April 30, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 15

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin the routine proceedings, the Chair would

like to rule on a couple of issues, or points of order and privilege, that were raised

prior to our adjournment for Easter.

Before I do that, I want to take this opportunity to

welcome, on behalf of all members, our new Page who has joined the staff of the House of

Assembly, Miss Shannon Reardon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On March 25, during the Adjournment

Debate, the hon. the Member for Terra Nova raised a point of order with respect to a

petition presented by the hon. the Opposition House Leader earlier in the sitting.

The hon. Member for Terra Nova pointed out that the

petition was not addressed to the House and that it contained what the member considered

to be intemperate language. The matter was not raised at the time of its occurrence, so

the hon. Member for Terra Nova actually waited too long to raise the matter as the

petition had already been presented. However, the hon. the Opposition House Leader

admitted that the petition was not in the proper form and apologized for presenting it

without asking for consent.

The Chair reminds hon. members that we have recently

made a ruling to the effect that petitions must be certified by the Table before they are

presented. Not only should they be certified, but it is the Chair's opinion that petitions

should be checked with the Table officers before the House opens so that adequate time is

allowed to consider them.

On March 26, the hon. the Member for Terra Nova raised a

point of order with respect to comments made by the hon. the Opposition House Leader who

referred to a petition which he was not able to present under the routine petition

proceedings as it was not in proper form. The hon. Opposition House Leader then sent the

document to the minister via a Page. Again, the matter was not raised at the earliest

opportunity; however, the Chair knows of no reason why an hon. member cannot refer to a

document nor have it taken to another member if the member does not object.

On March 30, the hon. the Premier raised a point of

privilege in respect of remarks made by the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi

concerning funding for schools. The hon. Premier stated that the hon. the Member for

Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi had attributed comments to the hon. the Premier that he had not

made. On reviewing Hansard, the Chair finds that the matter is a difference of opinion

between two hon. members about the way in which funding is allocated. The words that the

Premier thought were used were not recorded in Hansard; therefore, there is no point of

privilege.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy raised a point

of order on April 1, with respect to comments allegedly made on an Open Line radio show

concerning the closing of the galleries on March 31. The hon. minister acknowledged that

he was not certain that the statements were actually made. If there was some

misrepresentation about the closing of the galleries it would have to be an admitted,

deliberate, misrepresentation to be considered a matter of privilege. There is no evidence

that such was the case. It is the Chair's opinion that there is no prima facie case for a

breach of privilege.

Statements by Ministers

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Education,

in partnership with Industry Canada, has recently approved the establishment of fifteen

additional community access sites in the Province. A community access site provides public

access to the Internet. Community members and local businesses can access information,

send and receive electronic mail, get help with developing a web page, and develop their

skills using technology and the information highway. This is the first series of sites

November.

connecting Canadian strategy to make Canada the most connected nation in the world. The

community access program will ensure that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians share in the

opportunities of the global, knowledge-based economy.

This brings the total number of sites in the Province to

102 and by the end of March, 2001, there will be a total of 154 sites in the Province. The

establishment of these community access sites presents this government with the

opportunity to look at innovative ways to provide services to the citizens of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

These community access sites will also serve to create

meaningful employment for young people. Already, details are being finalized on a

new and existing community access sites for this year.

I am pleased to announce that the following communities

will now become connected to the information highway: Buchans, Belleoram, Fox Harbour,

Labrador City, Fogo Island, Normans Cove, Whitbourne, Manuels, Lamaline, Mount Pearl,

Harbour Grace, Rencontre East, Middle Arm, Cormack, and Riverhead.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour

Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again, good news. The

establishment of community access sites can only be a very, very positive thing. Also, the

partnership with the federal government to provide this service is indeed a good one. The

only thing that I can say is that we would like to see the continuation of it so that

every community in Newfoundland could indeed have an access site.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry,

Trade and Technology.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I wish today to pay tribute

to Mr. Austin Lloyd Garrett of Gander who passed away on Saturday, April 24. Mr. Garrett

will be remembered by many for his extraordinary flying career and for the courage he

demonstrated many times under very trying circumstances.

Mr. Garrett was born in 1922 in Port Blandford where he

grew up and was educated. At the age of seventeen he left Newfoundland for Scotland as a

member of the Forestry Unit. That same year he joined the Royal Air Force. Later, he

became a flight instructor training many Royal Air Force and Commonwealth pilots for the

war effort. Over the course of the war years he was promoted from Sergeant to Flight

Sergeant to Warrant Officer.

Following World War II, Mr. Garrett worked with Canadian

National Railway in Toronto, transferring from there to Gander in 1952 as CNR's express

agent. Three years later he joined Eastern Provincial Airways as a dispatcher and later as

a pilot for the airline.

There were many times when Mr. Garrett's aviation skills

and courage were tested during his flying career. The most memorable happened September 5,

1967 when a Czechoslovakian aircraft crashed about 2:40 a.m. shortly after takeoff from

Gander International Airport. The crash occurred in a boggy area about a mile from the end

of the runway and about 2000 feet from the nearest road, making it impossible to get

vehicles across the bog to rescue the injured. Mr. Garrett readily agreed to a request to

fly a helicopter to the crash site to rescue the injured.

In less than two hours that morning, Mr. Garrett made

eighteen round trips from the crash site to the airport terminal, succeeding in rescuing

all of the thirty-nine severely injured people. What is truly remarkable is that he did it

during hours of darkness when a helicopter is not normally operated. Furthermore, he had

to fly over and through smoke from the crash. His only landing aids were the lights of the

Sikorsky helicopter, flashlights held by rescue workers on the ground, and fire from the

crash. Having rescued the injured, he made many other trips to the crash site, bringing

equipment and supplies in, and on the return trip taking bodies back out.

For his heroic efforts and his courage under dangerous

circumstances, for the urgency he gave to rescuing injured people so that their needs

could be attended to as quickly as possible, Mr. Garrett was invested as a Member of the

Order of the British Empire in 1968.

I ask this House, and in particular his close personal

friend the Member for Bonavista North, to join with me in expressing sincere condolences

to Mr. Garrett's family, his wife, Kay, and their four children.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I too on behalf of the official Opposition join the

minister in paying tribute to Mr. Garret. It is just indicative of another heroic

Newfoundlander who went above and beyond what is ordinary to assist others without regard

for his own safety. Certainly I pass on too to his wife, Kay, and their four children our

sincere condolences in this very difficult time.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and

Community Services. We are all aware that the only three full-time medical oncologists

that are at the cancer centre at the Health Sciences Complex have resigned. There is one

at Corner Brook also. All three full-time have given their resignation, I should say. One

has already departed the job, gone on to Winnipeg, and two others will be leaving this

summer. The only one that is left here is one who is 50 per cent in research and 50 per

cent in practice.

I have just recently learned that another prominent

Newfoundland paediatric oncologist at the Janeway will be departing this summer after

seven years, leaving this Province with only one paediatric oncologist when three are

needed. I ask the minister: Will she take the necessary steps to deal with workload and

low salary that is driving hard-to-find oncologists from this Province?

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

Community Services.

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

Yes, we have been aware of those incidents. We have been

working with the Newfoundland Cancer Treatment Research Foundation medical staff

particularly and the executive to work very aggressively on the recruiting. We have

actually been trying to put in place measures to address specifically those issues. We

will do the same in trying to recruit and retain a paediatric oncologist.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the

Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since the MOU was signed last fall the Janeway has lost

a neurologist - just in the last few months now - a geneticist, a GI specialist, a

neonatologist and now a senior paediatric oncologist. Your department has failed to

address the concerns of these highly skilled and much needed specialists and the children

of this Province will have to bear the blunt of your department's failure.

Minister, while you increased the base salaries of these

people by the front door, you took away their service stipend by the back door, leaving

them with very little net improvement in salary. I ask you now: Will you move to resolve

this issue before we loss every single one of these specialists?

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

Community Services.

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

Yesterday, or the day before, the member opposite made a

comment that he was aware we did not have an endless pot of money to deal with issues in

this Province. I think that was a very honest and forthright statement about how we find

ourselves in this Province.

We did negotiate a $32 million collective agreement with

the Medical Association. We work together with them to try to identify how we spend that

money out of that particular pot. We have measures to deal with specialists that are

salaried, we have measures to deal with fee-for-service positions. We have been very

honest and upfront. We are a province like many others in the country that are finding it

difficult to recruit physicians, particularly when we are competing with south of the

border. We will never, ever be able to compete with south of the border, if for no other

reason than just the conversion of the dollar. We are starting off at 50 per cent less in

many cases, just based on the principle of the dollar alone.

We do have challenges, but we have been working very

aggressively. We have been very successful in recruiting a number of physicians,

particularly in rural Newfoundland, and particularly in some boards over others. We are

committed to doing the best we can with the resources we have. I believe we have been very

creative in trying to find ways, working with all the parties, to address particulary

recruitment of physicians, to deal with very challenging needs in this Province because of

our population. We will continue to do that, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the

Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are not just competing with the United States. We are

not even competing with Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and the rest of

this country where many of these people are going, I say to the minister. That is where

they are going, just across the Gulf!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: There are people with more difficult

financial situations than ours, some with foreign investment in their borrowing much

higher than ours, and some in much worse fiscal shape basically than ours in the long-term

analysis, I say to the minister.

Will the minister admit that while she was out saying we

will give more money on one hand, you tried to take the retention bonus on these, and you

took the major part of that? Even larger again in income was the service stipend that you

took back by the back door, and gave the impression that they had very little net

improvement.

Will the minister admit that you cannot give on one hand

money and take it back in other areas, and they got no net result - to show it was not $32

million, it was less. I ask the minister: Will she stand and admit that, because she

should know it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition House

Leader knows that the job of government is about trying to make - granted, the difficult

but the necessary - choices to try and maintain, over a long period of time, the necessary

programs of the Province.

The Opposition House Leader and his party have been

arguing for most of the last three years that the fiscal position of this Province is one

that is desperate, is in decline. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition had argued that the

real deficit this past year was something close to $200 million.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have just heard - and I say to the

party opposite and I say to the people of the Province through this House that we cannot

have it both ways. We have just heard an argument from the Opposition House Leader that

Newfoundland and Labrador's fiscal position, to paraphrase him: Is much better than that

of a number of other provinces of the country.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot have it both ways. We cannot have

it on one day of the week in Question Period that our fiscal position is a diaster and the

Province's fiscal finances are falling apart and, on another day when it is convenient

because the member opposite is more interested in scoring political points than in trying

to deal with the real problems of health care, that our fiscal position is fantastic. I

say to the member opposite: Which is it? Is it feast or famine in the fiscal finances of

this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

By the Premier's admission it is feast on Budget day and

it is famine on negotiation day. That is what I tell you. That is the answer to that

question!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Other provinces, particularly Ontario,

I say to the minister, recognize the need for these specialists. They realize oncologists

are hard to get, especially paediatric ones, and they are taking steps to solve that. I am

sure the minister is aware it is almost impossible to recruit a paediatric oncologist. I

say to the minister, it is going to take two years to replace the one that is leaving.

Will she confirm that what is being done - and her

department has had negotiations and discussions - that in order to fill this vacancy from

the prominent paediatric oncologist that is leaving, this Province has to send a resident

doctor away to train for two years to come back and fill that position by the summer of

2001?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say again that the

Opposition House Leader cannot have it both ways. He cannot, and the Opposition cannot

have it both ways. You cannot claim for most of the last six months that the Province's

finances are in a mess, that the real deficit is close to $200 million - that has been

said and is documented in the public media and it is documented in Hansard repeatedly. You

cannot have it both ways. You cannot claim that the Province cannot afford to pay the

bills it has for six months and then, Mr. Speaker, to walk into the House and to ask for

more money for education, more money for health, more money for employment, more money for

water and sewer, more money for the public service, more money for every conceivable

demand, and say that more money is available because Newfoundland's finances are in

fantastic shape.

I say to the Opposition House Leader, don't make it

obvious and transparent that this is about nothing but partisanship and political games.

Which is it? Are Newfoundland's finances in good shape? Are we in the desperate shape you

have said? Because it is clear that all you are doing is engaging in political games, not

in the serious job of managing the public finances of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the

Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: The Premier's grandstanding shows he

did not read the Finance Minister's Budget. That is what I am saying; he does not listen

to his Finance Minister.

I asked a simple question to the Minister of Health.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: The simple question to the Minister of

Health is: Will the Minister of Health confirm that negotiations on replacing this

paediatric oncologist have taken place and they have to send a doctor away from this

Province, a resident doctor, to train for two years, to come back here in the summer of

2001, and that is the earliest we can replace that paediatric oncologist that has left,

leaving this Province with only one when we need three? Will the minister confirm that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the difference between

the Opposition House Leader and the Minister of Health is that the Minister of Health is

concerned with managing scarce resources to the best benefit of all of the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: The Minister of Health recognizes

that Newfoundland and Labrador has more debt per capita than any other province of this

country, that Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest taxes in this country, and that

Newfoundland and Labrador is beginning to turn a corner; but we won't turn the corner and

bring prosperity if we drive up taxes higher than they already are or if we drive up the

debt higher than it already is. It takes working together, cooperation, creativity, and a

commitment to health care, not partisanship, to make the system work in difficult

circumstances. That is the difference between the Minister of Health and this gentleman

who is chasing ambulances looking for opportunities to create headlines. He should be

ashamed of himself!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I get into my line of questions, I have a quick

question for the Acting Minister of Works, Services & Transportation. It is with

respect to an issue yesterday, Minister, which caused great debate outside and inside the

Legislature, the business of these signs, these offensive signs.

I heard the minister this morning on CBC Radio when he

indicated that there was no decision made yet as to what, in fact, would be done with

these signs. To my surprise, Minister, I have learned that this morning, at approximately

8:15, these offensive signs were again placed in the doors and entrances of this building

but shortly thereafter were removed.

As the minister was saying there was no policy and no

direction in terms of the future of these signs, they were in fact, perhaps, posted in

this building.

I would ask the minister - it is now 9:25 a.m. on

today's date - what is the policy now? What is the policy on today's date, and what is the

policy in the future with respect to these offensive, undemocratic signs that have been

placed against the people - not only the protestors but the people of this Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, as I said in the House

yesterday in answering questions from the hon. member, the signs in question were signs

put there without my knowledge and without the knowledge of the minister.

This morning, when the signs indeed were put back up, I

think shortly after 8:00 a.m. - a member of my staff told me they were up, Ms Heidi

Bonnell - I spoke to the minister, who was also unaware of the signs. The signs have been

taken down, and - I hope somebody is listening - the signs should be shredded; because

they are not up with my knowledge, they are not up with my consent, and the signs will not

be going back up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I further propose that

it would make sense, given that the lobby outside is, in a sense, an extension of the

House of Assembly, that an appropriate Committee of the House be struck to determine the

proper way to maintain rules and maintain public safety in the context of demonstrations

in an area which is adjacent to the House of Assembly.

I am going to ask the Government House Leader to talk to

the House Leader opposite and to the Leader of the third party to ensure that a Committee

of the House looks at this and that we look at what is done in Legislatures elsewhere in

Canada, and in public lobby areas elsewhere in Canada, and to have proper decorum in the

lobby.

Mr. Speaker, the democratic right to express oneself

freely should never be in question; and to the extent that the signage - however well

intended by building managers - questions that or offends it, the signage is down.

Let a Committee of the House, in a non-partisan fashion,

bearing in mind the responsibility for proper decorum in public places and the safety of

public institutions, make this decision in consultation with the Speaker's Office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St. John's

East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Premier that we certainly do not need a

parliamentary committee or a committee of this House to deal with basic fundamental

rights, but I thank the Premier that this matter is now concluded, finalized and it is

exactly where it should be. It is over.

Premier, in the absence of the Attorney General, I would

like to refer to another matter. It is dealing with comments that were made this week by

the legislative assistant to the Minister of Justice with respect to comments which were

tantamount to threats that our Royal Newfoundland Constabulary could or should be

disbanded.

If a Cabinet Minister, Premier, makes a statement with

respect to his or her portfolio, or indeed the Premier obviously, it is considered

automatically to be a statement of a policy of the entire government. When a legislative

assistant to a minister makes a public statement with respect to his or her portfolio, his

statement cannot be considered to be that simply of a private member.

I would ask the Premier: Does he share the extreme view

expressed by the member? If so, or if not, could he please give clarification to the

public of this Province, and in particular to the members of the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary, exactly to the policy as it exists today and to their future?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if we wanted further

evidence that the Opposition is not interested in being constructive but only in playing a

critic's role, we just got it. We just had the Premier of the Province stand up and offer

to have a committee struck of the House of all three parties to put in place -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: We could have a muffin and talk about

it, Loyola.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if we wanted further

evidence that the Opposition is only interested in creating a fuss, not in constructing

order, we just had the Premier of the Province offer to strike an all party committee to

put in place a mutually agreed set of regulations governing the proper conduct and decorum

of public places.

Incredibly, we had the Opposition stand and say: We

refuse. We do not want to participate in drawing up a set of rules governing the precincts

of the House and the adjoining lobby. We want nothing to do with it. We only want to be

critics because that is all that we know how to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, that is why the people

of the Province put the Opposition on that side of the House and the government on this

side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I just had an envelope

delivered to my desk, signed by the regional director responsible for Works, Services

& Transportation. By the way, the gentleman, I want to say - Mr. John Stamp, in this

case - certainly has my confidence, because this is I think a responsible act.

The letter says: As regional director responsible for

operations and maintenance for the Confederation Building, I offer my apology for

authorizing the putting up again of signs at Confederation Building this morning. This was

a misunderstanding on my part. The signs were not put up under the direction of the

Premier, the Minister, or Deputy Minister of Works, Services & Transportation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, obviously the gentleman

in question does not listen to Question Period. Had he listened, he would have heard my

response yesterday, but I do appreciate the dignity and the courage and the

professionalism he has shown in sending this note down to the House this morning in light

of this controversy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

for St. John's East.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Simply, and I ask the Premier again, what about the

legislative assistant to the Minister of Justice, the statement, the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary and their future?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, on a personal and on a

professional basis, I have every confidence in the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. We

want to see the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary fulfil their full function to ensure the

safety both of homes and of institutions, and the safety of our streets. To the extent

that there has been an expression of concern about the safety of our streets, I share that

concern that the law be upheld fully by members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary.

On a personal basis, yesterday my wife was pleased to be

with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary where they began again for the third year, and

successfully, the Cops for Cancer Campaign. For the third year beyond their professional

duties, in their private lives, they are giving freely of their time and they are making a

tremendous contribution for a worthwhile cause.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: I know, Mr. Speaker, that as is the

case in other circumstances there are stresses and there are strains whenever people are

disappointed that they have not been able to achieve what they look for in a wage

settlement.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: I have to say to the member opposite,

if I may make this simple declaration, that I take absolutely no pleasure and no comfort

in being the leader of a government that is not able to fulfil the expectations of

important groups, important people who are making contributions like nurses and like the

police in this Province. I would like to be able to stand up and say yes. I take no

pleasure in being personally the source of a lot of the anger and a lot of the frustration

that is expressed when we have to say to no, but my job and the job of government is to

live within our means and to make sure we do not drive our Province back in the days of

large deficits -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER TOBIN: - back into bankruptcy, back into

uncertainty. If that means that we personally pay a price on occasion because people get

frustrated at us, or more particularly at me, we have to do our jobs. We cannot duck.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: I understand the frustration of the

police, but I nevertheless have confidence in their professional abilities.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

My questions are for either the Minister of Labour or

the Minister of Education. The Avalon East School Board has given layoffs to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

The Avalon East School Board has given layoffs to nine

of their thirteen shop staff, those responsible for the upkeep of their eighty-two schools

serving some 34,000 students. These layoffs would equate to only four tradespeople

remaining - one burner mechanic, one plumber, one electrician and one carpenter - to

service these eighty-two schools. Minister, that leaves a very high demand on only four

people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for St.

John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Does the minister know who, if not

the present tradespeople, will carry out any repairs and upkeep to these school buildings

for the remainder of the school year?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I leave personnel decisions

of the Avalon East School Board to the judgment of the Avalon East School Board trustees

and staff.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Surely, Minister, these are publicly

owned buildings. The government has an interest in how these buildings are maintained. To

ensure student safety and to provide costly deterioration of these publicly owned

buildings, government has a responsibility not only to the students of these schools, but

to the people of the Province, to ensure these schools are maintained.

Does the minister intend to step in to ensure there are

enough tradespeople in this Avalon East school district to maintain the publicly owned

buildings?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, certainly the hon. member

opposite is not suggesting that the elected school board trustees, people who have been

elected by the people in the Avalon East district to run the system, do not have the

interest and the safety of the students in the Avalon East system first and foremost.

I have more confidence than that in the people who have

been elected by the residents of Avalon East. I leave it to the board to determine what

needs to be done and how to manage their personnel. I would never suggest that those

people would be irresponsible and not put first and foremost the safety of those students.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

for St. John's South.

MR. T. OSBORNE: Surely, Mr. Speaker, four people

cannot ensure the safety of the students and the maintenance of these buildings.

We have seen previous decisions made by the Avalon East

School Board that have resulted in costly court cases and public outcry. We have seen

decisions made by the school board regarding excessive administration salaries and

severance packages that has caught the eye of the Auditor General and raised great concern

in government. The Auditor General said that they have clearly gone beyond their bounds.

Now there is this.

Minister, you have an obligation. This government has an

obligation to the safety and upkeep of these schools. It is time that you step in on the

school board. What are you going to do to ensure the safely of the students for the

remainder of this school year?

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, clearly whatever problem the

hon. member sees with the school board he should address with the school board. At this

point in time it is an elected board. This government has no intention of interfering with

the board as long as they carry out their mandate in a responsible and fair manner. Given

the consultation process they have gone through in terms of school reform, given the

number of papers they have received and the changes they have made to their initial

proposals, it is obvious that they have listened, that they are a responsible board, and I

have every confidence in that board.

As far as safety of the students go, again, let me

repeat that I would be the last to suggest that the trustees of that board would in any

way make any move that would jeopardize the safety of those students. I would hate to

think that is what the hon. member opposite is suggesting.

Mr. Speaker, as a government we have put forward a

considerable amount of money. In fact, $15 million for renovations and redevelopment and

to make sure that those schools are in good condition. Having done that, that is our role

and we have taken that responsibility. In terms of the safety of the students, again, I

will leave it to the board of trustees who are very responsible people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista

South.

You have time for one quick question.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the

Minister of Health and Community Services. I would like to ask the minister: What words of

comfort, if any, were contained in the most recent Budget that I could pass on to two

elderly couples who have recently had to close up their homes in my district, move to St.

John's, hundreds of miles away, buy second-hand furniture, and rent an apartment to access

dialysis treatment on a regular basis? There is a hospital at Bonavista, I say to the

minister, another at Clarenville, where those requiring these services could commute on a

daily basis.

I ask the minister if it is right and proper for seniors

today to have to mortgage their life to access the basic government services and health

services?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Community Services.

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

I think it is important to restate - because this

question has been asked many times - we have a population of just over 550,000. We have

one tertiary care centre in the Province whereby we offer surgeries like cardiovascular

surgery and neurosurgery.

I think it is a very important question and I find it

quite frustrating that nobody is listening to the answer; however, I will continue as best

I can.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

We have had requests from Central Newfoundland, from the

Northern Peninsula of Newfoundland, and now from the Clarenville area, to put in a

dialysis unit. The reality is, Mr. Speaker, you just don't plug in the dialysis machines.

You need to have the proper staff. You need to have nephrologists, you need to have the

support systems in place. Unlike what the member opposite - the Opposition House Leader -

is saying, you don't run them on batteries. It is not that simple.

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, it only goes to show

the Opposition House Leader's lack of understanding of what is involved when you are

providing services. You do not run them on batteries, as you have just said. In fact, it

is a much more serious issue. You need to have nephrologists.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer quickly.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: You need to have the staff

available to do it, and you need to have the support system.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the member opposite, you need to

be a little bit more realistic. We cannot offer dialysis units - and if he would listen I

would appreciate the courtesy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: You cannot provide services in

every single community for every particular service.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer quickly.

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

So I say we have to be responsible. We cannot provide

services unless we have the proper supports to go with them. That is why we have chosen

the centres we have in Central, in Western and in St. John's, because we have a

responsibility for providing quality care in those areas all over the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, is it possible - and I

seek the Speaker's guidance in this matter because this is an important question - is it

possible that the record can officially show that there was not a single question today on

nurses by the Opposition?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker -

MR. J. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Cape St.

Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would just like the

record to be shown that in the past month or so, for three weeks when the House was open

in the spring, that of all the questions we asked on nurses we never got an answer. I

would like that in the record.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, will I get it done now I

wonder? Is that it now?

AN HON. MEMBER: Just as foolish as he is.

AN HON. MEMBER: So you admit you are foolish?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have been called a lot

of things in this House but I would ask the Speaker to check. I want to raise a prima

facie case. I have just been called as foolish as the member opposite, and that is the

worse insult I have ever had in this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: I give notice and by leave move that the

following committees be composed of the following members:

The Public Accounts Committee: The Member for Cape St.

Francis; the Member for Terra Nova; the Member for Torngat Mountains; the Member for

Burin-Placentia West; the Member for Humber East; the Member for Conception Bay South; the

Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

The Government Services Committee: The Member for

Topsail; the Member for Waterford Valley; the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace; the

Member for Bay of Islands; the Member for Torngat Mountains; the Member for St. John's

West; and the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

The Resource Committee: The Member for Twillingate &

Fogo; the Member for Lewisporte; the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the Member for

Burgeo & LaPoile; the Member for Bay of Islands, the Member for Conception Bay South;

the Member for Windsor-Springdale; the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace; and the Member

for Labrador West.

The Social Services Committee: The Member for Humber

East; the Member for Lewisporte; the Member for Burin-Placentia West; the Member for

Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair; the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile; the Member for Harbour

Main-Whitbourne; and the Member for St. John's East.

Mr. Speaker, by leave I would like to put that motion

now.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motion,

`aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `nay'.

I declare the motion carried.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition here - and I am sorry to disappoint

the Premier - that is dealing with nurses, their issue. In fact, I will probably have a

petition, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, almost every day probably during this

session. They are coming in every day. They are coming in by the hundreds.

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

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

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

following prayer.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Fine. You have to believe in this. You

have to believe in the cause. It is not showboating, as the minister did yesterday here in

the House.

We, the nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador, have

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

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

attempted to negotiate those issues with the Liberal government.

Premier Tobin and the Liberal government showed their

lack of respect for nurses' concerns and made a mockery of the 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 solve the existing

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

if the Liberal government admits they made a mistake in not acknowledging the depth and

scope of the crisis facing health care in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and

the hon. House of Assembly repeals Bill 3 and the Liberal government resumes bargaining in

good faith with the nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador by using the collective bargaining

process that existed before Bill 3.

Somebody asked yesterday in this House: How many nurses

are needed in this Province? How many are needed to fill that void? I indicated, consult

with the health care corporations, consult with the people running the system, and find

out how many.

I heard this morning on the radio, the nurses' union are

saying over 400 permanents are needed to do the job, not 125. That is what the nurses'

union said. I say they should know, they have done their work. Talk to the health care

corporations, talk to the people. It is not for us to determine. There are experts out in

the field, people running these. They know how difficult it is to get somebody to come in

on shifts.

One of the points I made yesterday is that there is

something wrong with a system when nurses have been called back - the head nurses being

called and told to come into work by their supervisors for the twelfth consecutive day up

to yesterday and, who knows, may be in again today and tomorrow, the twelfth consecutive

day. They work, in many instances, twelve-hour shifts. Some are eight-hour shifts in

certain institutions. When you have four on double overtime, some being asked to come in,

they are so hard to get, triple-and-a-half time to pay people coming in. That is not

symptomatic of a system that is run properly.

I was delighted to hear that out at Western Memorial in

Corner Brook now they are willing to put nurses into the system that they feel adequate. I

am delighted they are back to work, because their families and the families of the people

who are sick, the sick people in hospital, are depending on it. It is difficult to have to

discharge from the hospital people who need help.

We have surgeries cancelled, surgeries delayed. We have

numerous repercussions on our health care system when you do not have enough front-line

workers. It is about time we started to address the concerns and start putting front-line

workers back into our system.

We see nurses here in this Province grossly underpaid

compared to nurses in other parts of the country. Just across the Gulf, in Nova Scotia,

for example, 29 per cent more for a starting nurse than they get here. That is too big a

difference. There has to be parity with our counterparts in Atlantic Canada.

Prince Edward Island pays them 17 per cent more now.

They are negotiating a new contract and they are 17 per cent higher right now. As of March

1, their contract expired. If you cannot compete with Prince Edward Island, and you cannot

compete with Nova Scotia, and you cannot complete with New Brunswick, how can you compete

with anybody?

The minister said today: Oh, we cannot compete with the

U.S. Look, the doctors leaving here, the prominent paediatric oncologists, are going to

London, Ontario. They see the need to have oncologists. They are so hard to get. So, what

are they doing? They are setting up. They are going to have four paediatric oncologists in

London, Ontario, at that unit. Everyone left except the one doing research here. There is

more time spent in recruitment, unproductive time in recruitment, when you could be

holding on to people.

Retention should be a higher priority than recruitment.

That is not happening with nurses, it is not happening with doctors, and we have to

wait... Can you imagine the sick people around this Province today, and young kids - and I

do not want to sensationalize but one doctor -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: - left in oncology for the next two

years. The same thing is happening with -

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: No leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: That has nothing to do with it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I am using a comparison of doctors and

nurses.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: No leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, I will sit down.

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

Community Services.

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

I think it is a very important and appropriate time for

government and for all parties to offer congratulations to the nurses of Branch 11, as

well as to the management and the senior staff of Branch 11, for working out an agreement

to avert a wildcat strike on Monday coming.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I think that perhaps the most

important component of that is that we are very happy to see this. We see this as an

opportunity to move forward, but certainly because we were able to achieve this within the

325 allocations that have been put forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Three-hundred (inaudible).

Just to clarify, we have been able to work it out with

the 325 allocations that we have put forward because the resolution was based on a

combination of conversions of the casuals to permanent, also the creation of new

positions, as well as management's ability to look at a number of other issues and work it

into the solution.

I do want to offer congratulations and I do want to say

that I think it is very important that we move forward and that we will be working with

issues similar to these around the Province and making those comments and statements in

the very near future.

I think it is also important to note, with respect to

the nursing shortage, the nursing shortage is one that we are seeing right across the

country and, in fact, we are very much competing with south of the border. We are

competing - if you look at Provinces like Ontario, who have the highest paid nurses in the

country, who are not able to recruit and retain nurses, we know we have a very difficult

and serious challenge.

I will say it again, as I have said it on a national

program which will be aired I think in the near future, that we have to compete in this

Province. When you have a Province with a population of just a little of 550,000, we will

always have the challenges to try to deliver services, particularly in our rural areas,

because we are not able to provide the same kind of tertiary care to every part of the

Province. That is why we have one tertiary care centre. That is why we have to focus and

make the most of our resources, our expertise and our specialists in that one area.

Mr. Speaker, the nursing shortage across this country is

one based on a number of factors, one that we have to try to address nationally as well as

provincially. That is why two months ago I asked to have the issue of nursing shortage,

retention and recruitment, put on the agenda of the health ministers' meeting in this

country, so that we could talk about it as a national issue as well as a provincial issue.

We will have to continue to work to deal with the nursing shortage issue in our Province.

We would have to find creative ways as well around compensation, recruitment and retention

around the 7 per cent to try to do that.

Because we do recognize the work, we do recognize the

challenge, and we also recognize we have a different population, an aging population, a

population that wants to receive more care in their own homes. We have to remember,

because sometime we forget, that there is a lot more to health care than hospital beds,

and we have to remember the component of people being cared for in their homes and the

whole community sector.

I would like to conclude, again, by offering our

congratulations to Branch 11 of Western Memorial Hospital, to the senior management staff

and CEO, for their ability to try to begin a very serious focus on addressing this issue,

working with the parties. We will continue to work as best we can with the health care

boards and with the local branches to try to resolve these issues and put forward a

comprehensive approach to doing that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St.

Francis.

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

I stand in my place today to support the petition

presented by the Opposition House Leader with respect to nursing and the nursing shortages

in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I just listened to the Minister of Health speak to this

petition. She talked about how we are in competition with the country south of the border,

down in the States, but the Opposition House Leader mentioned this morning that we are not

in competition with P.E.I., the smallest province in the country of Canada.

She also talked about putting the nursing shortage on

the national agenda. I have been in this House of Assembly for six years, in a week's

time, and the Opposition House Leader, the Member for Ferryland, has had this on his

agenda for the past six years and no one has been listening. The Minister of Health has

not been listening, and the former Minister of Health did not listen. He was making the

case years ago of what was going to happen in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador

with respect to health care, nursing and nursing shortages. Now it is coming true, what he

had predicted and what he had said, and how it should have been addressed. But no, no one

on that side of the House would listen.

Now we are in a crisis situation, and what do we see?

Only recently, during the past election back in February, we had the Premier going across

the Province, talking to the nurses, trying to calm the waters, and saying: Trust me. We

will deal with this after the election. What happened? Immediately after the election -

PREMIER TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, you misunderstood, I say to the

Premier. I said I was almost as foolish as you. That is what I said, but you misunderstood

and tried to be smart as usual. It backfired on him, Mr. Speaker, as usual.

Immediately after the election the Budget came down. The

$40 million he had in his back pocket when he came back from Ottawa was no longer there:

the $40 million that was going to take care of health care, the $40 million that was going

to take care of the nurses. The comment he made on television was: Trust me, I know what

the situation is, I go home to a nurse every night. He said: The Minister of Health is a

nurse. What do we see? The situation where the nurses, the quietest group in the Province

for the past twenty years, who have coped and did their best over the years, who did not

want to cause a disturbance, who did not want to go on strike, were forced to go on

strike.

The mistake that this Administration made is because of

the history of the nurses. They second-guessed them and they were wrong. They thought the

nurses would not go on strike, and they did, and rightly so. They did not go on strike for

themselves, which was a small part of it, but they went on strike because of the state of

health care in this Province today because of the overworked nurses in this Province. They

are understaffed.

I remember standing in this House of Assembly in 1994

and saying that the nurses were overworked and understaffed in this Province. I saw it

with my own eyes. That was five years ago. Can you imagine the workload that the nurses

have in the Province today? We have this Administration which has really done nothing to

date.

I woke up this morning and heard the news, basically

that the possible wildcat strike in Corner Brook would not proceed. Good news to

everybody's ears in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but the pressure had to be

put on, so hard and so real, that I would imagine the Western Health Care Corporation

board had to come up with twenty-four nurses. That is what the Member for Ferryland has

been preaching in this House of Assembly, that we need more nurses.

If I detected or heard right in this House in the lobby

of the Confederation Building yesterday, what is going to happen in St. John's and across

this Province is that there may be more strikes threatened. It is shocking that we have to

get to that state that the nurses will have again to threaten to go on a wildcat strike to

get some results.

The Minister of Health says there are going to be 125

nurses. Now we have 101 more to go. Where are they going? Is it enough? I do not think it

is enough. I believe the nurses themselves and the nurses' union do not believe 125 nurses

are going to correct the problem. This Administration recently made a big deal of

converting casual nurses to permanent. Some of those -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!

MR. J. BYRNE: Some of those casual workers, Mr.

Speaker, were working over forty and fifty hours a week.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. J. BYRNE: I just make it known that the Minister

of Mines and Energy refuses leave to speak on this very important topic, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition to the House of

Assembly. The petition reads:

To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of

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

Newfoundland:

WHEREAS Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista has not

been upgraded 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 school buses serving schools in the

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

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of

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

Cove to Bonavista.

Mr. Speaker, this is one of many petitions that I stand

here day after day to present to the House of Assembly. It is signed by hundreds of

residents. It is not a situation where I tear off a page and add a prayer to it. If you

check the records you will find that every petition that has been presented here on this

particular issue has contained in excess of 100 - in most cases over 200 - names. They are

coming in on a daily basis, not only from the Birchy Cove, Newmans Cove, Upper, Lower and

Middle Amherst Cove area, but many times, like this one, from the town of Bonavista, from

people who drive over this

section of road on a regular basis and sympathize.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the minister that I have

told him this before and he made notes on it. It is the

section of road from Birchy Cove

to Bonavista on Route 235 measuring five kilometres. The people there, the schoolchildren

there, the business owners, and many supporters -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: Bonavista to Birchy Cove. They are

asking that this particular

section of roadway be ungraded and paved.

Mr. Speaker, I have had the Deputy Minister down to look

first-hand at this

section of road. I have had the Assistant Deputy Minister down to look

at this

section of road. There has been numerous meetings held in the area there. The

parents and the students there have been very understanding. They did this last year. They

brought forward their concerns the year before. They meet on a regular basis.

They try to bring forward their concerns and the need to

have this roadwork done in the most diplomatic way. They have not gone out and blocked off

the road, they have not gone out and interfered with anybody whatsoever travelling this

section of roadway. What they have done and what they have said is: Look, we do not want

to hinder students from going to school. We do not want to stop people from going to

Bonavista and accessing health care or government offices in the quickest way possible. We

do not want people from this area to have to reroute and go up around Catalina, Port

Union, but in our plight to bring our concerns and our needs to the House of Assembly,

what we are going to do is appear on the roadway there, in the worst area, and we are

going to hand out pamphlets. We are going to hand out letters and ask them if they would

return them to the Minister of Works, Services & Transportation, because we need help.

They are frustrated. They are frustrated when they see

millions of dollars spent in other areas where petitions are made up to send to the House

of Assembly saying they do not want something done. I think of Grand Falls and I think of

the West Coast, where petitions have been sent to this House of Assembly where people are

saying: Mr. Government, we do not want a concrete divider through our town.

There are millions of dollars there that can be spent

somewhere else. What the people in this area are saying is: We would like to have part of

that and we would like our road to be upgraded.

If we are going to close our schools, if we are going to

expect schools to be closed and have our students transported by school bus from one

community to another, then the least we can do is to provide them with a decent road to

drive over.

The roads in other areas in my district are in terrible

shape, and even in this immediate area, but the parents show up at their meetings down

there in talking about this road and they are saying: This is our priority. This is what

we want done first. If we could have this

section of roadway done in order to accommodate

the students, in order to accommodate where most of the traffic travels to the Town of

Bonavista, and up the other way, then we will be satisfied this year. Something else we

will go after at another time.

It is a very reasonable request. It is the one that will

continually be brought forward. I understand that this

section of roadway will not be

included in this year's capital budget. I have talked to the local administrator there at

Clarenville and expressed my views and opinions to him. His words are: Something has to be

done with that

section of road.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FITZGERALD: What it is going to be - I plea to

this government to say and respond to the petitions and to the needs of those people in

this particular area.

Thank you.

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

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the hon.

member - and I will not take all the time, I suspect, that is allocated for speaking to

petitions - that there are many areas of the Province that require upgrading to roads. We

recognize that. We recognize that there are some matters out there that need to be taken

care of.

There has been a situation develop in this Province over

a number of years which was brought about by the very party that was in government, the

very party that the hon. member is a member of, the very party that he supported, by the

former member for Bonavista South - which he supports in every little thing he does,

regardless of whether it is on the Open Line shows talking about conservation areas or

whatever it is - his mentor, the former hon. Jim Morgan, and the man who sits right there,

the Member for Lewisporte - he was also part of the same tribe that came into this House

when we were in Opposition, when I sat over there where the hon. gentleman sits and put

petitions forward day after day about my district, and made points about my district -

when the Premier of the day, his mentor, Mr. Peckford, and the Member for Lewisporte,

would stand up and say: You can starve if you do not vote PC. You have to vote PC in order

to get things done.

That was the kind of government that was in this

Province, the kind of government that went around with processing licenses in their

pockets and passed them out to their political friends. That was the kind of government

that created the mess, the economic mess through their politicizing of everything that

went on in this Province. That was the kind of government, that is the kind of party, that

is the kind of people that the hon. gentleman now sits with right there, the Member for

Lewisporte.

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, I am not sure if I am

hearing correctly or not. Yesterday, I presented a similar petition and I saw a minister

of the Crown, who is supposed to represent Newfoundland and Labrador and not his own

district, stand up and talk about how unfair things happened back ten years and fifteen

years ago. Now the minister of the Crown responsible for Development and Rural Renewal is

getting up again and saying again about the unkind things and the way things were done

back in other administrations.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

I ask the hon. member to get to his point of order.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, what I am presenting

here is a petition from students who are asking that their roadwork be done, and the

attitude -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his point of order.

MR. FITZGERALD: - that is being brought forward by

ministers of the Crown here in this House is incomprehensible.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. TULK: Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the hon.

gentleman that he is just trying to play politics with the students in his own area. I am

outlining to him, I am trying to get through his head, that what has gone on in this

Province has caused a kind of mess that we have in this Province with highways, hospitals

and everything else, and it was done by his former mentor and the person who sits to the

right of the Opposition House Leader, the Member for Lewisporte.

That kind of attitude has led us to the state we are in.

Of course this government wants to be fair, wants to be fair to students all over this

Province. We want to operate in an equitable manner, in the right manner, to see that

students throughout this Province, throughout rural Newfoundland, get their fair share.

But the job of doing that was made difficult by the very party that he represents and by

the very politicizing of things in this Province like he is doing now, and like his party

is doing now.

Yes, this government will do what it can with the

petition, will do what it can to see that students throughout this Province get the best

roads that we can possible give them under the circumstances, unlike the hon. gentleman's

colleagues when they were in power.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cape St.

Francis.

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

I want to stand in my place today and support the

petition presented by the Member for Bonavista South trying to get some funding for five

kilometres of road in his district.

I heard similar petitions presented by the Member for

Bonavista South on other occasions, for the same stretch of road, in this House of

Assembly. The Member for Bonavista South is doing his job, doing what he is being paid to

do, doing what he has been elected to do in this House of Assembly.

I hear the Government House Leader stand in his place

and talk about politics and politicizing things. Well, let me tell you, let me give you a

little bit of history about politics in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador with

respect to the Liberal government. Let's look at Trans City, what went on there, gone to

court, and wrong. What happened? Let's talk about politics, if you want to talk about

politics. Let's look at some of the projects that went on when the previous Administration

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: I wonder if the Speaker or somebody would

tell me - I stand on a point of order to say that the gentleman should be relevant to the

petition. I wonder if he would kindly tell me what Trans City has to do with five

kilometres of road in Bonavista? I wonder if the Speaker or somebody could inform me?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

MR. J. BYRNE: No point of order.

Mr. Speaker I will address it anyway in my comments. The

connection is this: They are talking about spending of money. We are talking about

revenues in the Province. We are talking about expenditures in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and to do the five kilometres of road out there is going to

take money.

The Government House Leader is talking about the way

money has been spent in the past with respect to the previous Tory Administration. All I

am doing is making a connection that if they are going to be spending money, and he is

going to be talking about having it politicized, let's look at the reality of the

situation over the years. That is the connection. Furthermore to that, let's look at the

Member for Bay de Verde -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Fisheries? Let's take

a drive out through his district. He will openly -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, Port de Grave. I stand

corrected.

The Minister of Fisheries will openly say that

everything out there to be paved is paved. There are areas in this Province - the Member

for Baie Verte has stood in his place with respect to petition after petition for dirt

roads in the Province, dirt roads not paved. We were talking over there about being

politicized ten, fifteen, twenty years ago.

I remind the Government House Leader that his government

is in power now ten years. It will soon be time to take some responsibility, I would say

to the Government House Leader. Ten years!

Now the other area is this. Let's talk about wastage of

money and that we don't have enough money to do the 5 kilometres of road. If that is the

problem, we don't have enough money, maybe the government should try and stay out of court

and losing all these court cases: $10 million here, $5 million there. To do 5 kilometres

of road would probably cost them $250,000, $50,000 a kilometre to do some recapping.

That is the situation we are in. Every time the

Government House Leader gets on his feet he will try and twist things around to this side

that all the woes of the world are the Tory problems, that we caused them. If you want to

go back another generation, from 1949 to 1972, and look at the kind of money we had then,

when we started out with $40 million and ended up with the debt that was overwhelming to

the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, if you want to talk about not having enough money

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: What's that? Yes, you are the one who

started it, I say to the Government House Leader. The Government House Leader stands in

his place time after time on points of order and usually they are no points of order, Mr.

Speaker. He did it again.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

All I am saying is I am standing here to support the

petition presented by the Member for Bonavista South. I am sure the Government House

Leader supports it too, but he should not get up and make comments that problems that were

created over twenty years ago are causing that road not to be done today. I don't think

that is fair, right or proper.

What we are saying on this side of the House is that we

all are elected in this House of Assembly to serve the constituents in our districts. We

should all be treated the same. There is x amount of money to go around, we all know that.

We only have so much money to go around, but it should be distributed equally among the

districts. Now sometimes that cannot be done. We have to be realistic and know that some

areas are going to require more money than others. That is natural. All I am saying is

that the people out there in the area deserve the five kilometres of road and we should

try and get the money from wherever possible to do it.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. TULK: Motion 1, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It seems that the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy

is leaving. I thought perhaps we would have heard his speaking in the House this morning

to apologize to the nurses who were in the lobby yesterday, after the exchange in the

House. Because yesterday we saw an example of absolute intimidation, absolute provocation

to the nurses in the gallery.

I know that the minister is part of a process that has

made a complete sham of collective bargaining in Newfoundland and Labrador. I had

anticipated that this morning at the first possible opportunity he had he would stand in

his place and apologize to the nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador. He would tell them

that his comments yesterday were not intended to gouge them into participating in the

debate from the galleries, and that he did not mean to have them take such offence to his

comments that they had to participate. The result was that they happened to get thrown

out.

We know that the Speaker of the House has to maintain

decorum in the House. We also know that it is the responsibility of the members when they

are making their comments in the House to try not to say things that would lead people in

the gallery to cause a reaction.

Now the day before yesterday the hon. the President of

Treasury Board stood in her place. When she was commenting on a particular matter she

looked up to the gallery and made comments to the nurses in the gallery to the effect that

they were nodding their heads or disagreeing in some particular manner. Of course, that

just brings on a reaction.

We know that on April 1 the Minister of Mines and Energy

took the entire afternoon and made all kinds of interjections in the debate, trying to

find out if anybody had gone out and encouraged the nurses to come back into the public

galleries after the Speaker had asked them to leave. We know that on that particular

afternoon that particular process was again designed to use the rules of the House in

order to, I suppose, get nurses to react. I do not think that would be a proper thing to

do. I would like to think the minister did not do it for that reason.

We know that the minister, on that particular afternoon,

on April 1, rose repeatedly in his place and tried to find out what member or members of

the Opposition may have spoken to the nurses in the lobby. He went through a checklist and

I do not know that was intended to show, because who cares? Who cares if some member of

the Opposition goes out and offers some advice to the nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador?

In fact, it would be the parliamentary thing to do. It would be right and proper for

members of the Opposition to go out and to ensure that nurses who are in the galleries

know that when the Speaker convenes the House again they have every right to come back in

to the public galleries.

That is not what happened. The minister found out that

somebody - I have no idea who - may have, is alleged to have, gone out in the public

galleries on the night of March 31 and to have said to some nurses: When the House

reconvenes, you are allowed to come back in. What is the big deal? The next day in the

House the Minister of Mines and Energy spent an entire afternoon, interjection after

interjection, hour after hour, spent time in debate, every ten minutes he had, being the -

I used the word hit man at the time, and I was asked by the Chair to withdraw that word,

and I did. I did not mean it in any derogatory term. I only meant it as the person who was

at bat. When a person is at bat, in my language that happens to be the hit man.

Therefore, the Minister of Mines and Energy on that day

was, in my opinion, which may not be correct, doing everything he could to have those

nurses in the gallery provoked to such an extent that they would take such offense that

they would do something, say something, cause an action that would result in their getting

kicked out of the House.

Yesterday in the House we saw the same thing again. We

saw the Minister of Mines and Energy, again, wanting to take on the lead in government.

What has happened in this process is that Madam President of Treasury Board, not only does

she sit behind the Minister of Mines and Energy, but she is also doing backup to the

Minister of Mines and Energy on this particular issue. Because as we know, the President

of Treasury Board has certainly taken a second seat to the Minister of Mines and Energy

when it comes to discussing the nurses' issues in this House.

Yesterday, nurses were frustrated. They were pushed to a

point where they could not stand it anymore. We saw the Member for Conception Bay East

& Bell Island in the last several days trying to intimidate the members of the RNC. We

know that is totally inappropriate, and in any other parliamentary democracy the

parliamentary secretary, or the member who is the undersecretary to a particular

department, making comments on that department would have to toe the government line.

Members of the RNC are upset. Likewise, so are members of the nurses' union upset.

Yesterday in the House the Member for Ferryland, who is

one of the most knowledgeable people on health issues in this Province, who has direct

connections to every hospital and every health care organization, who gets his information

absolutely 100 per cent correct, 100 per cent of the time, was asking some questions in

the Late Show to the Minister of Health and Community Services. During the minister's

response - she never did quite answer the questions - she went along talking about all the

new nurses she had put into the health care system.

When that happened, members in the gallery, the nurses'

union, took some offence to that and made some comments. When they could not stand the

comments by their former union leader, now the Minister of Health and Community Services,

when they could not stand the comments anymore, they got up to leave. While they were

getting up to leave, they made a comment to the effect that they hoped nobody sitting in

this Legislature would never need to have nursing care.

What they meant was that, with the shortage of nurses,

there would be no nurses there to look after them. That is all they meant. They did not

mean any personal offence. They were not threatening the minister.

The minister, when he was leaving here yesterday, walked

halfway down to the entrance area to the House and came back, looked up into the gallery

and started pointing his finger and said: Are you threatening me? There was no response

from the gallery. They were not threatening the minister personally. They were not saying

that if the minister or his family, or anyone else in this House, had need of health care

that nurses would not provide it. They were not saying that.

What followed after that was even more distasteful. As I

left the House, I went out to the public lobby in the building. As the Minister of Mines

and Energy came into the public lobby of the building yesterday, leaving the House with

his raglan on, ready to go out through the front entrance, he went over and spoke to the

group of nurses, one of whom was one of the nurses in the gallery just a short while

before. The minister goes over to the nurse and points a finger right in her face,

chastises her, and says to her: Are you threatening me? Are you threatening my family?

Mr. Speaker, what a display of bullying. What a display

of arrogance. She said: No, we were not threatening you or your family. There is not what

we were doing. They were letting the government know that they were upset with the way

things were going on in the House.

Then the Minister of Mines and Energy left. He left the

area and walked out towards the entrance. He turns around, comes back, and has another

exchange in which he points a finger directly into the face of this young lady and goes

again into a chastisement, a bullying kind of thing, and then he leaves again. He gets

almost out through the doors and he turns around again, for the third time, and comes back

towards the young nurse again. Again he gives her his most provocative commentaries,

telling her that he had the right to speak here in the House and that she did not have any

rights to speak in the House. He felt he was being threatened, and so on and so forth.

Then, finally, the Minister of Mines and Energy leaves.

Mr. Speaker, I have seen disgraceful things happen in my

lifetime, and that kind of thing yesterday was far in excess of what might have been

reasonable or normal.

I thought this morning that one of the very first things

we would have seen today would have been the Minister of Mines and Energy standing in his

place and saying that he gotten carried away yesterday, and he felt he should apologize to

the nurses because he misunderstood, or that he certainly took personal offence where

perhaps no personal offence was ever intended, and that he should have taken the word of

the nurse when she said she did not mean any personal threat to the minister.

That did not happen. I missed the first ten or fifteen

minutes of the House this morning -

AN HON. MEMBER: What went far beyond being

reasonable and normal yesterday?

MR. H. HODDER: What went far beyond it? The Minister

of Mines and Energy's behaviour -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

& Fogo.

MR. REID: (Inaudible) Member for Waterford Valley.

Who went beyond what was reasonable and normal here yesterday wasn't the hon. Minister of

Mines and Energy. It was the people in the gallery who looked down here and called the

Minister of Health a piece of scum, and used other language that I will not repeat here. I

think he had better get his facts straight across the floor.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This is no point of order.

Before recognizing the member I want to welcome, on

behalf of all members, to the gallery today ten students representing ten rural districts

across the Province. These students will be travelling to the Yukon today to represent

Newfoundland at the Interchange on Canadian Studies. These students will be joining

students from all across Canada to discuss issues surrounding Youth Justice, with their

instructor, Noreen Saunders.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford

Valley.

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

We on this side would like to break the normal dialogue

we are having to say to the students on the Interchange, it is a wonderful experience. I,

personally, have organized and participated in several of these exchanges and, in my

teaching days, helped organize students who travelled to British Columbia, to Manitoba, to

Quebec, and had a great deal of experience in that particular, shall we say, exchange

group. I want to wish you well. It is a great thing to do. You will learn about Canada,

and Canada is such a wonderful country. When you get a chance to see it from your travels

and enter into dialogue with many other students from all parts of this country, it is a

wonderful thing to do.

We wish you well and want to thank your teachers and

others for making it possible, because it does take a lot of organization. I am sure you

are going to have just a very fantastic time. Every one of these I participated in went

extremely well. I never, ever had a bit of difficulty with any student because the program

was so extensive. I know you are going to have an absolute time and get a chance to see a

wonderful part of this country.

Mr. Speaker, I want to return to comments made by my

colleague across the way. He asked the question: What was shameful here yesterday?

I was making it quite clear that the actions of the

Minister of Mines and Energy yesterday in the lobby of the Legislature, in front of a fair

number of members of the House, including the Member for Cape St. Francis, the Member for

St. John's West, the behaviour of the minister towards the nurses in the lobby was out of

order. The nurses made their point and I had expected the minister this morning to be

standing in his place and saying that he went beyond what was reasonable. Once the nurse

had said that she did not mean any personal offence to the minister, I thought that the

exchange would have completed but it did not. The Minister of Mines and Energy -

MR. GRIMES: You don't have to speak for me, Harvey.

I will speak for myself when I get up (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: The Minister of Mines and Energy -

MR. GRIMES: I don't get on the way you get on all

the time, making out you are everybody's buddy (inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: The Minister of Mines and Energy

engaged yesterday in gross exaggeration. Of course, what he was trying to do and what he

has been trying to do for days and days now is trying to drive a wedge between the nurses

and the different nursing groups. Mr. Speaker, it is not working. What he did yesterday

was not simply bad manners. It went way, way beyond bad manners.

Today, of course, he knew right away that he had to go

out and do something with it, so I was not surprised at all. As a matter of fact,

yesterday was very predictable because the Member for Cape St. Francis and I were going up

in the elevator and the Member for Cape St. Francis said: What has happened here now is

all part of a strategy. Tonight, expect to hear the minister on the night show, and he

will be tomorrow morning on CBC News talking about this.

This morning when I turned on CBC at about 6:45 a.m.,

sure enough, the Member for Cape St. Francis was 100 per cent right; because in the

lead-off it was talking about how upset the Minister of Mines and Energy was and that they

were going to have him on later in the morning. Of course, we all know that he did his

exchange shortly before 7:30 a.m.

The Member for Cape St. Francis, who has a knack of

being 100 per cent on in his accuracy, knows what good predictions are, said this was all

part of a staged event. I personally, at that time, said: No, no, this was an unfortunate

series of happenings. Things got out of hand a little bit, and so on and so forth, but

this morning when we heard CBC, I said: Oh, oh, the Member for Cape St. Francis is right

again.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, for the member's

information - you see, he was talking so much in the lobby yesterday afternoon, if his

mind was in gear he would know that I never spoke at all, neither yesterday out at the

protest. Nor did I speak... The Member for Ferryland spoke on behalf of our caucus

yesterday, and the Member for St. John's East spoke on behalf of our caucus yesterday, and

the Member for Labrador West spoke on behalf of his caucus yesterday. I never spoke to the

nurses in the lobby at all yesterday.

Last evening, when I witnessed the exchange by the

minister, no one else spoke to nurses, other than the minister. They tried to interject to

say what really happened, but no one else spoke. As a matter of fact, no other member of

the House spoke to them at all. We listened to the exchange. The minister went out through

the door on his third attempt and then we dispersed. I went upstairs, and five minutes

later when I came down the nurses themselves had left the lobby as well.

I do not know what the minister is talking about.

Obviously he believes that he hears things, because evidently yesterday not only did he

believe that he heard things from the gallery from nurses that were totally incorrect but

now he thinks he heard me say something in the lobby to nurses when I never said a thing

at all.

The minister obviously has illusions and he deludes

himself. He is 100 per cent incorrect in what he says. The minister thought he heard the

nurses say something, he thought he heard the nurses say something in the gallery. He

obviously did not. Then, he thought he heard me speak in the lobby and I did not. He

thought he heard me speak to the rally yesterday, and I did not. The minister has a

problem, because obviously he is hearing things that are not happening.

That is the problem with this government, that they hear

things that do not happen but they do not hear things that do happen; because what is

happening in this Province is we have a crisis with the nurses in this Province. They are

not hearing that. They do not admit that needs to be addressed. What they have done is,

the public of this Province are saying to this government that they have made a total sham

of collective bargaining.

The back-to-work legislation that the Minister of Mines

and Energy piloted through this House on April 1, and bullied the members on his

government to vote for it - because it was not piloted by the President of Treasury Board,

piloted by the Minister of Mines and Energy who spoke repeatedly on the issue. To her

credit, the President of Treasury Board spoke at the introduction to the bill and then

presumably she was not very happy with it and she did not speak again during the entire

session. That told us that she really did not feel very comfortable with the particular

piece of legislation and perhaps that the Minister of Mines and Energy had used his

expertise in collective bargaining to advise the Cabinet as to what the strategy should

be. I kind of believe that might have been what was really going on.

The Minister of Mines and Energy, a former President of

the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, with an extensive background in

collective bargaining, said: Here is the strategy. We will devise Bill 3. I know there

will be a fuss, but let me handle it. I will stand in the House and pilot it through, I

will be the aggressive person, because that is what happened. Obviously, the President of

Treasury Board must have felt somewhat uncomfortable.

Some of us in this Province can remember back to another

time, and some members who speak on these things have made the comparison. I know that the

members opposite do not want to hear the comparison between the draconian measures taken

by Joey Smallwood in the 1958-1959 with the IWA strike and the draconian measures taken by

this government on Bill 3.

We know that this government is not committed to

collective bargaining. We know that way back then - and it is sad you have to go back for

forty years. I am reading and noting here a commentary in the opinion

section of The

Evening Telegram that makes a comparison between the draconian and the Machiavellian

measures that were taken by former Premier Joey Smallwood to crush the IWA in 1959, and

the measures taken by this government to force the nurses, I guess, back to work, to deny

them their rights to binding arbitration under the Public Service Collective Bargaining

Act.

That is very regrettable. Because I happen to have gone

teaching in Point Leamington some years after that. I just happened to have made a comment

one time in the community relative to the IWA. I made a comment to the effect that maybe

the premier did not have a great number of options. I was called aside by a leader of the

community who said: When you are in Point Leamington, please don't have any comments that

might be interpreted as in any way to be sympathetic to Joey Smallwood on this issue. In

that particular community where I was the principal of the school back in 1962, I was

called aside and told very bluntly: In this community there is no love for a government

that crushed the loggers of Newfoundland and Labrador.

What is going to happen to this government on this side

is that they are going to go back to their communities and they are going to be told very

bluntly that there is no sympathy, or there is no sense of love, or there is no sense of

belonging that is going to be shared with this group of people when they crushed the

nurses in the same way that Joey Smallwood crushed the loggers by decertifying the IWA.

Members on that side tell me that the comments from

their own local communities are very negative to what government has done to nurses.

Privately, and I would never ever divulge here, and it would not be appropriate anyway,

there are many people on that side who are very uncomfortable with the way the government

has handled the nurses' issue. Their discomfort is increasing. The Premier had hoped that

over Easter, the extra length of time we have taken for Easter vacation, things would have

simmered down, but that has not happened, and for a good reason: because the people of

this Province care for their nurses. They have great respect for their nurses.

As a consequence, they know that health care is our

number one concern. If health care is their number one concern, then it is obvious they

want to make sure that the care givers, the nurses of this Province, also are their number

one concern. The big boot approach that has been taken by this government to nurses in

this Province is not acceptable to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We know that

when you have a situation where you have legislation that guarantees people in the public

service a right, and that right is a right to binding arbitration - it is contained in the

Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, it is sections 30 to 37 - the members of that

side know the choices they had. They could have let it go to binding arbitration but they

choose not to do that.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and

Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the point

that the hon. member is making at this very moment about binding arbitration being in the

Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, would he like, while he is the recognized

speaker, to inform the House whether or not the party he represents has ever brought into

the Legislature back-to-work legislation without binding arbitration, just as a matter of

interest for the record?

He is suggesting that this is terrible that this

government has done it. Would he like to state for the record, or would he like for me to

state for the record? I will give him the opportunity first to state for the record

whether or not the party that he represents in this Legislature has ever introduced

back-to-work legislation in this Legislature without binding arbitration? Would he answer

the question, just for the record?

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

I would ask the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask the member just to take his seat for one

second.

While we have a break in the presentation by the hon.

member, I would just like to take an opportunity on behalf of all hon. members to welcome

to the public gallery Mr. Les Peate and his wife Joyce. Mr. Peate is the Executive

Secretary of The Korean Veterans Association of Canada Incorporated. They are visiting St.

John's and returning home today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford

Valley.

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

You correctly ruled that there is no point of order. The

minister will have an opportunity. The rules of this House are quite clear. If he doesn't

know the rules the Opposition House Leader has a copy of Beauchesne there that he can

share with him. The situation is that when the minister gets up to have his commentary on

the Budget he can then address all those issues, which I am sure he will.

Just let me tell you that it was the Conservative

government that gave binding arbitration commitments to the RNC, it was the Conservative

government that brought in collective bargaining in the public service.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. Minister of Mines and

Energy.

MR. GRIMES: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

I recognize that when members are recognized by you in

the Chair to speak in this House they are expected to speak factually. The hon. member

just suggested that a Progressive Conservative administration gave the Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary binding arbitration. I am sure he will take the opportunity to correct that

he is now admitting from his seat that he is wrong, that he is sorry he said that, that he

wishes he had not said that, that he did not say that, and he is going to get up for the

record now and admit that did not happen, it did not occur, no such thing. He is wrong

again.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Waterford Valley.

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

The Progressive Conservative government brought in

arbitration procedures for the RNC and gave a commitment, non-binding, and gave a

commitment in 1986 that they would introduce binding arbitration. We say that was a first

step and that we gave a commitment we would then move to give the RNC binding arbitration.

As the member knows, when it comes to these matters, in

1989 there was a change of government and in 1992 this government, the Liberal government,

also gave the RNC a written commitment which I (inaudible) in here to the House, copies of

which I have here in my file. They said: Before the collective agreement expires we will

change the law of the Province and we will bring in binding arbitration. Because they

knew, based on the reports that have been written subsequent to collective bargaining was

going on with the RNC, that without binding arbitration the RNC were having some

difficulties with government. Because the RNC took their collective bargaining processes

seriously but government always took the attitude: We do not have to be serious about this

because we have the big hammer, we can pick and choose what we want from the reports. This

is what they have done.

In 1992 - in fact, it was dated in 1990 but it was

signed into agreement in 1992 - the Liberal government of Clyde Wells said to the RNC: We

will give you binding arbitration over the life of this particular contract. We will

introduce legislation into the House of Assembly to make that happen. When the legislation

was brought in in late 1992, I believe it was the fall session, that particular amendment

was missing. It never did get brought forward, and so the failure of this government is it

gave a written commitment to the RNC and it did not deliver.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and

Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker. While the hon. member

is continuing his debate on the Budget - because everybody should know that is what he is

doing, they will try to figure out what this has to do with the Budget some time soon I am

sure - maybe he will also inform the House, just for the record, of which amendments were

proposed by the Opposition, when we brought forward the new Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary Act, from the Opposition, that suggested that we should put in binding

arbitration? Because no such amendment was ever proposed by the Opposition party that had

promised to give that to the RNCA in 1986.

They had an opportunity when the legislation was

produced, if they believed that it was the right thing to do, to move an amendment to have

binding arbitration included in the new piece of legislation that has been in place now

for seven years. I would challenge the hon. member to produce an amendment moved by any

member of the Opposition that even raised the issue or suggested that it should be

included in the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, because it does not exist. They did

not do it. They are not interested in the issue, only today because there is a little bit

of politics to be played with it. Could he clarify that for the record, and prove me

wrong, is what I would like for him to do? Because he cannot do it.

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I assume you have ruled

that there is no point of order?

MR. SPEAKER: Yes, I have already ruled.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, as usual, I believe in

this particular session now we have been trying to keep some records. This is around the

twenty-fifth or twenty-sixth time that the Minister of Mines and Energy has stood on a

point of order. That is his right to do that, but he has not had one single point of order

ruled in his favour yet.

Of all forty-eight members, he leads the House in the

number of points of order that has been raised by any member on any side. He has not had

one single point of order accepted yet. His batting average is not great: zero. He will

never, ever make the big leagues with that kind of batting average. I will just say to the

hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy that he has gone to bat now twenty-eight times. He

has been ruled out of order and it is a case of where the Chair is absolutely right.

MR. REID: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: The Member for Waterford Valley is

misleading the House. He continues to say that the hon. minister rose twenty-eight times.

In actual fact it was thirty-one, and he has been ruled (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the

House. He is such a jumping jack that I missed several bops. It is hard to know with the

minister because he pops up so often that I must have missed three occasions. That is

because it happens so fast and so often. I want to say to the hon. Member for Twillingate

& Fogo that we are going to change our records over here. We have now adjusted them to

say that he has now been up thirty-one times. I would say to my colleague the Opposition

House Leader to adjust the file, that he has now been up thirty-one times on points of

order and he has had zero of them accepted by the Chair.

I want to go back to the issue of collective bargaining.

The situation is that this government is not committed, has failed in its commitment to

collective bargaining, failed in its commitment to health care, failed in its commitment

to the nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador.

They use things like what happened in the 1980s, what

happened in the 1970s. I say to the hon. Minister of Mines and Energy, maybe when he gets

up he will talk about which governments brought in collective bargaining for anybody in

the public service in this Province, when that happened, and how many years we had to go

through as members of the teaching profession or members of the public service before we

were allowed to even have any concept of collective bargaining.

Maybe he will give some credit for that because it

certainly was something that the Progressive Conservative Party was committed to; which,

in particular, the government of Frank Moores was committed to, bringing in a process of

collective bargaining.

We have made some progression. There have been some

changes. There is certainly an evolution that takes place here. That is normal, but what

has happened in the last month in this Province is that we have seen the pendulum swinging

right back to the days when government says: You come to us, you put your hand out, and we

will give you what we think is fit.

What is happening in the Province is that nurses are

going to continue to be upset, they are going to continue to go and protest in any way

they can. They have given a commitment to the government that they will not forget. In

fact, they have started a campaign and that is their right in the law.

Yesterday we saw examples of government trying to

stifle, trying to curtail public dissent, big signs in the lobby. I was glad this morning

that the Premier of the Province stood up and said: These signs are gone.

Yesterday, these signs appeared very early in the day. I

cannot believe, with fifteen, sixteen, or seventeen public relations people buzzing around

the building, that somebody did not have the foresight to go to the Premier and say: Did

you see what is happening out in front? Obviously, the Premier said it did not happen; I

take his word for it.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and

Energy.

MR. GRIMES: I believe the last comment that the hon.

member made may have saved him from basically suggesting that the Premier lied in this

Legislature yesterday. Everything he said before that indicated that he could not believe,

and therefore did not accept, the answer given in this Legislature yesterday by the

Premier of the Province that he was neither responsible for, or knew about, those signs at

the front of the building.

On the end of it, I do believe that he said: I take the

Premier for his word. I hope that is exactly what he will say every time without a lot of

preamble, a lot of what if's, a lot of fancy talking like he usually does, that he

understand fully that when the Premier was made aware of that issue this morning, and when

the Premier gave direction, the signs disappeared from the front of the building.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It is now number thirty-two.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford

Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, in my time here I have

not seen the Speaker make a comment like that but, you know, it certainly is delightful to

see the Speaker keep the record straight. There is no point of order.

I want to go back to the point. When the Premier said

yesterday that he was not informed, that is a commentary on the people who should be

informing him. I take his word for that, but why did it take so long? Yesterday the

Premier, all through Question Period, was trying to defend it. He was having visual

contact with the Acting Minister of Works, Services & Transportation, and he was

trying to find out what was going on there. We could see them talking back and forth and,

in spite of that, the Acting Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, in the lobby

yesterday said that he was going to take some action to curtail public participation in

the lobby of the building.

While the signs have been removed - the Premier said

this morning they were going to be removed - there is also again the issue being raised by

the Acting Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to the effect that we are going

to take some action to curtail the participation of the public in the debate, or in the

protests that take place from time to time in the lobby.

I just remind hon. ministers, and members of the other

side, that when this building was designed, one of the people who led many a protest in

this Province, the late J.R. Smallwood, had the building designed in such a way that the

public lobby of the building would be the people's lobby. There is where they could go and

hold their protests. Given the Newfoundland climate, it is not appropriate that we should

have people kept out in the rain.

Yesterday, when the nurses arrived, I say a great job

was done by my colleague from Conception Bay South and my colleague from St. John's South,

who took the nurses' banner and walked in through. They took the banners and walked the

banners in, and were proud of what they did. They stood there, because they knew this was

not a rule of this House. This was a rule signed by the Department of Works, Services and

Transportation management. That is not a rule of this House.

When they saw the people's House and people's lobby

under threat, they did what they should have done. They took the banner and walked in with

it. They were on television, because they viewed the cause of democracy to be higher than

any other cause.

When the Member for St. John's East spoke yesterday, out

in front of the steps, and showed our disgust, he was standing up for the right of the

people of this Province to dissent, and go and participate in the affairs of this

Province, and they were doing what was right. They were on the side of right.

Mr. Speaker, you know and I know -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) loss of democracy, dripping

with sympathy and all that kind of stuff. What a pile of foolishness. (Inaudible). That

crowd goes and grabs the banners, refused to take direction from the staff of the

building, ignored them completely, and you are supposed to be potential lawmakers of

Newfoundland and Labrador. You go out there and somebody tells you not to do something,

the people who run this building, and you people decide to ignore them.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I am waiting for the

Minister of Mines and Energy to calm down a little bit, and seek some guidance from the

Chair as to when I should continue.

Again, the Minister of Mines and Energy, being afraid of

making number thirty-three in a row, decided not to stand at that time, but he chooses to

interject from the comfort of his chair because obviously he would love to participate in

the debate. Hopefully he will get up when his time comes - he has half an hour - and will

defend the government in going out yesterday and making up those signs. I know he did not

make the signs up because I assume that he could spell and that, being a former teacher,

he would not have misspelled the word "similar".

Yesterday, whoever the person was in the Department of

Works, Service and Transportation, they could not spell the word "similar".

Someone suggested yesterday, the reason it was misspelled. The word "similar"

was misspelled because, if they did not have an error made in it, they would not have an

excuse to take it down, and that it was a deliberate strategy to misspell a word. I do not

think that happened.

Obviously the signs have come down and we feel some

comfort that the Premier will talk to the Acting Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation and tell him that the interview he gave yesterday to the local press out

here saying that: No, we are continuing, we are going to go and control the lobby of the

building - we hope that the Premier is going to have a little whispering sessions with the

hon. the minister to make sure, now that the signs are down, that we are not going to have

any other alternate actions which will in any way impede the right of nurses and others to

come to the lobby of this building and to express their viewpoint. That is fundamental to

the way we participate here. We will not have people waiting outside in the rain.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: No, no.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: I would ask you to produce it.

Again, Mr. Speaker, the people on the other side like to

engage in actions; because the truth of the matter is the first time that I ever met the

current Premier of this Province was after he decided to come back here. I never really

had met the man before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. H. HODDER: I challenge -

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: (Inaudible) ever said that the hon.

gentleman met him. He wrote him before he even met him; he was that taken up with him. I

want to tell the hon. gentleman, the letter is in existence.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, that particular comment

has about as much credibility as this government, because someone some time before made

reference to that kind of thing. I just want to say for the record here that no such

letter was ever written, no such letter was ever received, no such letter has my signature

on it. The first time I ever had a conversation directly with the hon. the Premier was

after he occupied that Chair. There is not in existence anywhere in the files any such

letter, because that is not the case.

I would say to the hon. member that during the 1980s I

was approached many times to run for that particular party. I was approached very often

during the 1980s and I admit that when I was a student at MUN, at one time I was a young

Liberal. I was a young Liberal when -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: I was like a little puppy dog. I was

young and not very well informed, but as soon as time passed and my eyes were opened and I

learned the true facts of the world, then I said: That is the wrong path.

Throughout the 1980s, when some members over there were

criticizing, I was being approached to run for the other team on that side. I was asked to

run in St. John's West for the Liberals. I was asked to run in several districts for the

Liberals, but I choose not to very wisely. Who would want to be part of that team over

there? In fact, there is a whole lot of people over there now who do not want any part of

the team.

There are a fair number over there now who are saying:

My goodness, what did I do, who misled me? Because when you have people who say to you: I

was so saddened that I was forced to be in the House on April 1, I was forced to stand in

my place and I had to stand up and vote with my party to destroy collective bargaining for

nurses, but that is the way the system works and I was so sorry about it, then we know

that there is a great level of discomfort on that side. Sooner or later there are going to

be people -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we know that in the back

benches of the government there are people who are very uncomfortable. They wish they were

somewhere else, but they know that they ran for the Liberal group. I say here today, I'm

glad that I never did decide to run for that particular team. The temptation was there but

my brain said no, that is not the group you should be connected to. So I am not unhappy.

I did take

part in one Liberal leadership convention. I

was part of the one in 1969. I was part of the group there. In fact, I campaigned for Alex

Hickman who was running for leader at that time, he being a fellow Burin Peninsula person.

We did not win. We carried out a very respectable campaign. What I saw in that particular

campaign, and I could talk to what was going on -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I say to the group on

that side that there is not any letter in existence that the member refers to. He should

produce it. Then I can hold it up what it is, another batch of quackery from the other

side of the House.

I wanted to go back to my introductory notes. Before I

began this discussion I wrote down some notes. It has taken me awhile to get to them

because I wanted to talk to the nurses' issue. In all probability before I finish my

discussions I will come back to that. The members on the other side have continued over

the last hour to make interjections which causes me to keep on going on the nurses' issue.

I did want to have some commentaries on the Budget

itself. Yesterday when I was making some comments -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker the Member for Ferryland

talks about polls. I cannot resist the temptation to make a commentary on the Premier who,

just two days before the election, taking a swing down through Ferryland District, comes

up and makes a press statement to the effect that the Member for Ferryland was under

tremendous threat, that he was definitely in big trouble, he was not going to win his

seat. He said: When we come into the District of Kilbride the current leader of the party

was going to lose his seat. Then he made a prediction that the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi was going to lose his seat. Then he came along and said the Member for

Waterford Valley was going to lose his seat. I don't think the Premier -

MR. SULLIVAN: He had a rough day that day.

MR. H. HODDER: He had a rough day that day. There

must have been something wrong with the bus I am sure, because he made all kinds of

predictions. The Member for Ferryland only won by what was it?

MR. SULLIVAN: Twenty-three hundred and forty-one

votes.

MR. H. HODDER: He won by 2,341 votes. What a

turnaround. What a turnaround that occurred in two days. If the Premier was right, then

when the people of Ferryland heard that poll they must have got out in record numbers to

make sure the Member for Ferryland was going to get re-elected. Because over 2,300 people

voted for this member than voted for the opponent.

MR. SULLIVAN: The opponent got ninety-five votes

less than the last opponent got.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that

every single member of the Opposition that ran, all ten of us ran, all ten of us got

re-elected, and we got elected by substantial majorities.

MR. SULLIVAN: Seven went over 2,000 votes.

MR. H. HODDER: Seven over 2,000 votes. In my

district my margin of victory was 37 per cent higher in 1999 than it was in 1996. Mr.

Speaker, we were not under any great threat. Certainly it was unheard of before when every

single member of an Opposition runs for re-election and every single member gets

re-elected. That says something about the job we are doing and the growth we are going to

make. Very soon we will be the government on that side of the House.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are now talking

about this party on this side as being the government in waiting. Their only regret is

that they have to wait another two or three years. We don't know, it could be twenty-four

months, it could be thirty-six months, but it will not be more than another fifty-eight

months.

So the people on that side over there know the jig is

up. They are behaving like the jig is up. You only had to listen to Bill Rowe last night

and Peter Fenwick on the dialogue they have on CBC. They help to formulate public opinion.

The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are now already fed up. Two months after the

election they are already fed up with this particular Administration. We on this side are

trying to be responsible. We are trying to get ready for the time when the public will

move us over to that side, and we will deserve to be on that side. We will be the

government very shortly. I don't know how long because we know that the Premier is

probably going to contest the federal position. Then after that there will be a big

kerfuffle and a new leader will get re-elected. Then, if the polls are right, I suppose

that it might go and cause us to have an early election.

I wanted to go to the Budget for a few comments. I have

now finished my introduction.

MR. FITZGERALD: You got past the title.

MR. H. HODDER: We got past the title, I say to my

hon. colleague the Member for Bonavista South. Yesterday I was talking a little bit about

the title of the Budget. It is called Celebrating 50 Years . It is not without

significance -

AN HON. MEMBER: You got them bored to death, Harvey

(inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: I hope I am doing an equally good job

with you people.

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to spend a few moments, if I

could, talking about the title here. I mentioned yesterday the title is