April 29, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 14

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings the Chair would

like to acknowledge the presence in the Speaker's Gallery today of Mr. John Ryan of

Whistler, British Columbia. On May 1, 1999, Mr. Ryan will embark on a cross-Canada tour to

raise money for Spinal Cord Regeneration Research while creating an awareness of the

challenges in the lives of our quadriplegic citizens. Accompanying Mr. Ryan is his wife,

Penny McLeod, who also serves as event co-ordinator for the Regeneration Tour. On behalf

of all the Members of the House of Assembly, may I extend best wishes to Mr. Ryan as he

starts his tour on Saturday from Cape Spear.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if I may, I would like

to join you - and you have spoken eloquently on all of our behalf - in extending greetings

to John and to Penny who will start their tour here in St. John's, Newfoundland at City

Hall on Saturday. Please give my greetings to the Mayor when you begin this journey.

John Ryan is an extraordinary individual, Mr. Speaker.

He is going to make about 100 miles a day in a -

AN HON. MEMBER: One hundred kilometres.

PREMIER TOBIN: One hundred kilometres. I am getting

very ambitious for you, John. In a unit which is called the Freedom Rider, which is

totally, 100 per cent, hand-propelled. He will be moving right across this country from

St. John's, Newfoundland all the way back home to Whistler, B.C.

John is an extraordinary athletic and in the past had

excelled in a whole wide variety of athletic endeavour. He brings that competitive spirit,

that drive, that determination and that great energy to the task that he is embarking upon

Saturday. That task is twofold. Firstly, to continue to raise awareness, arising out of

the injuries and the challenges facing those with spinal cord injuries and head injuries,

and secondly, to raise money for spinal cord research and for assistance for those with

spinal cord and head injuries.

We in Newfoundland and Labrador have been proud in the

past when other celebrated and courageous Canadians - I can think of a number, but let me

just mention two, Terry Fox and Rick Hanson - have started their journeys here to send

these individuals on their way with our warm wishes, and hopefully with the result of our

generous spirit as well as we contribute to your fund raising efforts.

John, may I say to you and to your wife Penny, you are

welcome here in Newfoundland and Labrador. We are very proud you have decided to start

your journey in this Province. I know I speak for all the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador when I say our best hopes and good wishes go with you. May your journey be

successful and may you realize your dream of making the kind of contribution that will

lead to a regenerative cure for those who suffer from spinal cord injuries. Good luck on

your way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, join with the Premier in wishing you well on

your journey across this country. I am delighted that, unlike many federalists who think

that Canada begins in Halifax, it begins here in Newfoundland and Labrador, and I am proud

that you have acknowledged that.

It certainly gives me great pleasure, because on the day

that I was elected as the head of a service organization in this country we were approved

to be one of the sponsors and endorsers in the Rick Hansen Man in Motion World Tour back

in Toronto in 1985 when it started at its very beginning.

We participated in that process across the country. As

national president at the time I know what is involved, and the efforts put forth in that

area, to further the goal of research and to find, hopefully, a cure for various injuries

that people have been afflicted with.

I wish you well. I hope you will have a very memorable

time, and it will be very successful from a financial and a personal point of view.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I will rise after

Question Period today to put forth a motion to change the Province's official name from

the Province of Newfoundland to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I think we all acknowledge that Labrador is an important

and vital part of this Province. It has unique geography, history and culture. It is a

vital and important part of the future of Newfoundland and Labrador. Government has taken

several steps toward recognizing this reality, beginning with the passage of the Labrador

Act in 1964.

This Act provided for the official recognition of

Labrador in the Provincial Coat of Arms, on government stationery, and in government

publications. This has created an inconsistency in the Province. We have after all a

Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. However, under Term 1 of the Province's Terms of

Union with Canada the name of the Province provided for is the Province of Newfoundland.

In April 1992 the House of Assembly unanimously adopted

a resolution calling on government to take the necessary steps to change the name of the

Province to Newfoundland and Labrador. A Select Committee of the House was established to

review the matter, and public hearings were held throughout the Province. A clear

consensus emerged for the name of the Province to be changed.

The first item addressed in Government's Throne Speech

of March 20, 1996, was changing the name of the Province. We have now brought forward a

resolution to amend Term 1 of the Terms of Union to reflect the new name of this Province.

Should the House adopt this resolution, we will be asking the federal government, the

federal parliament, to introduce the resolution for confirmation by the House of Commons

and by the Senate.

House of Commons and Senate approval will complete the

historic work initiated by the 1927 Privy Council decision which defined Labrador, the

Labrador Act (1964), the 1992 House of Assembly resolution and the 1992 Report of the

Select Committee of this House of Assembly.

Changing the name of the Province is a symbolic but, I

believe, important recognition of Labrador's status as a full partner in this Province.

Labradorians have requested this change for decades. On behalf of government, and I hope

all members of this House, I am pleased to initiate the final steps toward granting that

request. Having both major parts of the Province reflected in our name will promote the

unity of our Province. It will enable all of our citizens to work together to meet the

tremendous challenges and indeed the opportunities that lie before us.

The name change is an appropriate way to mark the

Province's 50th anniversary as a part of Canada, and I hope the members of this House will

join me in passing this resolution needed to make the name change a reality.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This side of the House has no problem whatsoever, I say

to the Premier. As he referenced, back in March 1996 I had an opportunity to speak on that

day here and I supported it. That was the very first statement I think in the Throne

Speech read by His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor. I have called on it since, I've said:

Where is the name change? We have had three Throne Speeches since. Finally the Premier now

is going to move, and we support that. We would have supported it, I say, three years ago.

We support it now, that Labrador is an integral part of this Province.

It is the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We all

refer it as that. Let's get it officially on the record. That would require, I think, a

constitutional change. Maybe it was not appropriate to have too many constitutional

changes going to Ottawa, one after the other. It seemed like it was a common thing for a

while, but at least hopefully now we will get this put to rest and we will rightly be able

to claim, in name, that Labrador is the integral part of this Province that it has always

been.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I must say that I am very pleased to see that the name

of the Province will be changed to include Labrador. It is going to be a great day when

that happens; however, I think it also signifies how slow government works when it takes

fifty years to accomplish a name change.

Maybe with the name change will come other things that

people from Labrador have been requesting in terms of services and other things that are

lacking in Labrador, along with the development of our abundant resources that was

mentioned by the hon. Premier, along with these resources being developed with the best

interests of Labradorians in mind.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to address a

matter of some urgency.

In an interview with CBC Radio in Happy Valley-Goose

Bay, broadcast this morning, the Innu of the Quebec North Shore gave notice to government

that they intend to seek a court injunction to stop the construction of the Red Bay to

Cartwright road. The Quebec Innu are saying that the road would cross territory included

in their land claim.

Mr. Speaker, while the Innu in Quebec have filed a land

claim with the federal government which extends into Labrador, the Province has not

accepted that claim for the purposes of comprehensive land claims negotiations.

Our priority has been, and will continue to be, land

claims settlement with resident Aboriginal groups in the Province, namely the Labrador

Innu Nation and the Labrador Inuit Association.

A short

section of the road between Red Bay and

Cartwright does cross territory claimed by the Innu Nation of Labrador. Mr. Speaker, the

Labrador Innu have not opposed the construction of the road.

Mr. Speaker, the Red Bay to Cartwright road is a project

of major importance to the Province and the people of Coastal Labrador.

On April 22, Minister Langdon announced the project had

been released from environmental assessment. The Innu of the Quebec North Shore were given

every opportunity to participate in the provincial environmental assessment process, as

were all interested members of the public.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Innu did make

representations to the Minister of Environment, representations which were given due

consideration. Their actions, as reported in the media today, are regrettable and without

foundation.

Mr. Speaker, government recognizes that the people of

Labrador and the companies that do business in Labrador need an improved transportation

network. The Province is committed to proceeding with the construction of a vital link in

that network in a manner that will respect and protect the pristine environment of

Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the Province will vigorously defend its

position in the courts should the Quebec Innu decide to pursue court action. We are

determined to build for the people of Southern Labrador, the road from Red Bay to

Cartwright.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have been advocating for some time the importance of

putting a road through. In fact, I have asked questions in this House on several occasions

prior - and sufficient funding, I might add, to be able to complete it from Goose Bay to

Cartwright and not have an exodus of people out through Quebec. Let's tie our Province

closer together.

So, there is a billion dollar gap there. It was not

acknowledged at the time, I might add, and said there was money there when we gave up the

rights of the ferry service - or Canada gave it up - to this Province, that it would be

done.

We certainly support moving on with it. It is what the

people of this area want, but I want to certainly say to the minister and to the Premier

that there are outstanding issues to be settled with the Innu and Aboriginal people in

other parts of Labrador also. That has to be done. It has to be given a fair hearing,

appropriate consideration for Aboriginal rights within that province. In this area it is

overdue. The people have been calling for it for some time now, and we certainly support

the action that government is taking at this time on this particular project.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, rise in support of the initiative by the

government to get this road moving and get it open. There are very few places left in the

country today that are not accessible by road. The portion from Cartwright to Red Bay is

certainly critical to the people in Coastal Labrador, and indeed all of Labrador and the

entire Province.

I think it is also important that plans be made to link

up the portion from Cartwright to Goose Bay so that all of Labrador is connected up. At

the same time we have to recognize that the road that exists right now from Labrador West

to Goose Bay still needs a fair amount of work done to make it totally accessible,

particularly during this time of the year with spring thaw.

Certainly I think that this House should support any

initiative by the government to -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. COLLINS: - pursue the road being completed.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines ad

Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to give my hon. colleagues an

update on the Voisey's Bay project in light of Inco's Annual General Meeting held in

Toronto yesterday.

As we have stated numerous times, this government

remains committed to obtaining full and fair benefits for the people of this Province from

all of its natural resources, and Voisey's Bay is certainly no exception.

While there have been no formal negotiations with Inco

since July of 1998, the Premier and I have met, informally, on a number of occasions with

Inco's president. Government is ready to return to the table to consider any reasonable

proposal which provides appropriate benefits for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Our goal is sound resource management and sustainable development, and we were pleased to

see that the recent environmental panel report supported this view.

Yesterday, Inco stated that Voisey's Bay remains a

significant development opportunity, and that the company is prepared to resume

discussions with the Province to achieve a project that will meet the needs of both the

Province and the company.

Inco has indicated that they are reviewing alternative

concepts to make this happen. We welcome the opportunity to review any reasonable proposal

which will facilitate this project proceeding.

In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, we understand that Inco

has been affected by low nickel prices over the past year or so, and in fact reported a

first-quarter loss in 1999 of some $16 million. That said, nickel prices are continuing to

recover and are almost back to the level they were a year ago. As well, Inco stock is

currently at twelve-month high levels. As government has noted before, commodity prices

are cyclical, and a deal should not be struck based on any one point in a particular

cycle.

In an effort to provide an environment conducive to

development, this government is also progressing in its land claim negotiations with both

the Inuit and Innu.

Voisey's Bay remains a world-class nickel-copper-cobalt

deposit, and I am confident that it will be developed. It is this government's

responsibility to ensure that this development occurs in a sustainable manner which will

benefit the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's

East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for a copy of the Ministerial

Statement. Certainly on this side of the House we are glad to see that, although formal

negotiations appear to be on hold, at least there are some informal discussions and

negotiations between the Administration opposite and representatives of Inco.

I think it is important that the public of this Province

be apprised at all times. Although discussions may not be formal in the classic sense,

even informal discussions, they at least will allow the public of the Province to know

exactly what is taking place with respect to such a significant project. The public of

this Province will not have to ask repeatedly, in view of the fact that there are such

significant lapses of time when the public of the Province knows what is happening with

respect to our Voisey's Bay project.

I would encourage government to certainly apprise the

public of this Province on a more routine basis, on a more regular basis, with respect to

even informal negotiations and discussions.

We are glad to see that at least there is development on

that scale, and it is hoped that government can be more forthright and more frequent in

its apprising the public of this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - exactly where we are with respect

to this very important project.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess the sooner that this deposit is developed the

better off we will be as a Province, in all areas. I get kind of worried when I see the

words "alternative concepts", with no explanation as to what they may entail.

I think it is important that the programs and the

training for the jobs that will arrive as a result of Voisey's Bay being developed begin

immediately, because we do not want to end up in a position where we have to bring workers

into the Province simply because we do not have workers trained to avail of the jobs that

will happen once this development goes into operation.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury

Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, the current round of

collective bargaining is nearing completion. Since active negotiations began last year, we

have achieved twenty-seven signed collective agreements, with an additional five tentative

agreements. Within the last two weeks, the Collective Bargaining Division of Treasury

Board successfully concluded tentative agreements with the Provincial Association of

Interns and Residents, CUPE's Group Homes and Transition House Workers and the Association

of Allied Health Professionals. In total, we have thirty-two agreements with almost 32,000

public sector workers.

In addition to the tentative and signed agreements,

there are six more bargaining agents in various stages of negotiations with Treasury Board

and two contract where negotiations have not yet commenced. These negotiations are

progressing and we expect to conclude other agreements in the coming weeks.

Mr. Speaker, when government entered this round of

collective bargaining, we were up front with all unions and the general public. After a

period of wage rollbacks, freezes -

[There is a commotion in the gallery.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would like to inform the visitors to the

gallery that interruptions of this nature will not be tolerated. Visitors are welcome here

to view the proceedings in the House, but they are not to interfere or interject, at any

time, with the proceedings that are happening here on the floor of this House.

MS THISTLE: After a period of wage rollbacks,

freezes and severe expenditure restraint, we said, from the start, that we were in a

position to afford only modest wage increases. We would have preferred to be in a position

to give higher increases to all public employees, but quite simply we were not and are

still not in a position to do this.

Government has had to take difficult decisions to

achieve a sound fiscal position, maintain stability in core public services and targeted

reinvestments in priority area, notably health and education. We must not forget that

Newfoundland and Labrador still has some of the highest rates of taxation in the country.

We can only spend what we can afford. This is what we are doing.

As well, on an ongoing basis, government wants to work

with unions and professional groups to better serve the public. Within the means available

to us, we will continue to do so.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford

Valley.

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

I am delighted to know that the minister believes that

collective bargaining processes are nearing completion in the Province. I thought today

that the minister would be standing in her place and announcing the withdrawal of Bill 3.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. H. HODDER: When I knew there was a statement

coming, I said: Well, this is the announcement to withdraw Bill 3. That did not happen.

Then, I thought there would be some indication that they would be prepared, even at this

late date, to send the nurses' bargaining processes to binding arbitration, but that is

not there either.

What we have here is a continuation of a sham that has

been made of collective bargaining in this Province. Government usually gets a big, bully,

boot approach. We see the strong-arm tactics. We know that the government has ignored the

Public Service Collective Bargaining Act.

This statement does nothing more than simply bash the

nurses of this Province for standing up for their rights.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly hope that this government does not expect

congratulations for doing what they are supposed to be doing, I guess, by signing

collective agreements with other unions. What would we expect other unions to do? Be

treated to the same treatment as the nurses of this Province were treated? That is an

indication to other unions that they had better toe the line.

We are talking about money, and being the highest

taxation. We receive more money from lotteries in this Province than we do from nature

resources. I think that is an indication of something not being right.

I tell this government that they will be remembered not

for doing what they should be doing; at the next election they will be remembered for not

doing what they should be doing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's

East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are directed to the Premier. When I

arrived at Confederation Building this morning, and when other people arrived at

Confederation Building during the day, they were greeted by a sign affixed to a number of

doors in this building, Mr. Speaker. I will just briefly read the sign. It states in bold

print: "NOTICE - The use of banners, placards, sticks, noise makers such as whistles

and horns and similar items is not permitted inside the Confederation Building

complex."

Obviously, this is an attempt by government to silence

the protest of the Province's nurses, who announced yesterday they would be demonstrating

prior to the House opening today, simply exercising their fundamental democratic right.

Mr. Speaker, this Province has a history of orderly

protests in full compliance with the laws of this land. I ask the Premier: Why is your

government suddenly so afraid that it has resorted to these kinds of anti-democratic

measures?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, as to the specific

question raised by the member opposite about what conduct is permitted or not permitted in

the building, he will have to take that up with the building security officer because I

can tell -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Because I can tell the member

opposite that, quite frankly, I am not in the business of putting up signs and determining

what happens in the lobby or does not -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: The member is asking a question. I am

trying very hard to answer. His colleague is heckling from his right arm.

Mr. Speaker, that is not something that I determine or

that anybody consulted me on. I do not know if the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation can answer further.

I can say this. This is a fairly and very democratic

institution when today, in Question Period, the member is able to put the question, and of

course the Chamber is filled by many visitors, many of whom are nurses, as they ought to

be here.

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

for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the Premier may have

heard of the Constitution of Canada, specifically the Charter of Rights, which guarantees

all Canadians, and I quote, the "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression,

including freedom of the press and other media of communication."

In practice and in law, this fundamental right includes

the right to simply wave a banner or to hold on to a placard or other similar means of

expressing a belief or an opinion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get

to his question.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, the Premier says he

may not have directed it. However, as Premier, he can certainly be concerned about it and

do something immediately about the fact that open, free, democratic fundamental rights of

our citizens are being pounced upon.

I ask the Premier: Why is this government treading on

the constitutional rights and freedoms of our people, whose only crime it is is to freely

express their convictions to their government through their members of the House of

Assembly here in their own Chamber, in their own House?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for St.

John's East can try very hard to make a great crisis of democracy out of the circumstance.

We are sitting in the House of Assembly where free debate and expression occurs. The

galleries are full of those individuals who were a moment ago outside in the lobby wanting

to protest and demonstrate, and who are free to do so, think, say and do whatever they

want. They are here in the gallery today. To try and make some kind of Charter challenge

out of whatever rules of proper decorum are determined for the security of the building is

a stretch.

The member opposite who is familiar with the Charter, as

am I familiar with the Charter, would know better than to try and suggest there is some

kind of Charter challenge here. If the member wants to hear from me an assurance that

every citizen of this Province has the full right to expression or demonstration to make

their views known in every way possible, I certainly subscribe to that totally.

In fact, I have been accused of being too democratic.

Some people suggested the fact that we have had two elections in the last three years and

a referendum was too much of a democratic exercise. I do not think it was.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the forty years of history and tradition of the

Chamber on this site, I say to the hon. Premier, never have signs like this been affixed

and placed in the entrances and exits of this building.

We have seen how this government dealt in dictatorial

fashion with members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary simply by banning their right

to wear a tiny little ribbon, I say. Now with one broad swipe the government is outlawing

the very banners and placards that have been used for decades by the police, by nurses, by

our senior citizens, by environmental rights' individuals, hydro supporters -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get

to his question.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Even, Mr. Speaker, by

schoolchildren, I say to the Premier. What paranoia, I ask the Premier, has suddenly

gripped him that he is trying to insulate himself and silence all protest and opposition?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I will undertake to have

whomever is responsible for building security and whomever has made the decisions with

respect to the conduct of people in the lobby be available to talk to the Opposition

parties. I would suggest that the minister who is responsible for the building will

address the item.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this is an incredible

stretch by the member opposite, to make the kind of silly suggestions that are now being

made. When his party was last in government they arrested and jailed union leaders.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: When his party was last in government

they had provisions in back-to-work legislation that they would fire employees who

disobeyed back-to-work legislation. When they were last in government they did not put a

sign up saying: You must follow certain decorum in the building. They locked them out of

the building when they were last in government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if hypocrisy is looking

for a name, the name is St. John's East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I remind the Premier of the Constitution Act, I remind

the Premier of the Charter of Rights. I remind the Premier that on this sign outside that

he himself personally saw, I am sure, if his eyes were open upon his entry here today, the

use of banners and placards in the peoples' building, in the lobby of this building where

we have had schoolchildren carrying banners and placards as a matter of tradition and

practice, are now being banned in this building.

I will put it simply to the Premier. Forget the

rhetoric. I will forget the rhetoric. Will you take them down? Take down the signs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member

opposite in the breathtaking space of two minutes has admitted that his question is mere

rhetoric.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen such a

performance since he stood here talking about raises for public service pensioners one

second and got up and voted himself an increase ten seconds later and saw no conflict

between the two. It was the Member for St. John's East.

I have no problem with any demonstration, full

demonstration, full expression of any democratic expression in the lobby of the building.

None whatsoever. I am not a security expert. If the security people say there is some

conduct that ought to be properly circumscribed in the building, I can only say why don't

we as members of the House call the security people forward, ask them what their proposals

are, why they put whatever proposals or restrictions they put in place. If we agree with

them, well and good, and if we do not, let's change them.

The suggestion that the Premier of the Province is

making up signs governing the activities of protesters in the lobby of the building is a

stretch indeed. I will look into the matter. It is certainly not something I spent my

morning determining. I was actually spending my morning, if the member wants to know -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I will take my chair.

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

for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: In conclusion, is the Premier now

saying he is giving his undertaking as the Premier of this Province that he will look into

this issue and do what it takes to have these signs removed?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what I

just said. I have to say to the member opposite I think his performance and his behaviour

today, and the kind of histrionics he is trying to rise to today, are beneath the member.

The member is an officer of the court. He knows better than to cite Charter challenges in

the context of whatever rules govern the use of a public building. That is for the

security people of the building to deal with.

I will undertake that the security people explain to

members on all sides of the House precisely what procedures they put in place, and why,

and if there are some difficulties with those we will look into them.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Premier. Premier, you -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Premier, you failed to

win public support on the nurses' dispute and I ask you not to be blinded by your

vindication against nurses. Stop viewing this from the Confederation Building and start

viewing it from the hospital bed.

I ask the Premier: Will you act immediately to resolve

this issue, or do you intend to let this continue and use the sick people as pawns to

swing public opinion away from nurses?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

We take our responsibility very seriously and we have

been working with the boards. We will continue to work with the boards, and we invite the

nurses as well to work with us as we try to put in place a very speedy process for the

implementation of the 125 new positions and the 200 conversions that will help address

nursing workload issues.

We see this as a priority, Mr. Speaker. We have also

spoken to our health care boards about addressing other issues around retention and

recruitment and we, too, take that very seriously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the

Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One hundred and twenty-five positions will not solve the

problems in health care in this Province, and you know it as well as I do.

Premier, during the election campaign -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Don't worry, I will get to that.

Premier, during the election campaign you told nurses

that you were surprised to learn of the conditions under which they worked. In fact, you

went so far as to thank them for their protests and for informing you and the people

generally about their situation. We are not sure why the Minister of Health left you in

the dark about nurses' concerns up to that point.

I want to know, now: What has the Premier done

personally to inform himself about the nurses' concerns at Corner Brook that are leading

these people to take such drastic action? Or, Premier, are you back in the dark again?

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

Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

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

As we are speaking here today in the House, the board is

meeting with the nurses at Western to go through the various list of questions. We have

put forward, as well, our numbers with respect to conversions and new positions for those

nurses, to hear from their health care association representatives, through Dr. Eric

Parsons, and they are going to be going through those issues.

We have been made aware of those issues and we know that

the workload issues have been made very clear by that particular branch and across other

places as well in the Province. We will also be working with each of those boards to

identify the numbers to address those particular issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the

Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The CEO, Dr. Parsons, indicated that the corporation

alone cannot solve those problems. There has to be something, basically, that government

has to do to solve this problem. That is who pays the piper.

I ask the Premier: Will he not admit that issues

concerning nurses in Corner Brook are the very same ones that you pushed off the

bargaining table back in March, when you legislated a collective agreement? The same

issues and the same problems are there, Premier. Won't you admit that, had you sent this

matter to binding arbitration or some other resolution mechanism, whatever it may be, as

we and the nurses were recommending, the current crisis could have been avoided and we

could start rebuilding our health care system instead of doing crisis management?

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

Community Services.

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

There was never any indication at any point during

negotiations that we would move off the 7 per cent. What there was an indication of, to

the very moment that the strike began, was that there was an opportunity to address many

issues around workload, around work life issues, through other means of compensation.

The compensation was used all throughout the course of

the election, and it was used all throughout the course of negotiations, because we were

committed to staying with the 7 per cent but we were also committed to dealing with issues

off the 7 per cent.

Everyone in this House knows, and in the Province knows,

there was a lot of money left on the table, money that could have been put forward through

compensation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford

Valley.

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

My questions are to the Minister of Mines and Energy,

relative to the Voisey's Bay development.

It has been reported today that informal discussions

have been started to try and determine key issues for negotiation. Today's National

Post reports that the Inco president is willing to compromise on the Voisey's Bay

project, and he suggests that this Province should also consider budging from its current

fixed position.

I want to ask the minister: What areas is the minister

considering for a compromise, and to what extent is a full smelter or refinery a part of

those discussions?

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

Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure that the Opposition and everybody else joins

with us in hoping that we do have success in some negotiations with Inco in the

not-too-distant future.

I would hope that no one would misinterpret any comments

coming out of the Inco shareholders' meeting yesterday. There was no mention of any formal

negotiations with Newfoundland and Labrador and Inco. There was recognition, as in my

Ministerial Statement today, that there have been informal discussions in which both the

Premier and myself, as minister, have engaged the president of Inco and others to try and

get some sense for what they may bring to the table as an actual formal proposal at some

point in the not-too-distant future for us to consider.

The whole notion of informal discussions is that

basically you try to find out through meetings that officially never occurred; because, if

they do occur and they are formal, then you are subject to and expected - we fully expect

to and will - give full detail of any formal proposal brought to the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador by Inco, and any formal response to that which the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador would make.

At this point in time there is nothing that has been

presented to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador from Inco for us to consider and,

therefore, nothing for me, as the minister, to respond and report as to what we are

therefore thinking about or suggesting that may have changed in the time since last

summer.

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

for Waterford Valley.

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

Mr. Hand, Inco's chief negotiator, is quoted in today's National

Post as saying: We have not ruled out further processing in the Province.

I want to ask the minister: Will the minister confirm

that Inco, in your informal discussions, has proposed the building of a prototype smelter

to test new smelter technology which will use small quantities of concentrate as a

substitute for a full smelter system?

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

Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think all of us would acknowledge that the general

comment from the president of Inco basically indicates a significant change in the

direction that Newfoundland and Labrador has been suggesting, contemplating and awaiting,

that they will do some smelting here. Remember, now, the last official position was that

there was going to be no smelting in Newfoundland and Labrador. It was not viable, it was

not feasible, it could not be done.

We are encouraged, as I am sure the hon. member asking

the question is encouraged.

Again, any time that Mr. Hand, or anyone else on behalf

of Inco, would like to tell the public of Newfoundland - even before they tell myself and

the Premier - if they want to tell the public of Newfoundland or any one of us exactly

what it is they are going to propose, we would gladly hear the proposal and deal with it

in time.

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

for Waterford Valley.

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

The minister and the Premier have constantly said that

they have the financial analysis which shows that a smelter-refinery complex in

Newfoundland is viable. This financial analysis, however, was made on behalf of the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador, but the people have not seen all of the details.

I ask the minister, in view of the informal negotiations

which are ongoing now, and he has admitted to that, will he today make public the complete

financial analysis that he has prepared and said he has ready? Will he disclose all that

publicly so the people of Newfoundland and Labrador can be advised as to what the full

details are as to the viability?

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

Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is beginning to show a little bit that the

hon. member has not really been in charge of anything since he was the mayor of Mount

Pearl some fifteen or twenty years ago. Because obviously an analysis has been done in a

very serious manner to determine the economic viability of something as important as the

Voisey's Bay project, in which Inco itself, a company on the stock exchange, publicly

traded, provided confidential information with respect to its operations, its funding, its

financing, so we could do a realistic analysis of whether or not they could support a

project in Newfoundland and Labrador that included smelting and refining. The hon. member

would know that it is not appropriate at any point in time for anybody to then take that

information and release it to the public.

The only people who can release that kind of information

to the public are the executive and the shareholders and the actual company that runs Inco

itself. If they want to disclose to the public, and to all of their competitors, and

everybody else in the world, how they run their business, how they raise their money, what

their financial status is and so on, then they are free to do that, but we are not free to

take information.

I am sure when the hon. member was the mayor of Mount

Pearl and he was negotiating with anybody, the one thing he did not do was take the last

proposal that even the municipal workers gave him at the table and pass it out to the

Mount Pearl Pride or some other local paper and let the people of Mount Pearl look

at what was being said every single minute of every single day with respect to an issue of

negotiation.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious negotiation. It is a

very serious issue for Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: It is also nice and convenient to say:

Tell us everything that is being said every minute of the day so we can judge as to

whether what they are saying is what we like or not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude his answer.

MR. GRIMES: He knows, and I am sure he is going to

stand and admit it, that he would never conduct a very sensitive negotiation that way

himself. It is only politics again that is coming out of his mouth here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are for the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs. Minister, yesterday we marked the national day of mourning for workers

killed or injured in the workplace.

As you will recall, and most of us in this House will

recall, on March 25, there was a fatal fire at the Come-By-Chance refinery. We have also

come to learn that since that fatal day there have been seven or eight charges laid under

the Occupational Health and Safety Act. The government received the report from the fire

commissioner: not only, I think, from our own department, but from the expertise that they

brought in from out of the Province. Understandably, those close to the people who died

are very interested, I say to the minister, in this report.

Minister, I spoke to Mrs. Murray yesterday or Mrs.

Kieley here in this building, and I spoke to her again last night. I have spoken to her

many times over the past several months. She would like to know if there would be a copy

of the report that has been written by these experts. Is a copy of that report available

for her?

I raised the issue, I say to the minister, three times

in this House, once on March 20, again on March 30, and again on April 30. I would like to

know, Minister, why is the government withholding the details on this particular tragedy

from the families of the deceased workers? They are very anxious. I know in Mrs. Kieley's

case she is very anxious to receive a copy of the report as to exactly what happened. I

ask you today, when can her family, at least, expect a copy of this report?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think all of us in this House have a great

appreciation for the pain and the difficulty that was brought about by the tragic

circumstances of the fire in Come-By-Chance just over a year ago. We share the concern of

the family and their interest in having full disclosure regarding and surrounding these

events.

There is, however, in the legal context of doing things

appropriately a process that has been laid out previously by my predecessor in the House

regarding the conduct of investigations and the subsequent release of information.

The steps are these. First of all, there was an RCMP

inquiry or investigation, I should say, into the incident. They have recently reported

that as a result of their investigation there will be no criminal charges laid. We moved

immediately, or Justice did, as a result of investigative work that was done by the

Department of Environment and Labour and Government Services and Lands and my own

department, to lay certain charges as a result of irregularities found by virtue of our

investigative work. These charges are now before the court. At what point these charges

are disposed of by the court we have committed to a third step in this process and that is

a judicial inquiry. We have committed to that, and once we can get to that stage that will

happen.

However, we are not at liberty, by virtue of normal

protocol, to release the reports that we currently have until matters before the court

have been disposed of and we move to the point of a judicial inquiry. At that point, the

judge who is appointed will do due diligence to his part of the exercise that we have

committed ourselves to and in due course, while regrettably sometimes it takes a lot of

time, the information that will be appropriate to be released to the public and to the

families will be made available. The process is in train, the first phase has been

completed. Charges under the provincial regulations have been laid. Once they are disposed

of by the court a judicial inquiry will commence and at that point -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to conclude his answer.

MR. MATTHEWS: - we will know further when the

reports will be available.

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

for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister that I fully understand there have

been no criminal charges made but there have been charges laid under the Occupational

Health and Safety Act. I fully understand those charges.

I guess, Minister, I can appreciate what you are saying.

I hope you can appreciate the anguish that certainly the Murray and the Kieley family are

in. Because I am not only talking to Mr. Kieley's widow but I am talking to some of his

brothers and so on, and they are very anxious to receive a copy of the report that was

done by the people out of Halifax who your predecessor commissioned to do this report. I

would like, if it were possible, to certainly be able to give them a copy of that.

I would also like to ask you this. Do we have any idea

as to when this judicial inquiry will take place? Is it going to happen maybe within the

next month or will it be six months or are we talking a year? Do you have any idea of

exactly the time frame that we are talking on this judicial inquiry to deal with this very

serious tragedy?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We share the concern that this whole thing be dealt with

and concluded expeditiously, and an indication of that concern on our part was this.

Immediately we got the RCMP report released, the very next day we moved to lay charges

under the Occupational Health and Safety Act and other regulations that we had

responsibility for.

I think it is important to recognize that we are just as

interested, probably more so than most, to have things move as quickly as we can. It was

the very next day we moved to lay charges once the RCMP report had been received and they

indicated there was no criminal charges to be laid. We support the notion of getting the

information and the work done expeditiously.

As to the time lines for a judicial inquiry, I cannot

define them in any sense. I can simply say this, though, that immediately that the court

disposes of the charges that were laid under the provincial statutes, immediately that

those are disposed of and appropriate appeal times, I would imagine, expire, we will be

moving through the Minister of Justice to appoint or see that there is appointed a judge

to do the judicial inquiry.

MR. SPEAKER: Time for one quick question.

The hon. the Member for St. John's South.

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

My question is for the Minister of Environment.

Minister, for several months there has been raw sewage entering the Gander River. It is a

world-class river, an angling river, salmon river. My question is this, Minister. Can you

bring this House up to date as to what is being done about that problem? What information

is available regarding the pollution and the sewage that is entering that river, and how

is it affecting the ecosystem there?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment

and Labour.

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The two treatment plants, one in Appleton and one in

Glenwood, are outdated and are not in working order right now. From the department's point

of view we are doing extra monitoring. We are working with Fisheries and Oceans, and in

addition to that we are working with the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

We are working with the Member for Gander to find a resolution to that particular problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has ended.

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

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

Member for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just thought it is important to advise the House at

this time that at least somebody has understood that the issue that was raised between

myself and the Premier during Question Period was of extreme importance. This is to simply

advise the House that I am told - just advise - that the signs at the entrances to the

lobby of this building are now removed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To that point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the hon.

member has advised the House that the signs, as he describes them, have been removed. I

think it makes the point that I made to him earlier. These are obviously decisions made by

building security. They are not -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: The member did put a direct question.

I think it deserves a direct answer.

They are not decisions made by me nor did anybody

consult me about these signs, and if they have since been removed, well and good.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

Justice.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have for tabling in the House six copies of the

Financial Administration Act,

Section 26.4 forms, which authorize pre-commitments of money

for the purchase of educational textbooks in the amount of $4.5 million for the current

fiscal year in which we are now in. These were decisions made on March 29, 1999. They are

done in the normal course and are usually tabled at this time each year.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, further to my earlier

comments in the House at the beginning of the day I would like to move the following

motion. I would ask that it be moved and seconded by the Opposition House Leader, if he

concurs:

WHEREAS

section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982

provides that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that

applies to one or more, but not all, provinces may be made by proclamation issued by the

Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the

Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the

amendment applies; and

WHEREAS Term 1 of the Terms of Union of Newfoundland

with Canada provides as follows:

1. On, from, and after the coming into force of these

Terms (hereinafter referred to as the date of Union), Newfoundland shall form part of

Canada and shall be a province thereof to be called and known as the Province of

Newfoundland.

NOW THEREFORE the House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland resolves that His Excellency the Governor General be authorized to issue a

proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada amending the Constitution of Canada in

accordance with the

Schedule set forth below; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that, upon approval and adoption

by this House of this Resolution, the Speaker be directed to forward a true copy of this

Resolution to His Excellency the Governor General certifying that the requirements of the

Constitution Act, 1982 respecting the adoption of a Resolution by the House of Assembly of

Newfoundland have been met.

Amendment to the Constitution of Canada

1. The Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada set

out in the

Schedule to the Newfoundland Act are amended by striking out the words

"Province of Newfoundland" wherever they occur and substituting the words

"Province of Newfoundland and Labrador".

2. Paragraph (

g) of Term 33 of the

Schedule to the Act

is amended by striking out the word "Newfoundland" and substituting the words

"the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador".

3. Term 38 of the

Schedule to the Act is amended by

striking out the words "Newfoundland veterans" wherever they occur and

substituting the words "Newfoundland and Labrador veterans".

4. Term 42 of the

Schedule to the Act is amended by

striking out the words "Newfoundland merchant seamen" and "Newfoundland

merchant seaman" wherever they occur and substituting the words "Newfoundland

and Labrador merchant seamen" and "Newfoundland and Labrador merchant

seaman", respectively.

5. Subsection (2) of Term 46 of the

Schedule to the Act

is amended by adding immediately after the word "Newfoundland" where it first

occurs the words "and Labrador".

6. This Amendment may be cited as the Constitution

Amendment, year of proclamation ( Newfoundland and Labrador ).

Mr. Speaker, that is the motion. I think by agreement

there will not be speeches in the House on this resolution, signifying the unanimous

consent of the House that such a historic motion changing, officially, the name of this

Province - the Province of Newfoundland, officially - to the name of Newfoundland and

Labrador should go forward without debate, without amendment, and with the unanimous

support of this Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the motion?

All those in favour of the motion, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Against?

I declare the motion carried unanimously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. TULK: I think all of us would like to see that

it is recorded in the record of the House that the motion was passed unanimously.

Petitions

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure today to present a petition, and there

are approximately 150 signatures on the petition. The prayer is:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned nurses

of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador asks for the House of Assembly to accept the

following prayer:

We, the nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador, have

honestly and openly conveyed our concerns about the failing health care system in this

Province. In good faith, and under the collective bargaining process of this Province, we

attempted to negotiate these issues with the Liberal government. Premier Tobin and the

Liberal government showed their lack of respect for nurses' concerns and made a mockery of

this Province's collective bargaining process by legislating nurses back to work without

binding arbitration.

If the Liberal government honestly wishes to pursue

constructive dialogue with the nurses of this Province in an attempt to help solve the

existing health care crisis, we wish to inform the House of Assembly this can only be made

possible if: (1) the Liberal government admits they have made a mistake in not

acknowledging the depth and scope of the crisis facing health care in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador; and (2) that the hon. House of Assembly repeal Bill 3, and the

Liberal government resume bargaining in good faith with the nurses of Newfoundland and

Labrador by using the collective bargaining process that existed before Bill 3.

Mr. Speaker, one of the basic understandings in

collective bargaining is that there has to be a recognition that there is a major problem

or concern out there. The only indication we really had that there was a concern that was

recognized by this government was during the election campaign. I have the news clippings

to show that. The Premier said he is now aware of the serious problems we have, in the

problem with nursing shortages and overwork. He is aware of it. He went on, and I will not

go into some of his quotes. I have said them here in the House before, some of the things

that led us to believe that there would be a recognition of the concerns that have been

raised by nurses.

I spoke to a nurse yesterday. A nurse was here in the

gallery yesterday - I spoke to her during a recess of the House - who told me they were

called to go into work on triple-and-a-half time. On one unit in a hospital - I spoke to

another nurse - there were four there working on double time. There are people called

back. One particular one, in charge, had worked twelve consecutive days.

I made reference yesterday to the Coronary Care Unit

shut down at the Grace Hospital, four days last week, not one patient. Three at the Health

Sciences Centre. They called and wanted to have three sent over. We cannot do it; we have

no nurses available to go to work in critical care.

An angioplasty was done, even the day before, and they

could not take a person in there. The people working there - there were five in intensive

care. There are six intensive care beds, and really another five beds under intensive

coronary care, and they were all empty. Those five beds were empty, and five out of the

other six were full. Another person came in at ten o'clock because a new patient arrived,

to have a full six.

On top of having that, there were not sufficient nurses

to be able to care one-on-one for the people who were there. One patient needed two

nurses. A nurse arrived at about 10:00 p.m. and another one got in at twelve o'clock, just

to get them up to a level where they could function. One went home after fourteen hours

there. They took a break after over five hours. One patient needed two people, two nurses.

One person was so sick, the attention of two nurses had to be given. At the same time they

were monitoring two people down on the floor, under telemetry - hooked up to monitors,

monitoring them.

It is not humane to have people under those conditions.

It is not humane for the people working and it is not right for people who are sick in

hospital.

How do you tell a person who has waited several months

for heart surgery, is all ready, and is told: We have no nurses to care for you after the

surgery. The Thursday before last a person was told: We cannot do your surgery because

there is no nurse available to care for you after the surgery.

After all the cost and effort to put six dedicated beds

into coronary care at the Health Sciences, to make efforts with the profusionist issue, to

get it resolved, and the anaesthetists on times have cancelled surgery - to get an extra

surgeon into this Province - we still are not doing any surgeries, really, that would have

required that third surgeon.

It has meant diddly-squat, I can tell you. It has mean

diddly-squat to have the third one, when each of the two that are there could do five

each. We are still not averaging ten. We did less than 500. Four hundred and eighty-nine,

I believe, was the number last year, less than ten per week.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: By leave to finish?

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave?

MR. SULLIVAN: No leave? I didn't hear. Has someone

called back leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Why is this happening? It is not happening now because

we do not have doctors in cardiac surgery, for example, and a lot of these others. It is

happening because we are not doing enough to ensure we have a staff of permanent nurses

that are able to take care of the people in this Province. We are understaffed.

When understaffing leads to overwork, it leads to higher

sick leave, it leads to extra costs on the system, and that is contributing to sick leave

costs. It is counterproductive. It is contributing to double time. Imagine,

triple-and-a-half to get someone in. That is how desperate; they are going to pay you

triple-and-a-half time to come in and go to work. That is spending money when we could -

nurses want a normal week's work, to work a normal day, under normal pressures, and make a

decent living. That is all. They do not want to have to be working, called back over

several days in a row. It is not fair, and something has to be done.

I will say, in closing, this government still has not

realized the crisis. If not, they have realized it and they have failed to do something

about it. There is only one way it can be dealt with, because there are nurses going out

of this Province every day. Just like the doctor crisis - they still cannot fix the

problem with doctors because they left it too late. It is happening with nurses now; it is

going to be too late.

When you look at your TV, you read it in the newspapers,

you hear the real people - families - people leaving in tears because they have to leave

this Province and get a job when we will not hire enough people to provide care for the

people who are sick.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay

South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise today in support of the petition

that was presented by my colleague. I must say, I certainly agree with the petition and I

believe that something has to be done, and has to be done rather quickly, in support of

the nurses in this Province. I think the time for trying to put people down or to keep

people down is here, it is past, it is over.

There are people, as my colleague has said, who are in

the Health Sciences Centre, or they are in various hospitals around, who are waiting on

such things as open heart surgery. As a matter of fact, I know of somebody who has been in

there now two weeks and has been waiting to be moved from one particular hospital to

another in order to have open heart surgery done. Every day he just seems to get cancelled

and get pushed back. I think, Mr. Speaker, that's very sad. It is a very traumatic thing,

not only on the patient himself but on his family and on his children, that he has to wait

this particular length of time.

When it comes to the paying of nurses - and I talked to

some of them in the last several days and over the last several weeks - we see

triple-time-and-a-half being paid and people on callback. We have people in one hospital

who are called to work weekends at another hospital. People who are cross-trained, is the

way they explained it to me, to work, say, at St. Clare's or the Health Sciences and can

also work at the Janeway. They are now finishing up their shift for the week at one of

these hospitals and on the weekend for two days they are going to go to work at the

Janeway Hospital.

Again, I think that is very sad when people have to work

those hours. I believe at the end of the day, after somebody works so many hours and puts

so much time and effort into their position, there comes a point in time where there is

burnout, where somebody doesn't function properly. I think once people sit and work these

hours and punch in this amount of time then I am not sure that anybody, whether that be in

the nursing profession or any other profession, that people can really do their job to the

best of their ability.

So I call on the government to either rescind this

particular bill which I voted against, Bill 3 - which I do not support of course, never

would, never will - and I think it is time that we got back to the bargaining table. We

cannot, after all, leave it up to health care boards. I heard Dr. Parsons on today from

the West Coast of the Province, how they are discharging people and they are sending them

home.

I know of cases in my own district where people have

been in and had surgeries done. One lady in question, several months ago, had a mastectomy

done, was sent home with some fifty-seven stitches in her body and was told: Hopefully the

public health nurse can get in to look after you. That is not good health care when the

lady woke the next morning covered in blood. She was very concerned, very frightened, very

afraid, as she was and as was the rest of her family.

It is not that these people, nurses, are not doing their

job because they are, and I have the highest amount of respect for them. It is the system

and it is the government that is causing this problem. I think it is time that it came to

an end. It should not come to an end tomorrow or next week or the week after, it should

come to an end today. I think the time for the hard-headedness is over. We see people in

our hospitals who are suffering. The man I talked about who has now been waiting - if he

does not go today, come Monday the gentleman will have been waiting three weeks for open

heart surgery and that is a shame. That is a real shame that somebody, because of

conditions, has to wait three weeks to have this much needed surgery.

I don't think, Mr. Speaker, there is anything else I can

say. It is just to implore this government to get off its horse and let's get back to the

bargaining table and let's try and settle this in the manner in which it should be

settled. I think it is quite evident -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FRENCH: - that we cannot browbeat these people

back to work. So I thank you for your time.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury

Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I stood in my

place and said that this government made a difficult choice, a choice of bringing in

back-to-work legislation, Bill 3. Are we going back to the bargaining table? No, we are

not going back to the bargaining table. No, we are not going to repeal Bill 3.

I have to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this government

made a very difficult decision. We had a responsibility to act upon, a very serious

responsibility.

[There was a commotion in the gallery.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will recess the House until the galleries are

closed.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue my

response to the petition raised by the Member for Ferryland, the Opposition House Leader.

I thank you for the opportunity despite the interruption that you had no control over.

As I was saying, government was faced with a decision

almost a month ago. That decision has been made and I believe now it is time for all of us

to move forward. I think what is important today is looking at a way to ensure that those

125 new nursing positions get into the system as quickly as possible, and also the 200

casual positions being converted to permanent positions. Once those positions are in the

system I guess then we will look at the benefits derived from that move.

I know there are nurses out there that have concerns,

and maybe the time is not right yet for nurses and government to come together, but

eventually that will happen. This government wants to work with nurses. We want to work at

identifying the problems out there and we want to work at identifying means and ways to

resolve the problems.

As I said yesterday when I stood in my place, the

legislation that was passed almost four weeks ago was to a unique situation only. It does

not mean that ones going on in the future will be in any way influenced by that one, nor

should it influence any other collective agreements.

What we need to do now is get our whole complete health

care system up and running, and running smoothly. As I said yesterday, that takes nurses

and all other professionals within the health care sector to make that happen. It cannot

happen on its own. We have to get together, we have to show cooperation as a government,

and through the Newfoundland and Labrador Health Care Association, through institutions,

and also with the professionals working in there. The issue of retention and recruitment,

the issue of workload, the issue of twelve-hour shifts versus eight hours, these are the

kinds of issues that we need to work at as a government and also with nurses.

What I would like to say in conclusion in my response to

your petition today is that government is ready when nurses are ready, and we are willing

and we want to get back. We want talk about the concerns that on the minds of nurses all

over this Province and we want to work on the concerns so that nurses can go back and

enjoy their work and we will have a smooth running health care system.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present a petition. The petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

Newfoundland in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residences

of Newfoundland:

WHEREAS route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista has not

been ungraded since it was paved approximately twenty-five years ago; and

WHEREAS this

section of Route 235 is in such a terrible

condition that vehicles are being damaged, including the school buses serving schools in

the area, and school children are finding their daily trips over the road very difficult;

WHEREFORE your pensioners urge the Government of

Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade and pave the five kilometres of Route 235 from Birchy

Cove to Bonavista;

As in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.

Mr. Speaker, this is a petition that again I bring

forward on behalf of the residents of Birchy Cove, Newmans Cove, Upper, Middle, and Lower

Amherst Cove, who use this

section of road every day.

I have brought petitions forward here on other days from

students who go to Matthew Elementary and Discovery Collegiate in Bonavista. I do not know

where we have come to when we have to go and have people get into letter writing

campaigns, sending in petitions every day, have students themselves sending in pleas and

writing letters to government and saying: Please, Mr. Minister, would you look at the

condition of our road? Please, Mr. Minister, would you provide us with a road that is safe

to drive over, and a road whereby we can get aboard our school bus and arrive at school in

the morning without being sick and with losing our breakfast.

Mr. Speaker, the people in this particular area have had

several meetings wondering how to go about bringing their plight to the government of the

day.

It was only the Saturday before last, I went to Newmans

Cove and I met with about eighty to eighty-five residents, including some children, who

gathered at the fire hall there and wondered what else they could do in order to bring the

condition of this road to the attention of government.

They talked about blocking the road. They talked about

going out and saying: No traffic from here on goes over this particular road until it gets

repaired.

Instead, they took the responsible approach. They said:

No, we do not want to do that. We do not want to deprive people of the opportunity to get

to work. We do not want to inconvenience anybody and have them go miles out of their way

in order to access government services, or hospitals, or their workplace in the Town of

Bonavista.

They did not want to interfere with the delivery of

goods down over that particular highway and, I suppose, most important of all, they did

not want to interfere with the students going to their particular school.

What they decided to do was that they would get into a

letter writing campaign, to write the minister, each and every one of them, to slow the

traffic down, and to hand out pamphlets so it again could be brought to the minister's

attention.

Mr. Speaker, there is something wrong when people go and

petition the government not to put concrete barricades through their town and the

government of the day spends millions of dollars to allow it to happen. There is something

wrong when we go and build roads, double-lane highways, where people do not want them

built. There is something wrong when we go and put in bypass roads and spend hundreds of

millions of dollars when we do not provide people in other parts of this Province with a

decent road to drive over in order for them to get to school.

This particular road is in deplorable condition. It is

something that should have been done years ago, I say to people opposite, and here again

this year, in correspondence from the minister, they are told that this

section of roadway

will not be included under capital costs of this government again in 1999.

They are saying: If you do not have enough money,

Minister, to pave or to recap and upgrade the five kilometres from Birchy Cove to

Bonavista, then how about coming and looking at the worst two to two-and-a-half kilometres

- very reasonable - through the communities of Upper Amherst Cove, going out to Tickle

Cove, Open Hall, Red Cliff. The roads are in terrible shape.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, what they are saying is

that this is the worst

section and, because it is the busiest section, this is what we

have identified as needing to be done and needing to be done now.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to reply to the people

of this area and to respond to their needs.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just a couple of minutes to respond to the petition put

forth by my hon. critic from Bonavista South.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your buddy.

MR. EFFORD: Yes, my buddy.

Let me give the hon. member some examples of what

happened in the past, what the policy of the previous government was from 1985 to 1989,

and what the policy of this government is today.

I remember sitting over in the Opposition from 1985 to

1989. The deputy, deputy, deputy leader is sitting there today. The former Premier was

minister. The twenty-nine day Premier was minister in the government from 1985 to 1989

when I sat in the Opposition, and because I asked questions on a daily basis about the

health care system, the social services system, about all the other problems in the

Province, from 1985 to 1989 not one nickel of any infrastructure money - roads, municipal

affairs, any organization - went into the District of Port de Grave; not one nickel in

four years. The same thing in Fogo.

What is this government doing? Ask the Member for Baie

Verte what he is getting this year for roads. Ask what the Member for Port de Grave is

getting, and who has the greater share.

MR. TULK: Ask what the Opposition House Leader is

getting.

MR. EFFORD: Ask what the Opposition House Leader is

getting this year, and a number of other members on the opposite side.

This government is fair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: This government is fair to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible) resurrection of the past. It

is factual.

This government is spending the money available, paid by

the taxpayers of the Province, on a fair and equitable basis around the Province where the

need is shown. The former government did not do that. They did not spend one nickel. It is

your party which you represent, it is policies which you represent.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Bonavista

South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, there is something

wrong within the confines of this Chamber when you put forward a petition, signed by

students, children of this Province, and you hear a minister of the Crown get up and

respond to that petition and talk about what government did in years gone by, where nobody

here on this side sat, and he is saying now that those students should be held responsible

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: - and they should be made to suffer

because of the actions of somebody on this side of the House. That is deplorable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FITZGERALD: That is deplorable, to hear that,

and I will be sending a copy of this down to the school to be read. That is ridiculous.

Shame!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, that is not what the hon.

gentleman said. I have to stand and correct it. What the hon. gentleman said is that was

the way the former government acted. This government, I think he said, is acting in a very

equitable manner.

The hon. gentleman also tried to deny his history. The

truth of the matter is that his deputy, deputy House Leader sits there, and he was one of

the prime architects of that policy, of Brian Peckford's government. The policy was:

Starve them out if they do not vote PC.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of the

parents and students in the community of L'Anse au Clair, in the Labrador Straits area.

The petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly, Province of Newfoundland,

in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the District of

Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair humbly showeth;

WHEREAS the school board has not demonstrated that by

moving our students to Forteau will get rid of multi-grading; and

WHEREAS they have not sufficiently demonstrated that

they will improve the quality of education; and

WHEREAS the board publicly stated that the only reason

to close St. Andrew's Elementary was to improve the quality of education for our students.

WHEREFORE we the undersigned hereby declare that we will

not participate in any further discussions regarding closing our school. Furthermore, we

want the board to have St. Andrew's Elementary school designated as small and necessarily

existing.

This is signed by a number of people from the community

of L'Anse au Clair. Mr. Speaker, this is an issue that has been ongoing since 1996. It was

at that time that the board made a decision that they would close St. Andrew's Elementary

and that the students would indeed be bused to a nearby school in Forteau.

After the decision was made the board did go in and meet

with parents in the community and they had an open discussion. At that time, the parents

were supportive of the idea, because what we had was a school with twenty-six students

from grades kindergarten to VI with 1.38 teaching units in the system.

They did set up a committee and the committee negotiated

with the board on certain conditions that they wanted to have met in order to support the

idea of transporting their students. Some of those conditions obviously involved

curriculum in the schools and computer programs that they wanted to have offered to the

primary-elementary levels. It also included adequate cafeteria space for the students that

would have to be staying over for longer periods of time and so on.

In addition to having a dialogue on the level of

curriculum they wanted, they also had input into the type of structure that would be

there. We had put an addition on the school in Forteau for a couple of reasons. One, to

accommodate some of the students from L'Anse au Clair, and also the other reason is that

the extension was needed in Forteau to accommodate the already existing growing numbers of

students that were in that particular school. So the people in L'Anse au Clair also had

input into the expansion, so it was a joint process that was ongoing between the board and

the people in that community.

This year, however, the parents in L'Anse au Clair felt

that the conditions they had attached when they agreed to have their children bused were

not being met adequately by the board. They were not being addressed to the satisfaction

that they would have wished, and therefore they decided to oppose the school closure for

St. Andrew's Elementary.

That is, I guess, basically the history of this whole

particular issue. Since that time I have tried to liaison between the school committee and

the school board in order to bring both groups together to discuss this particular issue.

It was a very trying experience because it seemed that the board was reluctant to defend

the decision they had made and to offer rationale for the continuation of what had been

put in place.

Since then, however, they have met with them. They have

made a presentation to them on the importance of the education for their particular

children, no matter what school they go to, but in particular, they want to see their

school kept open. What has occurred since then is that there will be a further meeting

that will take place between the board and between the parents in this particular

community later in May.

I would like to say that I support the parents in their

initiative to find a better education for their children, to have improved curriculum for

their children, and to ensure that wherever their school that their children go to is that

they be able to avail of the maximum program that they can avail of in that part of the

Province, or in our Province in general. I support that for all students in my district.

I should also say that this is not an issue about one

school, because the Labrador Straits area have been going through some difficult times

with this transition on the reformed system as have most every other area of the Province.

I think in a lot of cases most of the issues that have been controversial in that area

could have been dealt with in a conciliatory process if there had been more discussion

between the board and the parents in a pubic forum, where a lot of these things could have

been dealt with.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS JONES: Can I have leave, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS JONES: Thank you.

Unfortunately the process did not occur in that way and

what we had was actually schools and communities feeling threatened by neighbouring

schools and communities, which made for a very unfortunate situation. Because people in

that particular area for some time lost the true sense of what was happening, and that was

the sense of reforming the education system for the betterment of our children and not

necessarily for the betterment of where a building would or would not be.

Mr. Speaker, what I would say to the parents in L'Anse

au Clair is what I have said to them in public meetings when I have met with them, what

I've said to them in newspapers and through the open line programs, and that is that I can

only encourage them to continue a dialogue with the board, to continue their efforts to

ensure that they get the best possible education for their children, because that is where

their energies should be focused. That is the most important goal here to have

accomplished, and I can only wish them luck in trying to bring that about.

I think you have to realize that when you have a school

with grades kindergarten to VI and only twenty-six students and 1.38 units that something

has to change, whether it be in that school or outside of that school. There has to be

change, because obviously the needs of the students are not being met in the way they

should be met. So whether it includes putting additional teachers into that school or

putting them into a program that is already sufficient to meet the needs of students, well

then, one or the other has to be done.

I can only encourage them to continue their discussions

and support them in their endeavour to ensure a better quality of education for their

children.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

MR. TULK: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1. That is the Budget debate.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to arise at the insistence of the

House to open the Budget Speech.

MR. GRIMES: He is going to read it again. Read it

again.

MR. DICKS: My sympathies are more with the member

opposite who is suggesting I sit down.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is another occasion to review some of the things we

mentioned in the Budget. The first, of course, is the extraordinary performance of the

Province and the progress we have made over the last several years. As members will

recall, in the last two fiscal years prior to this one the economy had been shrinking

substantially. We had had GDP deficits of 2.3 per cent and 1.3 per cent in each of the

last few years. However, growth resumed last year and we had growth in the vicinity of 5

per cent, which was the foremost in the country, and we expect that again this year. The

economic performance of Newfoundland and Labrador will either equal or be close to the

strongest economies in the country, and we expect that Ontario or ourselves will again

lead the country.

This is obviously leading to sustained growth in the

Province. We have had very strong financial figures in a lot of corporate areas, as well

as gradually increasing salary levels in the Province. One of the ironies of progress

financially is that, generally, provincial government revenues do not keep pace with the

level of increased domestic activity in the economy, and that is because much of the

revenues we would otherwise arrive are deducted from our equalization.

Equalization is a financial balancing mechanism that the

federal government instituted some years ago to make up for deficits suffered in provinces

during periods of economic decline. The reciprocal aspect of that is when economies

improve and revenues rebound then, of course, some of the monies are clawed back, so that

in many cases we receive less than 10 per cent of the benefit of any increase in

provincial government revenues.

Having said that, we believe we have made some

substantial progress because in the end no person wishes to be dependent. Certainly at a

provincial level we do not wish to be dependent over the long term on handouts from

Ottawa, be they in the nature of equalization, CHST or otherwise.

For the meantime, notwithstanding that, we do and remain

dependent on Ottawa. The relative strengths or reduction in these transfer payments will

affect our abilities to provide services to our people and also will affect the amount of

compensation, for example, that we can offer to individuals who work for the government

and programs for which the public look to the government to satisfy their basic needs.

One of the interesting aspects of the government's

handling of the economy has been that for the first time in well over fifteen years we are

starting to see surpluses and balanced budgets. In the last four years we have had two

balanced budgets. We have never had balanced budgets prior to that time in the Province.

In the years preceding 1995 the average provincial

deficit was in the range of $230 million. In the last four years it has been in the

vicinity of $3 million, as a result of two surpluses. In each of those years as well we

have bettered our economic targets by a substantial margin, as is set out in the Budget

Speech itself.

We had budgeted for deficits in the range of $75

million; instead, we achieved surpluses of $21 million in the last three years alone. If

you go back and add the surplus achievement in the previous year, our actual deficit over

the last four years was in the range of $11.3 million, which is less than $3 million per

year. Considering the fact the GDP declined, that is a substantial and, frankly,

unrivalled economic performance of any state or any province on this continent, let alone

just in this country, or ultimately, by comparison, with any previous governments that

have held power in this Province.

Last year we were also favoured at year end with a

substantial increase in the amount of equalization received from Ottawa. Although our own

economic performance had improved, another consequence of the equalization formula was

that the economies of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia were strong and that resulted

in a substantial increase in equalization payments to the Province. We received in fact,

something in the order of $180 million, more than what we had planned. That was money that

we used to do many substantial things, particularly in the area of health care and

education. It enabled us to increase the base amounts in hospital budgets, to plan for

re-institution of a more intensive capital building program in the health care and

educational sectors, and as well to provide for salary increases for our employees.

One of the great ironies of having been in government

for over ten years is that having gone through a period of economic decline, lack of

government revenues, fiscal restraint, one of the unfortunate aspects of that was that the

Province had to look to its employees to either sustain salary rollbacks or to have no

increases from year to year. What is ironic about that is that employees for some reason

were prepared to accept that. When jobs are in jeopardy people are prepared to accept what

would otherwise be an unacceptable situation, such as having rollbacks of wages because

their future is insecure. Having worked very hard to achieve economic stability, to have

resolved the serious deficit problem - which really in the end, if it is not dealt with,

leads to either tax increases or cuts in services - we were able to obtain and find a

position where we could award salary increases to our employees.

The irony is that having suffered through all that, and

not wishing to return to a period when we had to be cutting services and laying people

off, we were able to offer an increase - to my mind it is reasonably substantial, and it

is equal to virtually every other settlement across the country - and people were

dissatisfied. They were prepared to accept zero per cent but 2 per cent was not enough.

Unfortunately in some cases, it is very difficult to see what, if anything, would be

appropriate. Indeed, what if anything, would be acceptable. We are often left with the

dilemma that people are dissatisfied but they have not articulated or formulated in their

own mind or in their own emotions what it is exactly that they want or believe to be

suitable to their particular circumstance or contribution to the economy and the social

life of the Province. Frankly, there are members of our public service who will say that

they are the most valuable employees in the Province, that they perform a more valuable

service and they deserve more. Frankly, I disagree with that.

We have a classification system that looks at various

classifications across government and achieves a balance. The other major thing we have

done over the last decade is we have achieved gender equality. Where female dominated

occupations have not received fair compensation, that has been increased. In fact, it has

been increased beyond the classification levels that are predominately occupied by men.

Nevertheless, over the longer term we are achieving a great deal of equity between the

different categories of work. I believe we are at the point where we can say with some

reasonable degree of certainty that our classifications and the pay we offer to our

nurses, our teachers, our police officers - God forbid, our politicians - secretaries and

others, is fair and comparable to the services performed.

Having said that, there are those who would maintain

that we should pay what you get in Ontario, in Toronto, or Vancouver. What that neglects

and what people fail to take into account first of all is the Province's ability to pay,

but more importantly the cost of living. Part of the reason that salaries are higher -

that is the same whether people are in government or outside government - people in the

cooperate sector earn vastly larger amounts working in larger centres in the major cities,

and the reason for that is that the cost of living in those areas is much greater. The

cost of maintaining a vehicle, the cost of driving to work, the cost of maintaining a

house, the cost of services, the cost of eating out, the cost of housekeeping, the cost of

babysitting services and so on, is far beyond what we pay here in Newfoundland and

Labrador.

That is reflected in the fact - one among many others -

that we in this Province have the highest percentage of home ownership of any other

province in Canada. That is a reason that our salaries are commensurate with our cost of

living. We probably have, for the money we pay, the best housing stock in the country.

We need to maintain a fair and long-term view about what

we are doing in this Province. It would be very easy for us, as a government, to say:

Fine, what do the nurses want? What do the Constabulary want? What do we have to do to

increase everybody's expectations so that everybody is happy with us? Instead of giving 7

per cent over three years, let's give 10 per cent, let's give 15 per cent, let's give 20

per cent.

We have to look down the road, because this has been

tried before. When the Opposition formed the government, it had two years in the early

1980s when it had to freeze wages. Because, when you contract to pay beyond the ability to

raise revenue then the inevitable result is that you have to roll back wages, or else

freeze them.

We have taken the opposite point of view. We have to

plan prudently. We have to reach a point of economic equilibrium. We have to honour our

contracts to the point where, if we agree to pay something, we will in fact pay it.

The other thing we have to be conscious of in moving

forward is that there are other demands on the public purse. Every other province in this

country is looking to reduce taxes. We have taken that initiative with the payroll tax. We

have repeatedly said we wish to do it with the personal income tax. We have been precluded

from doing so because of measures taken by the federal government - which we support -

which, because of the nature of the calculation of the provincial tax, results in a

reduction anyway of our revenues.

We would like to move to a point to reduce our personal

income taxes, but if we continue to pay excessive wages to the public sector, if we

continue to borrow, that would be precluded.

Our option is to go forward, to look in the future for

reasonable wage settlements with our public sector, and coupled with that we should look

to reduce taxes because then every person benefits.

What matters most to people is not necessarily the

proposed increase they get in their salaries, but also the taxes they have to pay. In most

cases a 10 per cent reduction in personal income tax, for example, would benefit far more

people and would benefit even our direct public employees far more than a 2 per cent

increase per year.

The situation in health is something that we have

largely stabilized over the last several years. We have substantially increased the amount

of money we have spent in the health care sector. We have increased the number of

positions; we have increased the number of hospitals. We have replaced several hospitals

in the Province, for example, which have been around since the 1940s and 1930s, Bonne Bay

being an outstanding example of that. Another on Fogo Island, if we should ever be able to

agree on its location, is one place where we will be replacing the hospital as well.

What I want to say is that government is not able to

commit all of its resources to one particular area, be it health, be it education. What we

are responsible to do, and what we must do, is to move forward on the basis of satisfying

all the varying needs.

We do have priorities, and I think for most people in

this Province health care is the first priority. Education is the second. There are other

things the government must do. We must always remember that the people who pay for the

services are not the people in this House, they are not the people who work for the

government, they are the people of the Province who receive the services.

I can tell you frankly that, in my discussions with

members of the public, they are prepared to be fair but they do not want to pay more

taxes. They want their taxes reduced. If there is a choice between paying public servants

more money or tax reductions, they would prefer tax reductions. That is the direction in

which we have to move.

What we also have to be aware of is that there are many

people in this Province who live at a very modest level. We have to look to encourage them

and ensure that they have the means at their disposal to support their children, educate

them, feed them, and properly clothe them.

What we have done in this Budget, without recounting all

the details, is to provide a greater level of assistance to those who most need it,

particularly people with children in single parent families.

What we see is a new initiative, one that my colleague

will be announcing, the Child Tax Credit, the federal program which we support. The money

that is being freed up there will be used to continue to support children in circumstances

who need that area of support.

I just want to point out to members opposite and to the

general public that the other aspect that we need to consider is that the greatest dignity

an adult can have is to be gainfully employed.

As I said earlier, on a provincial basis, we wish to

become financially independent. That is the wish of most of the people I know in this

Province, including people who are dependent upon government services, what we call social

services.

What I like about our Budget, and what I think is

important, is that we have taken initiatives which are working and which have been

instituted over the last several years to encourage people to get back in the workforce.

This has taken the place of a more liberalized view as to how much we would pay for the

support of single parents for babysitting costs and training programs. We have also

allowed people to keep a much larger portion of the money they earn.

One of the criticisms of most welfare systems, social

assistance programs, is comparable to what we suffer with equalization. If you earn more,

it is clawed back.

What we have done this year is, we have increased the

amounts that individuals can keep to $500. That is up from $150 per family. That is a

substantial increase, for example, in the income tax. What we are allowing people to do is

to keep a larger portion of what they earn. This, we believe, will encourage people to

become independent, to obtain work, and to achieve a degree of independence and financial

stability so they can look after their own needs. The other aspect of that is that we have

also continued the drug card for a longer period of time.

One disincentive for individuals is that when they leave

social assistance, the drug program is discontinued. We all know the cost of drugs in the

modern age, and the pervasiveness of drug therapy in treating illness, and the ability to

extend the drug program for individuals over a longer period of time when they commence

work is something that is important to encourage them to become independent, to achieve

the experience, to get advancement, and to have greater income to provide for these things

for themselves.

Education is a means of making the reform work, which we

believe is essential. For many years we had an archaic - and some would say medieval -

educational system. Notwithstanding its excellence in many respects, it was not a modern

system and one that I believe a modern democracy should encourage or accept.

We made that reform. There is a group of people in the

Province who initially resisted it, who voted against it, and many of those people,

frankly, are now enthusiastic about it. People see that the consequences of bringing

people together are fair and beneficial, not negative as was suggested at the time.

In order to make that work, as I have mentioned, we have

had the most extensive investment in new educational schools and institutions that has

ever happened in this Province. In addition to that, we have stabilized the number of

teachers. We have, in fact, increased the number of teachers available in the system.

My friend here, the former Minister of Education, now

the Minister of Mines and Energy, made an interesting point. Most people mention this -

AN HON. MEMBER: And next Premier.

MR. DICKS: Absolutely, with some competition from

the current Minister of Fisheries. There is a bit of a toss-up at the present time.

We have to bear in mind what has happened in the

Province. We heard about declining enrolments and we hear about many things. One factor

that is not generally known is that when the school population in this Province was

170,000 students - when it peaked at that - there were 6,500 teachers approximately in the

system.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: I know the Opposition House Leader would

love to hear the statistics.

Just think about this. When the school population peaked

MR. TULK: It is some interesting to hear that we are

going to win the next election.

MR. DICKS: Absolutely.

When the school population of this Province was in the

vicinity of 170,000 students, and that peak occurred in the late 1960s and the early

1970s, there were 6,500 teachers in the system.

Today, when that population had declined to under

100,000, declined to approximately 98,000, decreasing by about 4 per cent per year, the

number of teachers is now 6,800, an increase of 300 when the population has declined by

72,000. Not only that, but we now have student assistants, other people to help with the

education.

Mr. Speaker, while some people like to portray the

problems, we cannot lose sight of the progress we have made. There has been tremendous

advancement. We now have again, we have for quite some time, the lowest student-teacher

ratio in the country. Once again, this year and last, we have improved it. We have the

greatest number of teachers for the smallest number of students anywhere in this country,

and we have done this at a time when the Province of Alberta, a very rich province, has

increased the number of students for each teacher.

Mr. Speaker, we are very proud of the progress made in

education. We believe that at a certain level we have provided a greater educational

opportunity for our students. Part of that was due to the reform of bringing students

together in larger schools so that rather than having three schools in a community, of 200

students, you could have one school with 600. That would offer a greater variety of

programming.

In addition to that, within that, we have also made more

teachers available. I believe this is laudable progress and one that we expect will

continue.

MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): Order, please!

I will announce the questions for the Late Show.

The first question is: I am dissatisfied with the answer

provided by the Minister of Health and Community Services re nurses in health care. That

is from the Member for Ferryland.

The second question is: I am dissatisfied with the

answer provided by the Minister of Mines and Energy re my question on negotiations with

Inco. That is from the Member for Waterford Valley.

The third question is: I am dissatisfied with the answer

provided by the Minister of Education re my question on cutbacks of teaching positions.

That is from the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

The hon. the Minister of Finance.

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to wind up with a few thoughts on the

issue of helping those most in need. One of the great social responsibilities of modern

government is to extend assistance to those people who need it most.

As I mentioned earlier, people on low incomes, and

particularly those with children, are the most vulnerable. Those are the people I think we

most need to help, particularly in the areas of health care and education.

However we slice it, there is very little can be done in

our society without a fair modicum of money. Among the many programs that we have offered,

and the encouragements to return to work, I believe one of the highlights of that is the

National Child Benefit which has been implemented over the last several years and which we

believe makes great sense and also makes a larger amount of money available, not only to

people receiving social assistance but to low income families. Because the threshold, the

dividing point, between those who receive virtually everything from the state and those

who are earn it for themselves is very small, in fact, and unfortunately sometimes

inverted so that those people on state assistance receive more money and more benefits

than those who work. That is something that we are trying to eliminate and that I think is

being effectively dealt with. I do not say all the problems have been addressed, but

certainly it is a move in the direction that I am sure even members opposite support.

I want to say again, having dealt with some of the

general socialists, I do want to deal with the other areas of demand on government.

Members opposite, my colleague, my critic, having been a

mayor of a municipality, knows full well the various issues there, the conflict at times,

and also the necessary (inaudible) degree of cooperation between the three levels of

government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: True.

We have had in the recent past, although not in the last

two years, an infrastructure program where the federal government shared the costs of

needed municipal infrastructure. We have not had that advantage over the last several

years, but one thing that we have done to address that is to implement a program of $100

million or so to work with the municipalities - and I am glad my critic agrees - to fund

major projects that would be shortened in time.

As most people familiar with construction will know and

agree, as you extend out a period of time for a construction project it costs more;

because to take a whole project and tender it, you get a more advantageous price than if

you divide it up into four or five discrete segments over that many years, or more, as

often is the case.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Well, you can.

There is also the aspect of mobilization of labour.

There is a phenomenon that as you get a construction crew on site, get them up to speed,

it has lower productivity until you achieve full production and then, as you wind down,

the productivity goes down as well. So there is a lot to be said for shortening the time

period not only in achieving economies of scale and shortening the time period but also in

getting greater productivity out of your workers.

We believe that this program will assist the local

government, those who are able to pay their share of it, to go out and complete major

capital projects that have been in need of doing and perhaps do it more reasonably than

they might have under the current system.

We have also been, over the last several years, pursuing

a program of encouraging municipalities to become financially independent. NMFC was a

vehicle in the Province where we supplied monies at interest rates that we would solicit

from the market and charging a (inaudible) for that to our municipalities. Because those

were negotiated over longer periods of time in an era when we had higher interest rates,

many municipalities were now able to go out and borrow at lower rates.

We have been working with them to find ways to mitigate

the penalties the Province has to pay and we, in fact, have been absorbing much of the

cost in order to encourage them to establish independent financial arrangements with banks

and to displace government borrowings.

One of the unfortunate effects of that is that the pool

of debt at NMFC is being less serviced by the municipalities, or certainly to a lesser

extent than they have in the past.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that the Department of

Environment has, in this Budget as well, two areas of cleanup that they are addressing,

that they have not been able to do in the past. The Trans-Labrador Highway; it is a great

initiative. In fact, we have the largest amount of spending on highways in the Province's

history but more importantly and perhaps more necessarily, we have the largest expenditure

ever taking place in Labrador. The Trans-Labrador Highway is vital. The link now to Goose

Bay has been completed and achieved over the last several years, I am pleased to say,

since 1995, and right now we are extending it up along the South Coast of Labrador.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) ferry service (inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Well, no, the amount that we negotiated,

my learned colleague -

MR. SULLIVAN: Three hundred and forty-six

(inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Three hundred and forty-seven million.

Yes, my colleague, the former Minister of -

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: What is the name of that (inaudible)

always singing out, the sky is falling?

MR. DICKS: Oh, Chicken Little.

MR. TULK: Chicken Little.

MR. DICKS: Chicken Little is not present today, Mr.

Speaker. My colleagues are being very positive. My colleague, the former Minister of

Municipal - anyway, we were in Ottawa on Good Friday some years ago and she, being the

tough negotiator she is, beat another $50 million or $100 million out of them and we came

back with $347 million, which is in a separate account for the benefit solely of the

transportation system in Labrador.

MR. SULLIVAN: You need $1.35 billion to complete it,

and you came back with $340-some million. We are a billion short.

MR. DICKS: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SULLIVAN: I asked a question at the time and you

said it was enough to do it -

MR. DICKS: There is.

MR. SULLIVAN: - and now we are a billion short.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, there is no problem with the

Leader of the Opposition's statement except he does not define what "it" is.

MR. TULK: The Opposition House Leader.

MR. DICKS: Right.

Now, if you know what "it" is, you answer your

own question because there are two aspects to it. One is the extent of the road program

and the degree to which you will complete it. So the cost of completing the road from Red

Bay up to Cartwright is more than sufficiently provided for. The other aspect of it is to

provide a ferry service from Goose Bay North.

Now frankly the cost - and I don't know if the hon.

member is including this - of extending the road from Goose Bay even out to Cartwright,

let alone up to Nain, would probably be in the billions of dollars or so - I suspect a

billion dollars - but that is not part of the plan. We don't foresee a time -

MR. SULLIVAN: That's not what you said in the

beginning (inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Oh, yes, it is.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) sat down with her, and we

were given the impression (inaudible).

MR. DICKS: But she was sitting over there then; she

is sitting over here now. She understands it much better now, I am sure.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Oh, I am sure it has, Mr. Speaker. I am

sure it has. In fact, I think - I don't know if her tune has changed but she is certainly

singing a very positive one these days when she was in Mary's Harbour to announce the

extension of the highway. In fact, Mr. Speaker -

MR. TULK: She is singing from the right hymn book.

MR. DICKS: Well, I think she was always of the

persuasion but not the right pew, one might say.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to say - and I was surprised the other day

when it was announced, because my colleague and I negotiated the money and brought it back

- was that the highway is going to be completed within the next four years, I think

2003/2004. It is going to add immensely to the ability of the Province to attract

tourists.

We tend to forget, although we say it often enough, that

we are the only Province in this country, and perhaps I think we are the only state in the

world, which has three UNESCO sites, Red Bay being prominent among them.

The further ambition we would all want to have - and

which is not provided for in this - is to complete the link, whether it is through the

Quebec North Shore or, from our point of view, preferably through Labrador so that you can

allow alternate tourist routes; so that tourists could come through Labrador, down through

Cartwright, down into L'Anse au Clair and that area, and come across on the ferry through

the West Coast, where my hon. colleague and I would be most pleased to see them, and back

across the Gulf. God forbid, they might even come here and have to go out through

Argentia, which the members opposite represent and which I am sure will have better

methods of selection in the future to return someone to the fold, to put them back in the

right pew as we say.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: I am sure there are many reasons, but

things vary from time to time.

I do want to say to the hon. member that the amount

provided is more than sufficient to do what was contracted to be done, to put the highway

through to Cartwright but not necessarily - and the money was never contemplated as

completing the road from Cartwright to Goose Bay; nor was there any plan to put the road

up to Nain.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: No, it was not said. It was never part of

it and we valued this very closely. We have looked at the cost of pricing.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Well, I would be surprised. I would like

to see the reference because that was not what we agreed on. That was not part of the

plan. It was not part of the evaluation of the system.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: No, it was not intended to cover Goose

Bay to Cartwright. That would add another $400 million or $500 million, if my recollection

serves me.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. DICKS: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition always

gets the truth. It does not always get every question answered, of course. There is a

difference.

I am glad that the Leader of the Opposition or - I am

sorry, Mr. Speaker. It should be the Leader of the Opposition, obviously, but we will have

settle for Opposition House Leader for the moment. I am sure the knives will be out

shortly to remedy that defect.

We have never maintained that the road would be extended

all through Labrador. Frankly, to extend it up the North Coast is purely uneconomical at

the present time. Things may change but we do not foresee it.

The other thing that needs to be mentioned is that