask leave to present
the following resolution:
WHEREAS the shipbuilding industry has long been a core element in
Canada's industrial growth strategy creating and sustaining high quality skill driven jobs
with world-wide expertise in this vitally important sector; and
WHEREAS the shipbuilding industry has been an important component of
our provincial economy; and
WHEREAS other countries have continued to provide financial incentives
and maintain significant trade barriers to protect their shipbuilding industry,
eliminating the possibility of an international levelling of the playing field;
THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House strongly endorse a
provide certain measures in support of a strong and internationally competitive
shipbuilding industry as advocated by leaders of this industry.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise again today to present a petition to the House of Assembly,
addressed as follows:
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland 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 issue of casualization, to provide a fair and
equitable wage and benefits package, and 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.
Mr. Speaker, we know of the commitments made by the Premier on the eve
of the election. In the paper on Sunday, February 7, the statement is made: The Premier
says he is convinced there is a dire need to hire more nurses across the Province. He
won't commit to a number - it says - but (inaudible) to be higher than the 125 positions
that came in a contract offer last December.
Today we saw the Premier, after repeated badgering by the Member for
Ferryland last week, finally coming forward and saying: Yes, it is not a collective
bargaining issue; we are going to address that now. After some days and days of questions
he finally comes forward and makes a commitment and gives some actual information.
Today as well we saw the Premier standing in his place and saying he
cannot change the wage offer made to nurses because it might be different from that
offered to other bargaining units. I have to ask the question: What is the purpose of
collective bargaining if there is a predetermined maximization placed on a wage
settlement? We know that collective bargaining is about the coming together of employees
and employers to reach a settlement. That is the very nature of the bargaining process.
So we know the dialogue that has gone on. The advertisements that have
been taken out are all designed to create the impression in this Province that we are
approaching a crisis. It is a public relations exercise. Why would the government take out
an ad within twenty-four hours of nurses having gone on strike last Wednesday morning? We
know the ad had to be written beforehand because we know there are deadlines for the
people in the newspaper business. Why would that happen? Because it was all part of a
predesigned strategy.
While the Premier pretends to be bargaining in good faith we know, from
the record we seen thus far, that there is an insincerity. In fact, the whole process we
are hearing about makes an absolute mockery of collective bargaining. Because when you go
into bargaining you say: Here are the terms you must agree to, but we will bargain as long
as you can bargain, take one of mine for one of mine. That is not what bargaining is all
about. Bargaining is about coming together.
Then we hear the Premier today saying he cannot go and offer more
because we might have some difficulties with NAPE, CUPE, the NLTA or some other bargaining
group. The Premier says there could be some wildcat strikes. The Premier knows there are
in legislation strategies to deal with that kind of a situation. He cannot go out and say:
I can't do this because it might result in a wildcat strike. If you are going to say we
are going to have one bargaining session, he should have said to NAPE, CUPE, the nurses
and every other public sector bargaining unit: There will only be one session, so boys,
you better get together. You better team up. You better have this allied group formed
because we are only going to do this once.
That did not happen. NAPE went in to bargain in good faith. They agreed
to put forward to their membership a proposal that would be straightened out at the
bargaining table. They voted on that, they accepted it, they are bound by it. You cannot
go to nurses today and say to nurses: We cannot go beyond that because we are afraid of
the implications it might have for someone else.
The Premier knows -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. H. HODDER: - that there is a contractual arrangement with the
other groups. He cannot use that as an excuse to not deal fairly with the nurses.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to support the petition presented by my hon. colleague,
and to certainly agree with him and to say that collective bargaining in Newfoundland and
Labrador is dead, buried, gone.
I do not know if the Premier has ever sat in on any collective
bargaining sessions. There is a position laid out by one side and a position laid out by
the other. Somewhere in between there is a negotiated settlement. As my colleague has
said, what should happen in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is everybody who
negotiates with the teachers or with the government should get together - police,
teachers, firemen, whoever - and say: What are we going for, what are we going to settle
for? At the end of the day here is what we are all going to get. Because there is no such
thing anymore in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador as collective bargaining.
When I hear the stories today of people having to negotiate under
threat of: Maybe we are going to legislate you back to work, I mean, what a way to
negotiate. What a way to have people have faith in your negotiating, or your negotiating
team. I do not really know how somebody could even sit on such a negotiating team, to go
in and sit around the table and tell a group of people that this was coming.
I can tell you that in the limited time I spent in a bargaining unit,
and I spent some time on a negotiating committee, there would be nobody but nobody who
would ever come in from the other side and threaten the people I sat around the
negotiating table with. We would not stand for it, we would not have it.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FRENCH: I do not know what my colleague from over on the other
side is grumbling about because he just nods his head. Whatever is laid out for him he has
no other alternative but to accept. I hope there are still some nurses left in the gallery
that can hear him, know where he stands on the issue, and that there is no backbone, I
would say to the member.
It is too bad, Mr. Speaker, that negotiations in the Province of
Newfoundland and Labrador have come to this stage. We have seen what has happened to the
police, or we are now going to see, or we are going to watch over the next few days,
exactly what is going to happen to the nurses union in Newfoundland and Labrador.
As one member who has received a great many calls from nurses in this
Province I am prepared to sit here Good Friday and I am prepared to sit here right through
Easter. I am one member, Sir, who intends to fight - if it ever is introduced - back to
work legislation with every bit of strength I have in my body. Because I think that is one
of the most regressive steps this government could ever take. It is not here today, it did
not come Friday, but I am sure the Premier and his Cabinet colleagues are certainly
considering the back to work legislation.
Why there cannot be binding arbitration, why both sides cannot lay a
position on the table, leave it up to an arbitrator or board to say: Here is the one we
accept, I don't know. Whether that is favourable to the government or whether it is
favourable to the nurses union, at least it is a fair and just manner to both sides.
In this there is no fair and just manner. It is take it or leave it.
The threat is there, it is always hanging over your head. The nurses know this. Like I
said, I've heard from a great deal of them in the past week, and again today, while going
in or coming out of his building. It is no problem to have a conversation.
I tell you one thing. I congratulate the nurses union for the backbone
they have, for the fortitude of sticking together. I believe this time the Premier is in
for the fight of his life, that he is going to deal with a group of people who have bonded
together - they have been forced to do that by this government - and who are not going to
back away. There is more solidarity in this union than I've seen in a long time. They will
fight, with as much vigour as they can, this government, any legislation that may come
down the tubes over the next twenty-four or forty-eight hours, and they are going to fight
this government every step of the way.
I believe that enough is enough. I believe that this government has
certainly gone too far with the nurses' union in this Province, and I think it is time
that we reach a just and fair settlement with them.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I want to remind the visitors to the gallery that they are not to
participate in the proceedings of the House by applauding, by interrupting, or by disorder
of any kind. If disorder of this nature continues, the Chair will have no choice but to
have the galleries cleared.
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, just a brief response to the petition
which has been laid before the House today.
I do not know the exact number, but more than thirty bargaining units
have settled their collective agreements with this Administration since 1996. So the words
from the members opposite to suggest that collective bargaining is dead in Newfoundland
and Labrador, it just is not true. We have settled every one of the agreements that we
have negotiated at the table with every one of the bargaining units we have sat with.
In fact, on Friday past we have announced two more collective
agreements. One was with the Newfoundland Association of Public Employees, covering their
employees in the Avalon West School Board, 7 per cent over thirty-nine months.
We announced another tentative agreement Friday, negotiated with the
Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association - the NLTA - representing their employees
in Labrador West. That was for 7 per cent over thirty-nine months.
Those two agreements were consistent with thirty other agreements that
were negotiated and settled at the bargaining table. While it is true that all have in
common 7 per cent over thirty-nine months, each has their own peculiar contribution, based
on the issues surrounding the 7 per cent settlement, that was put on the table by each of
those bargaining units.
Mr. Speaker, the suggestion that collective bargaining is dead could
not be further from the truth. We are in the middle of a circumstance which is part of the
collective bargaining process - a strike. We stay here, and have not moved to legislate
back nurses because we want to give every last opportunity, whatever time is available to
us, for a negotiated settlement.
As long as the health care system is able to cope - I said the other
day that it is coping in a heroic way - we will remain available should there be an
environment, an opportunity, to come to a negotiated settlement. Nobody wants to fail at
the collective bargaining table, and nobody wants to legislate back employees.
In the case of health care, we have negotiated in good faith; and,
quite frankly, on the issue of compensation, we put an offer on the table that gave -
substantially new, by way of compensation - more than was put on the table last round, an
offer which was rejected 51 to 49.
It is not for me to communicate to nurses - that is entirely up to the
collective bargaining team itself to deal with - but we did put new offers of permanents;
we have announced it today. We did put new offers of casuals; we have announced it today.
We did put new offers on compensation, and the nurses' union is well aware of that.
Nobody can expect government to settle with one unit that comes in
last, as important as that unit is, and as valuable as their contribution is; and it is a
very substantial contribution to the good of the entire Province by way of the health care
system that nurses make. I acknowledge that, but nobody can ask us as a government that
has to negotiate with every union with 30,000 public servants, to settle in such a way
with one bargaining unit that will cause uproar and chaos with every other bargaining unit
that has already settled.
If you are sitting at the table, you have a responsibility on one side
to put yourself in the head of the team on the other side. We have to do that, and
understand the frustration and so on of nurses, but nurses have to understand the
constraints on government.
Government does not take a decision in isolation from what that
decision will do and how that decision will impact on every other public servant. You need
not go any further than the security desk outside the front door and ask those security
officers if they think they should live for the remainder of their contract with the 7 per
cent wage settlement if others get a 17 per cent wage settlement. I have asked them and
they have said, no.
Government ultimately has the responsibility - and we cannot duck it,
we cannot hide, we cannot give speeches in the Legislature to a gallery who is hearing
what it wants to hear - to make decisions that will hold up, decisions that make sense,
and decisions that we can afford.
The collective bargaining process in this Province is alive and well.
It has succeeded in coming to agreements in 99 per cent of the cases, and we hope it will
succeed in this case as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise and present a
petition on behalf of concerned citizens of this Province concerning the nurses' strike,
and the way the negotiations have been handled and taken place up to this point in time.
I suppose, as I look around this House, I do not think I would be wrong
if I said that I have probably negotiated more collective agreements than anybody sitting
here today. It is a subject that I know a little bit about. I have always found that they
have always -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. COLLINS: Unlike the Premier, I did not negotiate the deal in
Sept-Iles. Like I have said to the Premier before, he is the one studying French, not me.
To get back to the subject of this petition, which I agree with,
whenever we start negotiating at final stages in the media, there is always a price to pay
for that.
What the Premier and the government have said to the nurses of this
Province is: You come into negotiations, and you come in with your hands tied behind your
back. We have 7 per cent on the table, even before you get here, and there is no point in
trying to talk to us about anything that exceeds that.
In a democratic society, that is not the way negotiations are done.
When NAPE settled their agreement - and we hear a lot about this in the news -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. COLLINS: I would like to ask the people across the aisle - I
think they missed their calling. They should have been screened when they were selecting
the hecklers for The Muppet Show .
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, when NAPE settled their agreements with
this Province, they did so based on what was good for their members. Other organizations,
who represent people in their memberships -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. COLLINS: - should not be bound by what one person or one other
group does. Each collective agreement contains much more than monetary - although a lot of
the other things may impact on that - but all the issues are different, and that is why we
have different collective agreements in place between people with common interests.
After the agreement - according to the Province, according to the
Premier - once this agreement was reached with NAPE, that really finalized it. I wonder,
if that was going to be the game plan of this government, why did not the government call
the leadership of all the public service unions in the Province together and have a good
and frank discussion on what monetary bargaining would mean in 1988 and 1999 for those who
would be going into contract renewals?
The hon. Premier mentioned the security guards. There is another story
about security guards that the Premier is well aware of, and this government is well aware
of, and have done nothing to change. That is, each time they change employers, they are
brought back to minimum wage again and they have to start building it all up again from
$5.50 to $6, only to have the contracts sold again underneath them and go back in.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is incumbent upon this government to honour the
democratic process that we have in this country and in this Province, because it is not
only good for democracy but it is good for government. There are other people in this
society who have to avail of democracy as well. I think that any attempt to legislate the
nurses of this Province back to work will meet with public reaction like this government
has never seen before in the past. Because, in spite of what they are doing and in spite
of what they are saying, the nurses of this Province have support on their picket lines
like has never been witnessed before, and it is only going to grow as time goes on.
I urge the government to get back to negotiations, to stop taking out
their propaganda pages in The Telegram , and to get down to the real issue. That is,
to deal with the people and remunerate them to what they should be for the people who are
responsible for taking care of sick people in our Province.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to rise and support the petition so ably presented by my
colleague from Labrador West, who knows a great deal about what it means to bargain in
good faith. I would suggest that hon. members opposite, including the Premier, appear to
have very little idea about what it means to actually bargain in good faith.
The Premier has spent a lot of time talking about NAPE. Well, let me
tell you what happened at the end of the negotiations of the NAPE collective agreement.
Every member of NAPE across the Province had an opportunity to vote as to whether or not
to accept that agreement, yes or no. They had meetings across the Province. They explained
to their members what the contract was all about, and they all got to vote.
Well, I have met a lot of nurses in the last couple of days, thousands
of them out here on the picket lines, and not one of them had an opportunity to vote on
that NAPE agreement, not one.
The question we have here is whether or not we live in a democracy. We
have to recognize that one of the aspects of democracy is a right of free collective
bargaining. If what we are going to have in this Province is that the first person to
reach a collective agreement, of the thirty or forty bargaining units, establishes a raise
for everybody else, then everybody else has the right to vote on that from the beginning.
If we are going to have one wage rate for everybody and one wage for everybody, we have to
have everybody participating in that. The only way you can do that is to have one
bargaining unit with everybody involved in it and everybody having the right to vote on
it.
That is not what has happened here, and government does not have the
democratic right to impose a wage increase on a group of people who had no opportunity to
influence, no say, not even any knowledge that what was being done at one bargaining table
had anything whatsoever to do with their circumstances.
I asked the Premier today, too, whether or not he was prepared to
recognize that one of the obligations in bargaining, as it is the obligation, in the
obligation of the adjudication board under the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act,
if the government acts legally as opposed to contrary to democratic principles and uses
the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, is that the adjudication board would have to
the qualifications required, the work performed, the responsibility assumed and the nature
of the service provided.
Well, what the Premier said today was, no, he was not prepared to do
of employment of nurses must reflect the fairness and reasonableness on the basis of the
qualifications, the work, the responsibility, and the nature of the service.
That is exactly what this responsibility pay, or responsibility premium
is on the table now. I have to say, if the Premier does not seem to understand it, that is
a negotiating position. It is a position taken by the nurses. It has been on the table for
many months, and the Premier wants to say this is the only position that is possible.
I want to say also that the cost of that proposal is more like $8
million or $9 million, not the $800 million that the Premier is flaunting around. I
suppose you could make the number bigger. He said $800 million over five years. If it was
over ten, how much is that? It is $1.6 billion. If it is over 100, it is $16 billion! Does
he really think the people of Newfoundland are stunned? Does he think they are stunned,
that he can, through some clever manipulation of the media he thinks he is a master of,
does he really think that the people of Newfoundland believe that to make a settlement
with the nurses that really might cost $6 million, $7 million or $8 million, really costs
$800 million and will bankrupt the Province? Who does he think he is?
AN HON. MEMBER: Spin doctor.
MR. HARRIS: He is not a spin doctor. That is not spin doctoring;
that is self-delusion, that he really believes perhaps somewhere down in his heart he can
delude the people of this Province about as well. But that is not going to happen because
the people of this Province are supporting the nurses. They understand the responsibility
they are taking on. They understand the commitment they have to their patients. They
understand that they cannot do
a proper job if they are not properly motivated, if they are not
properly paid, and if they are not properly staffed so that they can do a proper job.
That is why these petitioners, and every Newfoundlander, are calling
upon the government to bargain in good faith and reach a fair and reasonable collective
agreement with the nurses of this Province.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to respond just briefly to the petition presented by the
Member for Labrador West, and supported by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, because
I have been trying, as the members of the Legislature would know, to make sure we clarify
the position of both Opposition parties with respect to this issue over the last few days.
Mr. Speaker, the Member for Labrador West again, as he has done to me
for twenty years, bragged about his negotiating prowess, and again conveniently - just to
remind the Legislature - did not know anything about the very important negotiations going
on in Sept-Iles just a little while ago. You had better keep remembering that.
He did make a couple of useful suggestions though. At least the
position of the New Democratic Party is that maybe we should have called in all the major
leaders and talked to them about, if we had any wage restrain difficulties and what the
parameters might be.
I would have the hon. member know, that occurred some time ago, almost
a year ago now, as a matter of fact, because some of those negotiations did occur at that
point in time; and the leadership elements of NAPE, of CUPE, of the teachers, of the
nurses and others, were told that there was basically a fiscal framework in which they
should expect the government to try to bargain, and we would like to bargain their
contracts within that framework at the table, and they should bring other issues, other
benefit issues, other particular nuances of their particular bargaining unit, to the
table, but that government was going to have great difficultly moving off 7 per cent,
because we could not afford it.
A good suggestion, and it was taken and done a year or so ago and
everybody knew that. Everybody in the Province has known that the fiscal framework for the
government to try and run all of the affairs of the Province are based on 7 per cent wage
settlements over the next thirty-nine months.
Mr. Speaker, at least the hon. member has been around long enough - he
talked about the security guards that were referenced by the Premier. They are employees
of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, of the government, who operate in
these buildings. They are not the kind of people who work out in the private sector, that
the hon. member got confused with. Hopefully he will not make that mistake again in the
future.
Mr. Speaker, the suggestion that you should call the Official
Opposition - and it is clear again today that the NDP concurs with the notion that
everybody who has gone before has signed their agreement and they should live with it. The
Leader of the New Democratic Party said that here in this Legislature today, that
everybody else got a chance to vote on their contract. They voted for it, so we can only
conclude that it means they have no intention, if anybody else gets more than 7 per cent,
of giving it to anybody else.
There are other union representatives in the galleries today who have
praised the nurses for having the guts to stand up, because their feeling is that if the
nurses get more by having the guts to stand up, then they figure they are going to cash in
and get more as well.
It is nice to know that the New Democratic Party position is -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.
MR. GRIMES: - they have signed their contract and they should live
with it, because that is the official position of the party.
MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker the member is entitled to argue, but he is
not entitled to put words into someone else's mouth and then knock him down. This is the
classic straw man argument. You make up something that somebody said, and then you defeat
the argument by saying how silly it was, what that person said, when he did not even say
it. That is the straw man argument, it is out of order and misleading to this House.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will continue with the clarification. Hansard clearly does show today
that the Leader of the New Democratic Party has stated that everybody else had an
opportunity to vote on their contract, they knew what they were getting, they signed it,
and his intention is that if he were the Premier, which will not happen in my lifetime,
you can rest assured - it will not happen in my lifetime that he will be the Premier of
Newfoundland and Labrador, you can guarantee it. The fact of the matter is that his
official position, though, is that if you sign a contract, you live with it. That is the
official position.
I am pleased to report, as a result of the intervention made earlier
today on the previous petition about the same issue, that the official position of the
Official Opposition, confirmed again today by the Member for Waterford-Kenmount, is that
in fact the other unions have voted for 7 per cent -
AN HON. MEMBER: Waterford Valley.
MR. GRIMES: Waterford Valley. I am sorry about that.
- they should live with the 7 per cent, and that the government should
have free and open bargaining on money with the nurses. Everybody else who already has a
contract, you should not be concerned about them.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about it, that is their plan. Our plan,
because we know that the only way to be fair is to have everybody live in a fiscal
framework, is that if we are going to offer more than 7 per cent to anybody, we cannot
sustain a lie to everybody else by suggesting to them that the Province could not afford
more than 7 per cent and then giving it to the nurses.
Our plan is that if there is more than 7 per cent, it should be
available for everybody. The difficulty - and again the Leader of the New Democratic Party
says it is only $8 million or $9 million a year.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: It is only $8 million or $9 million a year if they are
only going to give it to nurses; so it clearly indicates that is the position of the NDP -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. GRIMES: - that is the position of the Official Opposition. It
is not the position of this government, and we will not agree with that type of notion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: 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. They
request that neighbourhood schooling, Kindergarten to Grade XII, for the West End of St.
John's remain intact as was agreed upon during educational reform.
When the referendum was called back in 1997, in August, to be voted on
early in September, the people of the District of St. John's West and indeed the Province
were promised that with school reform they would enjoy optimum programming, smaller class
sizes, and neighbourhood schools where children who played together would go to school
together. I think that is paraphrased from the ads that the government had out at that
time.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS S. OSBORNE: Is it? Anyway, they listened and they believed, and
the people in St. John's West voted 83 per cent for school reform. I suppose, like other
recent elections, the promises are not being fulfilled.
The parents who placed their trust in the promises made in the
referendum, who believed what they were told and voted accordingly for the good of their
children's education, are now being faced with the loss of programs because schools will
have to accommodate more students than the rated capacity. They are facing classes with
students from thirty-one to thirty-five pupils, and they are facing a loss of the high
school in the West End. That rating of thirty-one to thirty-five pupils is a far cry from
the 14.7 that is touted in the Throne Speech.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS S. OSBORNE: Well, 14.8 is still a far cry from thirty-one to
thirty-five. Any time the member opposite would like to visit some of these classrooms and
count, if you can count to thirty-five, go right ahead.
Mr. Speaker, before the referendum on school reform, the residents of
St. John's West already had things that reform was promising, but they voted so
overwhelming in school reform to ensure that what they had would remain. Now they are
losing what they voted for and what they already had.
I have a report here from Dr. Khalili, he is a psychologist, and in the
report is outlined the amount of stress and anxiety that the children are now exhibiting
because they are facing school reform and because their lives are being disrupted to such
an extent by what is happening in their schools and in their lives.
From page 17 of this report I quote: Perhaps the most important
information for the members of the board and its staff is the degree of anxiety and stress
that has been reported.
From a student at Beaconsfield High School, I quote: I feel that the
government is not looking at the student, how they feel about what is going on, and
neighbourhood does not mean half-way across town.
That is what these children are saying: neighbourhood does not mean
going half-way across town, passing the school that they are presently in.
Unlike many areas in the Province, and probably within the Avalon East
School Board, St. John's West is a growth area. There are all kinds of new houses being
built in St. John's West, and new families with small children are moving in there. It is
a growth area. They should not be losing schools; they should be getting schools.
It is okay for us to say, wait for the proposal and see how we feel. I
think the Avalon East School Board has the will, actually, to comply with the wishes of
the people in St. John's West; however the Avalon East School Board have been sent to buy
a week's groceries and they have been given $10 to do so.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS S. OSBORNE: Well, it is similar to that. There is $125 million -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS S. OSBORNE: There is $125 million out there to be accessed; $15
million is allocated for the Avalon East School Board.
I think if somebody were to crunch the numbers on that, they would find
that it is not done on a per capita basis - I realize that - but if somebody were to
crunch the numbers on that, they would realize that the division is unfair.
Would you like to send the people who live in your district out to
Carbonear somewhere? It is the same thing that we are being asked to do. They are being
taken from a building that is rated good.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
While my colleague was presenting the petition, I heard the former
Minister of Education say that they should be put on a school bus for forty-five minutes.
I was appalled to hear that.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. T. OSBORNE: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, it was the Member for
Bellevue.
MR. GRIMES: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member has just attributed a remark to me that is now recorded
in Hansard. He knows I did not say it, and I would ask him, through you, Mr. Speaker, to
withdraw it and acknowledge that I said no such thing.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, anybody who cares to drive through the
West End of St. John's will see the number of K-XII signs in the area. For anybody on the
government side of the House who does not know what these signs stand for, they mean that
the residents of the West End of the St. John's area want a K-XII school system in that
area.
We on this side of the House agree with that. There are many new
housing developments in the West End of the St. John's area. In my district alone, there
is a brand new subdivision over the past couple of years that has been built. There are
new subdivisions along Waterford Bridge Road, new housing on the South Side Road.
The residents of the West End of St. John's clearly voted in favour of
education reform; however, they voted for what they were promised during the education
reform debate, and that was neighbourhood schooling. That was the ability to send their
children to a school within their neighbourhood, not to put them on Metrobus and send them
all the way across St. John's.
Speaking of Metrobus, the Metrobus Commission has already said that
they are unable to support the higher demand of children who will need to us Metrobus if
the West End of St. John's does not have a high school system. That has already been
stated by the St. John's Metrobus Commission.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen government, through the Department of
Education, through the school boards, implement some changes with the reorganization of
the school system in the St. John's area, most particularly in the St. John's West region
of the city, that have gone without great satisfaction by the residents of the city. They
have protested. The number of people showing up to the reorganization meetings speak of
this. It is very clear that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with the plans to
remove the high school system from the West End of St. John's.
The people who have signed this petition, which I support, clearly want
to keep a K-XII system in the West End of the city, and I see no other alternative but for
this House, for this Legislature, to ensure that happens.
It is unreasonable to expect families with children, who are unable to
afford Metrobus passes, to walk for forty or forty-five minutes. It is unreasonable for
the families with children, who are able to afford Metrobus passes, to stand at bus stops
when the weather is not fit to be out and send their children, sometimes with transfers,
to a high school clearly in the other end of the city, when they have a high school right
now in the West End of St. John's that is satisfying the needs of the children and the
families in that area. We should ensure that high school and the K-XII system in the West
End of the city is kept.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just a few comments for the record, with respect to the petition. I
would just like to remind the Official Opposition that when we put through this
Legislature the new Schools Act that supported the whole education reform initiative of a
couple of years ago, one of the fundamental features of it was that for the first time in
history we would have fully elected locally based school boards, so that those officials
would have the same authority base, in terms of being elected by people, as we do in this
Legislature.
For the first time in history, now, let's not forget it - before, we
had some appointed people, people who said: Would you run, would you sit here, would you
sit there, no accountability to anybody - fully elected by the parents and the adults in
the area served by those particular schools and serving those particular students,
significant.
Mr. Speaker, part of what was happening - to make sure that we had the
people closest to the parents and closest to the students making these fundamental
decisions, the Official Opposition, the same members that are speaking today in support of
this petition, stood in this Legislature and voted unanimously for provisions that said
the arrangement of schooling by grade, class and so on is the responsibility of the
elected school board. Not the responsibility of the Minister of Education who has just
joined us in the Chamber, or myself, who used to be the Minister of Education; not the
responsibility of us as provincially elected legislators; but the responsibility of the
locally elected school boards.
They are given, by law, approved by this Legislature - all of us, every
single one of us stood and said: Let the local school board make that decision as to
whether there should be a high school in the west end of St. John's. Let those kinds of
decisions that play out on a daily basis be in the hands of the fully elected, fully
accountable school board members.
Then they suggest: We have done that but we didn't give them the money
to work with. For the record, the facts show this. The operating funds for every school
board in the Province, including the Avalon East School Board that operates the schools in
and around St. John's, are exactly the same as they were four years ago, not reduced one
penny. In that period of time there are 5,000 fewer students, not in the Province, but in
the territory and areas served by the Avalon East School Board. There are twelve to
fifteen fewer schools -
MR. FRENCH: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say to the former
Minister of Education when he talks about money that has gone to the school boards that I
believe he should certainly call the Avalon East School Board. Because I have attended one
public meeting with him in a school in Manuels and one private meeting with him and -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to take his seat. There is no point of order.
MR. FRENCH: - on both occasions they have said that this government
did not give them enough money.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to take his seat. There is no point of order.
MR. FRENCH: They did not give them enough money. That is the
opinion of the board.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I point out the fact that the amount of money the school board
has available to it for operational purposes is exactly the same today as it was four
years ago. They are trying to provide services to 5,000 fewer students. They are operating
a dozen or more fewer schools and they have the same money that they had four years ago to
try and have those things done, and almost the same number of teachers.
I would suggest, with all due respect, that while the petition is very
well intentioned, and many people understand the sentiments from the people in the area,
the petition should be presented at the school board offices down on Water Street. Because
there is no role for it here in the Legislature. The responsibility lies with the duly
elected school board members for those decisions.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to rise today to present a petition on behalf of some
2,500 constituents of the Baie Verte Peninsula. I will read the appropriate petition:
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in
legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Baie Verte
Peninsula;
WHEREAS a high percentage of the dialysis patients that utilize the
dialysis unit at the Grand Falls Hospital are from the Baie Verte Peninsula; and
WHEREAS it is planned to build an extension to the dialysis unit at the
Grand Falls Hospital to accommodate the ever increasing patient load; and
WHEREAS patients from the Baie Verte Peninsula have to drive at least
two-and-a-half hours to Grand Falls, thus adding more stress to an already tiring day;
BE IT RESOLVED the petitioners of the Baie Verte Peninsula urge the
Minister of Health and the government to transfer the monies to extend the Grand Falls
dialysis unit to the hospital in Baie Verte to accommodate the patients in that area.
Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting a few days to get this particular
petition on, on behalf of some 2,500 names I have here, and more to come in. Basically it
is to do with people on the peninsula who have, even publicly in the paper, told their
story of what the situation is as it stand now on the Baie Verte Peninsula. It is the
story of a family in Fleur de Lys, Mr. and Mrs. Ron Dempsey, whose home I have sat in and
discussed their situation with them, and other people across the peninsula who are telling
me the same story. Although I am pleased to stand and present this petition today, it is
almost shameful that we have to do it.
We have a family here, a man who has worked all his life, and now on a
dialysis unit twice a week now at least. It was up to three times a week that he would
have to travel to Grand Falls, some two-and-a-half hours over some of the most treacherous
roads in the Province, to go on a dialysis unit machine. It was to the point that it was
so tiring to the family they had to try to relocate, to move to Grand Falls. We have
another family, the Gavin family in Coachman's Cove, who have done just that. We have to
split the family so that now the husband stays at home, and an elderly lady had to
actually move to Corner Brook so now she can avail of the dialysis machine.
It is actually splitting families. These are not fabricated stories.
There is no drama to it. These are stories that are told by these people and how their
lives have been affected. What a shame it is. Those are just two. I could go on and on
with some other situations. People tell me their stories and say: Go ahead, use my name in
the House of Assembly, speak to the media, do whatever you have to do, because our lives
are being wrecked because of what is happening now. Stories of people who have worked all
their lives and now are at an age where they are relying on a medical service that they
believe should be available to them. Some of these, even, would have to drive for an hour
to get to the Baie Verte Hospital, over some of the worse roads in the Province. Instead
they have to go all the way to Grand Falls or all the way to Corner Brook, some two and
one-half hours in wintertime two or three times a week, to avail of this service.
That is why I asked the Minister of Health, I begged the Minister of
Health, the Premier, and the government, to reconsider. When the minister sent back a
message to these people saying that where numbers would warrant they would look at another
dialysis machine, I would say to the minister and the government that what they should be
really looking at are the merits of each particular case.
When you have to look at, first of all, the geography of the area, then
the road conditions of the area, and the economic conditions of the families themselves,
these people are really stuck between a rock and hard place now to find out where they are
going to get gas money to go to Grand Falls twice a week. I've had a gentleman from La
Scie who is on this dialysis unit and was going back and forth to Grand Falls three days a
week from La Scie. The Premier knows the area very well, and to know that you have to
drive up there. Do you know what that gentleman had to do? He and his wife got a cabin at
Badger Lake. That was the closest they could get where they could afford. They bought a
small cabin so now they would just have to go from Badger to Grand Falls to use the
dialysis machine.
I say to the Premier I'm not dramatizing this. These are stories where
I have sat with the people in their kitchens, one at a time, and let people tell their
stories. The story of Mr. and Mrs. Ron Dempsey, who had a story in our local paper last
week, they sat down to tell us about it. The Gavin family in Coachman's Cove where now the
husband was so sick he stays home and the elderly lady lives in Corner Brook now. They
have split up at an elderly age so that lady can avail of a machine in Corner Brook. That
is where it has to come into focus. Not to say to people on the Baie Verte Peninsula:
Okay, if you get fifty people who need a dialysis machine we will do it. How can you put a
number on it? It is not a number. It is human merit. Each case should be looked at
individually. What cases are there? Are there twelve cases that substantiate a good reason
for putting a dialysis machine there?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: No, I do not say one for every community. I repeat to
the Premier again, in the short bit of time I have here, the merit of each individual area
of the Province should be looked at to see, Mr. Speaker, what the reality is. If there are
twenty families in the Baie Verte area that have lots of money, they are all working, they
can afford to do this, then so be it.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SHELLEY: But for every situation, I plead for these people
today, for the government to come to their senses on this particular issue and support the
people, so that they can get on with a decent way of living, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community
Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think it is very important for the people of the Province to realize
- and I will say it again because this was another issue that was raised by another member
in the House last week, the whole issue about dialysis and the need to have dialysis
machines.
In fact, after the last petition was raised I know that we have looked
very seriously at the whole issue around St. Anthony. We want to thank the Member for
Ferryland, in fact, for raising it. We think it is perhaps of such importance that we
would even consider taking capital money, perhaps from roads, and re-directing it in this
area. It isn't something we have ruled out, in fact.
The other part of this whole discussion is that we have a population
the size of the city of Winnipeg. We have a lot of infrastructure, we have a lot of needs
to meet. It costs money. What we have to look at is this. It is not about putting a
dialysis machine in the corner and plugging it in. What it means is that you have to have
the appropriate staff.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I think it is important for people to listen to
have a full appreciation for what is involved, and an understanding, because it is much
more than plugging in a machine.
What it involves, Mr. Speaker, is having the appropriate specialists on
hand. In fact, for those people who would like to listen I can explain that when we did
move forward to put that type of unit in Grand Falls one of the first things we had to
secure was that we had the appropriate number of urology specialists on hand to make the
type of diagnoses and to do the type of specialist care that was required, and also having
the specialist staff to follow.
We have not said, arbitrarily, no to anyone, but what we have to do is
take our responsibilities seriously and look at the needs that are required. We know when
people are requiring dialysis, particularly peritoneal dialysis, where they have to go
perhaps three times a week. It is a very big ordeal for families. It puts a lot of
pressure on families and it is something that affects the whole family even though one
person is being dialysed, and we realize that. In many cases it affects the community,
because we know people have to leave their communities.
As I said, in a province of this size we have to make some very
difficult decisions and choices. For example, we only have one cardiovascular unit in the
whole Province, here in St. John's in our tertiary care centre. In this Province we only
have one neurosurgical unit here at the tertiary care centre in St. John's.
We have tried to meet the needs in Western, in Central and in St.
John's, to try to look at the issues around peritoneal dialysis, and we will look at each
case on its own merit. We will look at the numbers of people that are requiring that
particular service and we will look at our ability to pay.
As I said, the Member for Ferryland made such a passionate case the
other day that we will look at the issues around St. Anthony at this time. We believe it
is important enough that we would even take it from a roads program if we had to, to put
it in health care to address those kinds of issues.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to take a minute or two to add my support to the petition
presented by my friend for Baie Verte. I happen to know the people he mentioned in
presenting this position. I happen to know all of them. It is not a laughing matter, it is
a very serious matter.
No, look, the Premier is right. We cannot afford to put a dialysis
machine in every community in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is not the prayer of the
petition. We cannot afford to put a hospital in every community of Newfoundland and
Labrador. That is not the point of the argument.
The point of the argument is that I think there has to be some kind of
an assessment done. While it was good enough - it was never good enough - but while we had
to do it, perhaps people had to go to Grand Falls two-and-a-half hours away or Corner
Brook two-and-a-half hours away. As the need in Corner Brook and Grand Falls is addressed,
can't we start looking at moving out from there? I mean, there is a need in St. Anthony
which the Premier says is going to be addressed. We are all for that. There is also a need
in Baie Verte and Clarenville and other places. Can't there be a policy of moving out from
those larger centres? It is a terrible situation when a person has to, three or four times
a day, drive two-and-a-half hours into Grand Falls, two-and-a-half hours back. I do not
how long the procedure takes.
MR. SULLIVAN: It takes two-and-a-half hours.
MR. RIDEOUT: It takes two-and-a-half hours. You are a full day.
Then you are stressed out because, I understand, this procedure is very tiring and that
kind of thing. So a full day goes by when you get up from daylight in the morning until
you go to Central Newfoundland or Western Newfoundland and then you get back home. You
have families having to decide to move away from own home. You have families who have had
to split, the husband going to Corner Brook or Grand Falls and live so they could avail of
this medical procedure.
If the government cannot do that over a reasonable period of time,
perhaps what government might look at doing through the health care system is some kind of
an assistance program, to help people avail of the procedure while government is fighting
to get its hands on money to extend the program or the machinery into other parts of the
Province. This really breaks people's backs financially, Mr. Speaker, to drive from La
Scie in to Corner Brook three or four times a week? It is a significant amount of money.
That money has to be taken from a food budget or from some other part of their medical
budget. There are only so many dollars those people have. Obviously many of them are not
working because of their medical condition. Perhaps some consideration should be given to
trying to put in place a program that can help those people.
The other thing that really gets to me is this. When I hear the
minister admitting that we are taking older equipment out of this Province and sharing
with some parts of the world that are less fortunate, on principle I have no problem with
that; but if we can utilize that equipment that the taxpayers of this Province and this
country had bought and paid for in our own Province, if there is a need for it in our own
Province, surely to goodness we are going to take care of that need first before we send
it outside the country. I think that would make sense.
The minister says that you have to have specialists to operate this
equipment. In places where there is an institution, as there is in Baie Verte, there is a
part of a hospital still left in Baie Verte, there is first level care medical treatment
still provided in Baie Verte. Surely in places where we have an institution, and the staff
is already there, surely they can be trained to handle and perform with this equipment.
If there is no institution there then that is a problem and obviously
you cannot say what I am saying now, but that does not apply to Baie Verte, where there is
a hospital of sorts. It is not the type of hospital that was there ten or twelve years
ago, but then again, all health care facilities have changed dramatically in this Province
over the last number of years.
There is an institution there. It is a first level care institution.
People are admitted and treated there. There is nursing staff there. A piece of equipment
could be installed in that hospital. I am sure the staff could be trained to use it.
People would at least be no more than forty-five minutes, an hour, or an hour and a half's
drive away - thirty minutes or forty-five minutes from La Scie, maybe -, people would be
that much closer to the vital medical procedure that they need.
I think it is something that I commend to government and I hope it is
something the government will give the appropriate consideration to.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, 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 (Oldford): Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to once again participate in this debate with respect to
the granting of interim supply, Bill 2, a bill which allows this government to essentially
run its time and to tide things over from a fiscal point of view till year end. Of course,
we see total expenditures in excess of $1 billion with each department being allocated.
The debate in this Legislature in the past number of days has
essentially revolved around labour unrest in this Province, primarily with respect to our
nurses. We have seen nurses in the gallery during the last three or four days, we have
seen nurses gather on the steps of Confederation Building, in the lobby of Confederation
Building, and certainly demonstrating their disapproval of the existing circumstances in
front of all hospitals and provincial health institutions in the Province.
That is perhaps the single issue today which has grabbed the attention
publicly in this Province, and certainly, as I've just indicated, has taken up most of the
debate in this Legislature. It is certainly the issue which requires and demands this
debate on a regular basis, until of course some resolution is reached and our nurses can
feel they have been treated with fairness, and they can return to work willingly, with
morale raised, and in a position to do the work they are mandated and obligated to do.
It is not only nurses, unfortunately, who find themselves at the
present time in a situation of some unrest. Obviously today the members of the Royal
Newfoundland Constabulary's position is uncertain, their status is unclear, simply because
what was recommended - having gone through the process of an independent arbitration - is
simply not being adhered to by government members opposite. Therefore their fate remains
unclear and remains unknown.
I guess a third group in this Province today, although in a different
category, would be the plight of our public service pensioners, a group of individuals who
- not only in this session of the Legislature but certainly, and in particular perhaps,
the last session of the Legislature - voiced their concerns on a very regular and ongoing
basis. Their fate remains uncertain and unclear as government, in a very general sense,
other than recognizing just the poorest of the poor, but in a very general sense doing
absolutely nothing to help remedy the circumstances they now find themselves in. The
public service pensioners have brought forward on a repeated basis numerous petitions. The
issue was raised and discussed repeatedly as the subject matter of Question Period in this
House, but it has all gone on deaf ears, I say. This government has refused to pay
attention, has only paid lip service, has paid no attention to their particular
circumstances and to the fact that so many of them live below the poverty line and are
trying to make ends meet as best they can.
There is an area which perhaps has received little attention. I spoke
to it briefly in debate last week and I think it is worthy of attention and presentation
once again. That is the fact that so little resources, it seems to me, and so little
effort is being given to certain aspects of our justice system in the Province. It remains
a fact that when we look at the circumstances with respect to legal aid, when we look at
the very obvious lack of resources that are being attributed to helping young offenders in
our Province, amongst other issues - but these two in particular I would like to refer to
very briefly.
We have seen certainly at the provincial Youth Centre in the past
number of weeks repeated examples of concern, and I speak briefly of the tragic suicide of
several weeks ago. We have also had the history of escapes, and we have also had, sadly,
allegations of abuse. It seems to me there is a bigger problem, and this government fails
to recognize exactly what that problem is, despite the fact that it is addressed
repeatedly by many professionals and many experts involved in the criminal youth justice
system. I refer specifically to, simply, adequate funding for young people who require the
assistance early on in life. When a young person at the age of fourteen or sixteen finds
himself or herself incarcerated at the Whitbourne Youth Centre - for perhaps a break