April 8, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 13

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Before we begin the regular part of our afternoon proceedings, I would like

to rule on a point of order raised by the Member for Grand Bank on Wednesday,

April 7. The point of order raised by the member concerns comments made by

another member on an Open Line show.

Members will note that a point of order, by definition, is a question raised

by a member who believes the rules or customary procedures of the House have

been incorrectly applied or overlooked during the House proceedings. Comments

made by members outside the House on matters discussed in the House do not meet

the generally accepted parliamentary definition of a point of order. Therefore,

the Chair rules that there is no point of order but a disagreement between two

hon. members.

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have statements by the following members:

the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair, the Member for Gander, the Member

for Grand Falls- Buchans, the Member for Burin-Placentia West, and the Member

for St. John's North.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to extend congratulations to Christy Groves, a twelve-year-old

Forteau resident and student at Mountain Field Academy, who designed an

award-winning poster for the International Art Contest called, "Visa,

Olympics of the Imagination".

Christy's artwork entitled, "Making the World a Brighter Place",

was selected from thousands of entries all across Canada. Her poster depicted a

scene of the world, based on the Olympic theme, "How the Olympic Games help

create a better future". Christy was presented her gold award, along with

an all expenses paid trip for two to the summer Olympics in Greece, where she

will attend four of the Olympic events.

I would also like to acknowledge Heather Trimm, a Grade 7 student from

Forteau, and Mandy Halbot and Shana O'Brien, both Grade 8 students from L'Anse

au Loup, who were named runners up in the contest and received silver medals.

I ask all members of this House to join with me and offer congratulations to

all these young, talented women from the District of Cartwright- L'anse au

Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Gander.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand before the hon. House today to recognize a very special

couple from my District of Gander who have accomplished something very rare in

our society today. Ralph and Winnie Goulding, formerly of Middle Brook and now

living in Gander, recently celebrated their sixty-fifth wedding anniversary.

They were married in Gambo and, unlike the lavish weddings of today, Mr. and

Mrs. Goulding and their wedding party of six people had to walk approximately

four kilometres to get to the church on their wedding day. After they were

married, they walked back to their new home for a reception.

I am told that they are still as much in love today as they were in 1938.

Winnie still finishes his sentences and Ralph still makes her laugh until she

cries for even the smallest mistake he makes. They have twelve children and now

have over twenty grandchildren and numerous great-grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would ask the members of the House to join me in

extending congratulations and best wishes to Ralph and Winnie Goulding on their

sixty-fifth wedding anniversary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the many years of hard

work and volunteer service by three members of the Buchans Volunteer Fire

Department.

I was delighted to attend the ceremony on March 13, at the Buchans Fire

Department, where I had the honour of presenting the Newfoundland and Labrador

Firefighters' Service Certificate and Medal to William Emberly for thirty

years of service, and to Bruce Bursey and James Foster for twenty years of

service.

Each of these firefighters also received the Canadian Exemplary Service Medal

from the Office of Governor General Adrienne Clarkson.

These are significant milestones in the firefighting careers of these

individuals which could not be realized without a tremendous amount of hard work

and commitment.

They are to be commended for their dedication and outstanding service not

only to the people of Buchans, but to all constituents of the Grand Falls-Buchans

District, which was quite evident during the Badger flood.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in

congratulating William Emberly, Bruce Bursey and James Foster on recognition for

many years of voluntary service and extend gratitude to all members of Volunteer

Fire Departments throughout the Province for their service and commitment to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today and

offer congratulations to Ms Mary Anne Drake and Ms Crystal Miller, both of

Marystown, on winning their respective speak offs sponsored by the Knights of

Columbus Council No. 2436 and the Canadian Parents for French. Both are students

of Marystown Central High School in Marystown.

These types of events give our students the opportunity to display their

talents in public speaking. As well, it is a testament to the efforts of such

organizations to promote and support diversity, both in an educational

experience and a language experience. Such extracurricular activities, which are

supported by schools such as Marystown Central High, add to the education of our

students.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members to join me in congratulating Ms Mary

Anne Drake and Ms Crystal Miller on their wins and wish them luck as they now

proceed to the next level of competition. I would also like for us to offer

congratulations to both the Knights of Columbus and the Canadian Parents for

French for providing such valuable opportunity to our students.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Next week, Easter week, in Newfoundland and Labrador means different things

to different people, anything from Easter bonnets to the possibility of the

trees being covered with silver thaw. However, for thousands of people in the

Province, Easter week means minor hockey tournaments and I rise today to

acknowledge all those who take

part in these tournaments and to make them a

success.

Mr. Speaker, as with all volunteer activities those who are involved are not

motivated by any personal gains. In this case the volunteers are giving of their

time for the sake of our youth. Of course the young players themselves are

central to these tournaments, but we all know that nothing would happen without

the tremendous contribution that is made by parents, coaches and friends who

give of their time to do fundraising, arrange billets, get buses, book ice time

and all the other details that will make for a successful tournament.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in wishing the players well

and in thanking the many minor hockey volunteers. We wish them all safe travel

and enjoyable tournaments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order by the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to raise this point of order,

but yesterday as we were recessing, I believe actually before Your Honour had

actually gotten through the doors at the end and we were leaving this Chamber,

most of us still here assembled, the MHA, the Member for Lake Melville, standing

just about right in front of where the Premier is sitting right now, was

addressing me.

The Premier is over there right making fun now, Mr. Speaker, suggesting I am

being a bit of a crybaby. He is being very mature about this, as he usually is.

This is a very serious issue, I might add to the Premier. He is going to pretend

now he has the flu, blowing his nose.

Mr. Speaker, standing just about there, the MHA for Lake Melville did address

me in a derogatory fashion, indicating that he thought, in his view, some of my

actions were not ones that he would engage in, and in doing so used the

"f" word, loud and clear, to be heard by members here and members

there. Very loud and clear. As a matter of fact, there were members on both

sides who were shocked that he would stand right next to this table, in this

Chamber, and use that kind of language with another hon. colleague inside the

walls of the Legislature.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is understood - and I have aggrieved you would rule on

this. If that language was used, if anybody used the "f" word in

debate in this Legislature you would not need anyone to call a point of order.

You would stand yourself and restore order. It has never been used in this

Legislature; never been allowed; not tolerated and should never be.

It is also, I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, even if a member was not the

recognized speaker with the microphone turned off, and then in some of the

banter that does occur here regularly across the floor, that if you, as the

Speaker, heard anyone of use using that kind of language you would rise - and

the record of Hansard shows it clearly - for less serious language than that.

You would rise, intercede and suggest that order would be lost in the

Legislature if such language was going to continue. Again, it is unacceptable in

this Legislature at anytime, and many of us, like myself, have come to know that

it is unacceptable in the public at any time, for public figures. I understand

that, Mr. Speaker, and it is certainly unacceptable in this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I ask him today, through you, to do the honourable thing.-

yesterday he was brave enough to say it. Today I ask him to have enough

integrity to admit it, to withdraw it, and to apologize for it, Mr. Speaker,

right here in this Chamber.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

MR. HICKEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I am not even going to waste this House's time in responding to that

particular allegation, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, the hon. the Member for

Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I do want to speak to that point of order,

because I, myself, was here in my place gathering up my material in order to

leave the Chamber yesterday, and I have to say, in the eight years that I have

been here, an elected member in this House, I have never, ever witnessed that

before. The Member for Lake Melville was directly across from me. He walked from

this Chamber - in fact, his eye glance caught mine and I heard exactly what he

said.

I would be willing to stand and swear honestly and sincerely on a stack of

Bibles in this House that he said the "f" word and pointed to the

Leader of the Opposition. I said to my colleagues: Did you hear that? Did you

see that? Without question, I am honestly and sincerely saying that is exactly

what I saw and what I heard. It is disrespectful and I would ask that if he has

any conscience for decorum in this House, he should stand and apologize, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, speaking to

the point of order.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that I have to rise here today

but I, too, was standing here yesterday and I did hear the Member for Lake

Melville utter these words, but what was even more distressing was the manner in

which he said these words, Mr. Speaker. I have not heard them - like my

colleague here from Grand Falls-Windsor - issued in this House before. I, too,

would like for the member to rise and withdraw the statements that he made

yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I came into this House in 1996, and it is a pleasure to be here,

it is the people's House. It does not belong to a political party. It does not

belong to an individual. It belongs to the people.

Mr. Speaker, several times in my responding to members of the Opposition,

when I was in government, I said things in this House that I had to retract. The

Member for Kilbride knows well of that because he was the Opposition House

Leader. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, you yourself, since you have taken

over the Chair, has asked the Member for Torngat Mountains to keep the noise

down, but I believe that when we use language in this House - and I was standing

where I am today. Mr. Speaker, the Member for Lake Melville used the

"f" word. Mr. Speaker, he used it, so help me God.

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

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

(Inaudible) some members opposite, I guess. I have been here since 1993 and

there have been lots of hot and contested debates after the House closed. I want

to emphasize the fact that the House was closed yesterday, to which the point of

order by the Leader of the Opposition was saying. I can say with certainty that

standing right here yesterday when the House closed, the Speaker was on his way

out and the Member for Lake Melville, I think, said to the Leader of the

Opposition: Don't be so childish. That is what I heard.

The fact of that matter is this, that there is no point of order, the House

was not in session, the House was closed, and what we see here today is more a

point of anxiety or frustration or grandstanding, and I think that is what is

clearly evident from my point of view today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the point of order, we certainly can't help it if the hon. Government

House Leader did not hear it, but we have four persons on this side who have

stood here before you today and said that they did hear it. Now, we cannot

apologize for his lack of hearing or the fact that he didn't, but we know what

was said.

We have heard references here to the House being closed and whatever. We have

had several instances in this House in the past two weeks with people making

utterances on both sides. It has been done and shouldn't have been done and

members have gotten up after and said: Fine, we might have crossed the line, and

with all due respect to the House and the Chair and to each other, we withdraw

those comments.

Now, the fact that other people may have used the word in other places at

other times in other forums; two wrongs don't make a right. If we are going to

operate in this House with any basic level of decorum between us these things

have to be properly ruled upon and decided. It is one thing to get heated, it is

one thing to get frustrated, but there are certain things we ought not say to

each other in the confines of this House.

I think it is a valid point of order and I think the Speaker ought to make it

clear to all members present that if you do something and you cross the line, do

the hon. thing, withdraw it and lets move on and just try to correct ourselves

in future and refrain from doing it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair reminds all members that it is paramount in our

parliamentary practices that all members show great respect for each other at

all times, both inside the House and outside the House.

The Chair, in this particular case, did receive some notice because a

comment, I believe, was made by the Leader of the Opposition this morning. I

have had the opportunity to review Hansard. Hansard does not show any commentary

whatsoever because the House indeed had closed. The Chair did not hear any

commentary on the way out. Therefore, the Chair finds himself in the position of

not being able to rule positively on the point of order because the Chair is

restricted to ruling on points of order that happened while the House is

actually in session.

I find that I have to rule that there is no point of order; however, in doing

so, and having checked with Hansard, having checked and not heard anything

myself, I have to remind all members that at all times the integrity of members,

how we treat each other both inside the House and outside the House, is of great

significance. I ask all members for their co-operation at all times to

facilitate the orderly parliamentary processes that we all treasure so much.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate your ruling and the circumstances under which you made it. As

the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi said a couple of days ago, it may not be a

point of order but it is most certainly a point of honour for people who expect

to be called honourable gentlemen and women in this particular Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, my first question today is for the President of Treasury Board.

As I indicated yesterday, I know that the minister does provide media

briefings. Would he like, Mr. Speaker, to take an opportunity to give us a brief

update with respect to negotiations now on a strike that is entering its second

week? Also I ask, on behalf of the people of the Province, whether or not there

is any reason for hope or optimism that this most unfortunate strike might be

coming to a conclusion?

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did have a news conference today. It was initiated and I answered to the

hon. member before in this House to update people on what is happening on a

contingency basis around the Province to deal with the strike. I was asked

questions on it and I indicated that I was not prepared to discuss, in a public

forum, while negotiations are ongoing.

We have received a proposal from the union, I indicated. We have sent back a

response to the union and we are waiting on a response to that. I did not feel

we should deal with that in a public forum at this time unless it is made public

by the other side. We will be compelled then, obviously, to be able to discuss

it then, but we want to follow that particular dealing and do it in a

responsible and a fair negotiating manner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday in this House, the Premier and his caucus came face to face with

the building resentment, the anger and the frustration that they have created in

the Province. This government's insistence on its all-or-nothing approach is

clearly adding to the problem every day. We have seen the results, the

unfortunate results, of the hard-nosed, insensitive, new approach to collective

bargaining. When, Mr. Speaker, will the Premier realize that the government

should use the right approach? - because his new approach, obviously, is not

working - show some flexibility, engage in some real, genuine negotiations and

try to bring this strike to an end?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome some members of the union to the gallery

again this afternoon. As he indicated yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition

understands that they have the right to protest, they have the right to speak

their piece on the picket lines. I have represented people all of my life and

have respected their rights. I still honour those rights and respect them. With

regard to trying to reach a negotiation and to reach a negotiated settlement, we

are doing just that.

The union presented their offer to us two days ago. We presented our offer to

them last night. The minister has had a news conference today to give an update

to the people of the Province. I understand that the union has also had a news

conference. I do also understand that there is another offer coming up to us

this afternoon, to which we will be responding in writing and we will be doing

absolutely everything we can to reach a negotiated settlement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming clearer every single day, the people of the

Province are finding out and being reminded again, that Tory times are indeed

hard times. The people of the Province, Mr. Speaker, are being forced to endure

a growing storm of labour unrest in Newfoundland and Labrador mainly because

this government, and this Premier, are determined to impose his brand of

right-wing conservative medicine on the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the government and the Premier's proposed

cure is only making things worse. When will the Premier just swallow his pride,

take the concessions off the table, and allow this strike to end?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Tory times in this Province have always followed

Liberal times and those Liberal times have created financial chaos in our

Province. We are faced with a situation which is a fiscal mess, which we have

been told is unsustainable by the Royal Commission, which was appointed by the

Leader of the Opposition when he was Premier. But, as an elected Premier I do

have the responsibility to try and clean up this mess, as does our government,

and we are doing everything we can to try and deal with it. We did not create

this problem. We are trying to rectify this problem and we are trying to reach a

negotiated settlement with our public sector workers.

Having said that, we are not prepared to bargain in public. That is not what

we were doing. We are in the process now of a confidential negotiation. The

Leader of the Opposition does know that in the offer which remained on the table

until midnight on Sunday, that all major concessions were off the table. Sick

leave was off the table, severance was off the table, pension indexing was off

the table. He will see, and they will all see with our latest proposal, exactly

where those concessions stand right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is pretty clear again that, I guess, the Premier's definition of a

concession is different than anybody else's in Newfoundland and Labrador if he

thinks they are off the table. Mr. Speaker, the new approach obviously, clearly,

is a recipe for continued labour unrest. Not only now do we have 20,000 workers

already on the streets, but we have the Province's nurses' union already

expressing concern about the government's direction.

I ask the Premier: Will, again, the government abandon this direction, give

up the my way or the highway approach, get down to some real negotiations, truly

take the concessions off the table so that we do not only have this strike

continuing but the specter of a nurse's strike, followed by a teacher's

strike, followed by everybody being on strike? When will he take the concessions

off the table so we can stop the labour unrest instead of seeing it likely grow

and grow and grow?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Leader of the Opposition

wants to prolong this strike. That is obviously his intention. He has been

trying to inflame it throughout. He is now going so far as to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - going beyond the current public sector strike, which

we have. He is now trying to drag in the nurses and the teachers. That

bargaining process has not even commenced yet. I can only state what we

published last week. We published it in the papers all around the Province

exactly what our offer was. At that particular point in time our offer was zero,

zero, two and three on a four-year agreement. We also stated in print, in

public, for the people who are all around the Province, that sick leave was off

the table, that severance was off the table, and that pension indexing was off

the table. Those are the facts. We have laid it out. It is there in black and

white. It is there in print. I just ask you, why are you trying to continue to

aggravate this strike and see it go on? I cannot understand your motives in

doing so.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the 20,000 people are on the streets because they disagree and cannot

accept the offer made by that Premier. They are not dealing with me, Mr.

Speaker. We understand our role to ask the questions.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter again is this, I am not dragging the

nurses into anything. There are 20,000 people already out there. The president

of the nurses' union and 400 of them met here a day or so ago, last evening,

to say: The concessions that they know are still on the table will never be

accepted by the nurses. The 20,000 people on the streets today are saying: They

will never be accepted by us! We said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that with a wage

freeze with 4,000 people going out the door, two out of three ain't bad,

usually.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now if he would complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

If he is not concerned about the 20,000 now, is he concerned about the

retention and recruitment issues that the nurses say that the concessions that

they know are still on the table would cause, not only for the public servants

out there now, but for the nurses of the Province as well?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I have said before. As the elected

Premier of the Province, I am very concerned about labour relations in our

Province. The people of the Province understand that we have been in power less

than six months, that we have inherited a very, very difficult fiscal situation

from the previous government. We can only sign and negotiate collective

agreements that we can afford, and that is exactly what we are doing. Our

affordability, our ability to pay here is extremely limited because we are in a

fiscal mess. Our fiscal problems, our fiscal house has to be placed in order, as

the Royal Commission has said. Our lending institutions have said the same

thing. The banks have said the same thing. Other premiers around the country,

the Atlantic Premiers, have looked at me and cannot understand how we can

possibly deal with this situation. Everybody is confirming the fiscal mess that

we have.

So, we have a responsibility to everybody in the Province, including our

public sector workers, including the nurses, including the teachers, to sign and

to enter into collective agreements that we can afford, and we are going to do

our best to achieve a fair agreement with all these units.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have already had some disruptions in our schools as a result

of the current job action, and today is the last day of classes before the

Easter break; but, as the schools break for Easter, people understand that

school boards are making plans to possibly extend the Easter break if the strike

is not concluded within the next ten days. They are expressing concerns because

they see no sign of hope and optimism to end the strike, because they also know

the concessions are still on the table.

Does the Premier, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government, have any concerns

that in ten days' time we might still see further damage and loss to the

education system and the students in the Province if he does not get back to a

different approach, the right approach, some real negotiations, stop talking

double-talk, get the concessions off the table and get a settlement for the

20,000 workers that are on the streets today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that is in eleven days' time. We are certainly hoping to

possibly settle the strike as early as this afternoon, if we could. We will be

receiving an offer from the union. If that offer is acceptable and is an offer

that we can afford, we would settle that strike this afternoon if possible.

I would ask for the co-operation of the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader

of the New Democratic Party, all members in this House, to do everything we can

to try and work together to get a settlement of this strike.

I am concerned about education. I am concerned about health care. I am

concerned about the roads in our Province. I am concerned about our valued

public sector employees. I am concerned about our nurses. I am concerned about

our teachers. We are concerned about it all and we are doing whatever we can to

reach a settlement, and we have now entered into a bargaining process whereby

they provide us their offer in writing, we respond in writing. There are no

misunderstandings. Everything is on paper. So, we are working towards a

negotiated settlement. I ask for your co-operation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One final question, again. Yesterday, again, I suggested the notion that

maybe the Premier of the Province should cool down the rhetoric a bit, unlike The

Globe and Mail , not have a hot temper but have a cool head instead. Stop

blaming everybody else, like he is doing again today. It is my fault. It is the

NDP's fault. It is somebody else's fault. It is everybody else's fault.

It is his decision to make and take. He was elected to do it. The new

approach is not working. Can't we agree again that we should stop that, start

mending fences with people like the President of the Federation of Labour,

instead of calling them names in public, Mr. Speaker? How is that going to lead

to long-standing labour peace in the Province even after this strike will

settle? Because it will at some point in time. When are we going to stop blaming

each other? When is the Premier, specifically, going to stop blaming everybody

else, start mending the fences -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: - start dealing with people with respect so that we can have

the proper relationship in this Province instead of what is happening now, a

reign of terror that if anyone dares disagree with the Premier he lashes out at

them, blames them for everything else and goes on about his business, Mr.

Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious from the questions that the Leader of the

Opposition does not want to listen. He is talking about reigns of terror. He is

trying to inflame the situation. He is trying to pour gas on a fire. We are

doing just the opposite. Cool heads will prevail.

I do want to remind the hon. members opposite, and the people in the general

public, that we will not tolerate misleading information. We have an obligation

as a government to make sure that the facts are accurately presented, and we

will present those facts as accurately as we can. If misleading facts or

incorrect facts are presented to the public, then we have an obligation to

correct them.

There is no question of blaming here today. I am asking for your

co-operation. I am asking for the co-operation of all members within this House

of Assembly to bring this to peaceful and amicable conclusion, and also a fair

conclusion.

We will all co-operate together. Where you are getting any indication that

there is anything otherwise, I am missing something. I just do not see what you

are saying.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright L'anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Minister of Health and Community Services and the Member for

Topsail abdicated her responsibilities, indicating she would not answer

questions related to the health care system and the strike. As she wished

yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I will direct my questions to the Minister of Finance

and the chief negotiator for the Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear from callers to the Open Line program, various

media reports and public remarks by hospital administrators, that a crisis is

looming in the health care sector. Essential workers and management staff are

trying their very best, but they too are getting worn down. Can the chief

negotiator tell me what his colleague, the Minister of Health and Community

Services, has done to alleviate this stressful situation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we have put in place is a contingency plan to deal with problems in all

areas, not just health care. We have committees monitoring that. They are

dealing with the situations. We are getting reports on an ongoing basis. I am

getting a detailed briefing on it every single day.

We understand that during labour unrest it is always more difficult to get

the level of service you would expect when there is no labour unrest. We

acknowledge that. The managers are working hard in many areas. They are managing

extremely well in other areas. There are always more pressures on the system

depending on the nature of what specific area it is. We don't expect the same

level of service overall that you would get when we don't have labour unrest.

I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, where the member is coming from, whether she is

implying that we should legislate and get them back to work or we should follow

the resolution that you don't want to legislate them back to work. I really

don't know what she is saying or where she is coming from. If she could make

it clear what she wants us to do, and if she has a proposal that they think is a

fair proposal -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: If they feel that have a fair proposal and want to pass

over to me what they would consider fair, on behalf of the Province, I would we

only too willing to receive it and look at the proposal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'anse

au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me make it quite clear to the hon. minister, that we are not, on this

side, advocating that you should legislate these workers back to work. What we

are saying though, Minister, is that you should be negotiating in good faith.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: You should be at the table getting these people back to work.

Now, if you don't think that the health care system in this Province is

ready to break, then, Minister, you are not in Labrador or Newfoundland, you are

in Never-Never Land, because, Mr. Speaker, that is indeed the case.

This is a very serious issue and we are dealing with real people in real life

circumstances, people whose lives, Mr. Speaker, are being gambled away at the

negotiating table.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to get to her question.

MS JONES: I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, what has he honestly done to

try and bring this strike to an end and to end the chaos that is out there in

the health care system today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess there are two options to getting people back to work. One option is

the option that my critic there in 1999 indicated, that government believes it

is far more responsible to provide pay increases that can be sustained, when she

legislated people back to work in 1999. The other option, Mr. Speaker, is to

present an agreement. If the member wants to give us what she considers to be a

fair agreement on behalf of this Province, what you would do, I would be

delighted to see it. Pass it over, we will judge, and then we will make our

decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: You are making a real fool of yourself.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: We learned that from you last year.

MR. SULLIVAN: You learned something.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking hon. members to permit each other to ask the questions and to

give the answers. I am asking members, as well, to keep their supplementaries

relatively short because brevity is the enemy of Question Period as we all know.

I go back to the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair on a final

supplementary.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the minister was doing his job with tremendous sincerity, in this case, he

would not be standing in this House asking the Health Critic to put an offer to

the collective bargaining unit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, he is the chief negotiator and he may be able to

spend the next week sending proposals back and forth from boardroom to boardroom

but, Mr. Speaker, the sick people in this Province cannot wait.

I ask the minister: What does he say to people like Ms Sheppard, whom I

listened to in the media yesterday, and I quote her. She said: My husband is

here and really he is going to die if they do not smarten up and get this strike

over.

Those are the words, Mr. Speaker, of many desperate and pleading people out

there in our Province today. Minister, what solution do you have for them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I do not in any way challenge the hon. member's sincerity and

I do not think she should challenge mine in trying to deal with this situation

here. I am dealing sincerely in getting a resolution to this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: What we are doing and what we are taking from the system is

advice from people in the system, and managers and people who are working hard -

the general public's co-operation, the managers in the system, the

non-bargaining people in the system and the collective bargaining people who are

members of unions in the system who are working to deal with a stressful

situation. I have been told that emergency and urgent cases are being attended

to. I have to listen to the professionals out there giving us that advice, not

necessarily Members of the House of Assembly or anybody else. I like to take

advice from professionals.

We understand, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult in labour unrest. It is difficult

and we want co-operation and assistance from people to deal with that, and I am

being told that urgent and emergency cases are being taken care of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member now to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: - and I respect their advice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture

and Labrador Affairs and concern another labour dispute that is occurring in the

Province as we speak.

Mr. Speaker, back in January when the harvesters and the processors of this

Province were sitting around a table trying to negotiate a price for shrimp, the

minister shoved his nose in there and issued an ultimatum. This seems to be very

common with this government as of late, Mr. Speaker. He issued an ultimatum that

if they did not reach an agreement by the end of January, he would dictate one.

Well, Mr. Speaker, he did dictate one. He dictate the hail-at-sea auction

system, something that every fisherman and plant owner in the Province knew

could not work and it did not work. Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Now

that there is another impasse in price negotiations, what ultimatum is he going

to issue today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and

Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Member for Twillingate & Fogo knows, or should know, there were no

negotiations taking place back in January on prices and that is the reason why

we did intervene at that time. There were no negotiations taking place on

implementation of the Vardy Report or the Gregory/Broderick Report and that, Mr.

Speaker, is why we intervened at that time. We gave the parties at that time

nine days to come up with their plan, and if they could not we said that we

would come up with one, Mr. Speaker. At that time we did indicate that we would

have a hail-at-sea electronic auction. Three weeks later, both parties came back

to me and presented me with a document, signed, sealed and delivered, that said:

This is how we propose to go forward with the fishery this year. This is how we

propose to negotiate prices. This is how we propose to implement the

Gregory/Broderick piece, and we will have it all done for you, Mr. Minister, by

31 March; to which I said: Thank you very much, I will pull the auction off the

table and I will talk to you at 31 March.

As the member now knows, the arbitrators rendered their decision under the

Final Offer Selection process -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. TAYLOR: - a couple of days ago, on Sunday afternoon. After that, one

of the parties decided they could not live with it. That is what is happening,

Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When the member opposite was the Fisheries critic, if there was a hiccup in

the fishing industry he stood in this House and asked me what I was going to do

about it. Well, Mr. Speaker, today there are thousands of people waiting to go

back to work, many of whom EI benefits have run out for. Mr. Speaker, I ask the

minister again today: When is he going to dictate a solution to the problem we

are now facing in the fishing industry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and

Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I guess I would ask the member what he wants us to do. Does he

want us to dictate or does he want to facilitate a negotiation?

Mr. Speaker, when we met with the various sides of the industry in January

and early February, we were trying to facilitate a process whereby industry and

union could negotiate prices for fish. We did that with shrimp, Mr. Speaker, and

we are in the process of doing that with crab also. Unfortunately, both parties

cannot agree on what the price should be. As the member knows, when I criticized

him in recent years, I talked about how he needed to address the policy issues

in the Province and how he needed to address the price setting mechanisms for

fish in this Province. We have done that, Mr. Speaker. We did that back on

January 4 and February (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. TAYLOR: - how he would react to that.

That is what we have done, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, if he has done what he says he has done, I would

not be standing here asking these questions today.

Let me ask him this, Mr. Speaker: Now that his government has forced 20,000

civil servants onto the streets of this Province and there are another 20,000

fishermen and plant workers out there without work, is he admitting that he has

bungled this whole affair and that he, himself, is lost at sea? When are you

going to do something to put these people back to work?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and

Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows - he certainly knows from

his time when he was minister - the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador

cannot set the price for fish in this Province. We do not set the price for milk

for the dairy producers. We do not set the price of potatoes for potato farmers,

and we cannot legally set the price for fish.

We can, Mr. Speaker, set out the policy directions for the government in

licensing, in quality assurance and so on, which is what we did. We have

embarked on a process that he committed to three years ago and did not do when

reviewing fish processing policy in this Province. We have, in the process,

established a licensing board so that I, and the people who come after me, do

not create excess capacity and overcapitalization -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister now to complete his question.

MR. TAYLOR: - in the industry like he did when he was there, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Under our time sequence, I will now go to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

Based on the atmosphere in the House yesterday, and what I believed to be a

genuine change of tone on the part of government, we all had pretty high hopes

for the negotiations that were going to be taking place between the government

and the public sector unions, but what we hear today, Mr. Speaker, is that the

government's position is worse on a monetary basis than when the strike

started.

I want to ask the Premier, sincerely, how he figures that is calculated to

bring an end to this strike and to negotiate a settlement as opposed to

prolonging the strike?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has been involved in the

process for a long period of time and understands the process, and he

understands that right now we are at a very delicate time in the process. They

have made their offer. We have responded with our counteroffer. They will be

responding with their counteroffer, and that is the way the process works.

I am not prepared to discuss that in public in this Chamber when it has not

been disclosed by the other side. That would be unfair and I am not prepared to

do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

[Commotion in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the members in the gallery that they are not to participate or to

demonstrate in any way, or to show any approval or disapproval of any

proceedings in the House. We welcome you to the gallery. There is a protocol we

have, and you are always welcome in the people's House; however, you are asked

not to show any disapproval or approval or to participate in any way in the

proceedings.

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We also hear today that the concessions being sought by the government are,

in fact, more onerous than the ones that were sought at the time of the strike.

I want to ask the Premier how he assumes that is calculated to bring an end to

this strike as opposed to prolonging it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will have to draw his own conclusions when he

sees what the proposal put forward by the union was, and ascertain whether that

was a reasonable proposal and whether that was, in fact, a dramatic change of

position by the union. As well, then, he can look at that from our perspective

and look at what our counter-proposal was, but I do intend to respect that

process. I do intend to keep it confidential. At such time as the union is

prepared to disclose it and wants to disclose it in public, well then I will

respect their position in doing that, and we will disclose our position at that

particular point in time.

We are doing everything we can, Mr. Speaker, to try and reach a settlement

here. That is our goal. We want to do it before the Easter weekend, if at all

possible. I am going to respect this process and not do anything to aggravate

it, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, obviously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The thirty minutes allocated for Question Period has

expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been asked. Any leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been denied.

I do believe we have a point being raised by the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A point of order. I stand to be corrected on this, I am not sure I am on

solid ground or not. It is not a major point but I think just in terms of

practice.

I understand it is a practice of the House, that members in the House do not

greet people in the galleries. If anybody is greeted in the House it is done by

the Chair. We have had two days following now where the Premier has risen and

greeted people. Just as a point of order, if that is indeed the practice we

would ask that everybody here conform with that practice.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier, on the point of order.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if it is improper for me to acknowledge

and welcome the members of the union in the gallery, then I will withdraw that

comment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will review the protocol that we follow and

consult with the Table Officers, and also look at the practices that we have in

our traditions. I will bring back a commentary on that on the next sitting day.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask

leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act to Amend the Emergency Measures Act.

(Bill 5)

Also, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act to Amend the Fire Prevention Act, 1991. (Bill

Also, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act to Amend the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I ask the visitors in our gallery that you do not participate in any

way. We want to welcome you to our House. We are always honoured to have

visitors visiting our House. Again, I am asking the members if they would

respect the traditions and the processes that we follow in the House and not to

participate in any way in the proceedings.

Thank you very much.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I also give notice that I will on tomorrow ask

leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act to Amend the Municipal Affairs Act.

(Bill 8)

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that this House resolve itself

into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions related to the

guaranteeing of certain loans under the Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957.

(Bill 15)

Also, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act.

(Bill 16)

Also, I give notice that on tomorrow I will move that the House resolve

itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions relating to

the advancing or guaranteeing of certain loans made under the Loan and Guarantee

Act, 1957. (Bill 14)

Finally, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 7)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave

to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act to Amend the Corporations Act. (Bill 4)

Also, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to

introduce a bill entitled,

An Act to Amend the Service Charges Act. (Bill 10)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask

leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act to Amend the Survival of Actions Act.

(Bill 11)

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

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled,

An Act to Revise the Law About the Practice of Optometry. (Bill 9)

I also give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill

entitled,

An Act to Incorporate the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health

Information. (Bill 17)

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright- L'anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to - I say to the Member for The Straits &

White Bay North, I will tell him all about it in just a minute.

The petition I am presenting today in the House of Assembly is with regard to

the Labrador marine services. This is the fifth time, Mr. Speaker, that I have

stood in this House of Assembly to present a petition on behalf of the people of

Cartwright- L'anse au Clair as it relates to the Labrador marine services.

Mr. Speaker, for those people who have not been following this issue, there

is an ongoing dispute as to whether the ferry that was designated for Labrador,

for the people of Labrador, that operated between Cartwright and Goose Bay will

indeed continue to operate this year, or if this government will make a decision

to move the ferry out of Labrador, out of the port of Cartwright and into

Lewisporte.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this has been an ongoing issue for some time. The people of

my district have been more than reasonable, more than cooperative with this

government on this particular issue. Back in the fall government asked for an

opportunity to hire a consultant to do a review of the service. They have had a

consultant's report in their possession since the middle of February, Mr.

Speaker, yet they have still not released that document to the public nor have

they made a decision with regard to this service.

Mr. Speaker, there are three vessels that provide marine services in that

area. One is the Trans Gulf , formerly the Nada , which is a freight

carrier that runs out of Lewisporte, all points north to Nain. No one in my

district is contesting that portion of the service. We have always maintained

and supported that the people of Northern Labrador, if they wish to use the Trans

Gulf to have their freight delivered from Lewisporte, that was their wish,

Mr. Speaker, and we support that.

Mr. Speaker, the other vessel is the Northern Ranger , which is a

passenger carrier that services the people of Labrador running between Black

Tickle, running to Cartwright, Goose Bay and all points to Nain. There has never

been question whether that boat should stay or leave. It has always been assumed

that it provides the best possible service from the port that it now operates at

in Cartwright.

The boat that is in question, though, Mr. Speaker, is the Labrador ferry, the

Sir Robert Bond , which is a passenger and freight vessel that operates

between Cartwright and Happy Valley-Goose Bay. This boat started operating out

of the port of Cartwright one year ago, and in one year the passenger capacity

on that boat nearly doubled. That shows the indication of the demand for the

service in that particular area.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, by operating that boat out of Cartwright

government saved millions of dollars. Now, today they are deliberating over

whether they will move this boat back to Lewisporte at an additional cost to the

taxpayers of this Province and doing an injustice to the people of my district

only for political reasons-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS JONES: - not for economical reasons, Mr. Speaker.

May I have leave, Mr. Speaker, to clue up my comments?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: My understanding is that leave has been denied.

MS JONES: I thank the Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker, for the

opportunity to clue up.

The only thing I can say in concluding my comments, Mr. Speaker, is that the

Premier did give us a commitment in the fall that he would look at what was most

economical -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order has been raised by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand that the Government House Leader granted some leave but I do not

believe the member's microphone is on and cannot be heard by the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I apologize. I was getting mixed signals and I think now leave has been

formerly given. I did understand it had been given and I apologize to the

member. You are free to rise and continue your presentation on your petition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Government House Leader, for the record, for granting me leave to

clue up.

In my concluding comments, I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the

Premier did make a commitment to us in the fall that he would look at that

report. He would do what is most economical and most beneficial with regard to

that service. We are holding him to his word.

Also, for the record, I would also like to indicate that there has been

support from Western Newfoundland, all of the Northern Peninsula, Labrador West

and Happy Valley-Goose Bay, organizations and groups in the form of letters, Mr.

Speaker, supporting that this service should operate out of Cartwright.

I urge the government to make a decision as soon as possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to present a petition from 1,600 people of

Bell Island pursuant to a March 30, 2004 meeting held to discuss critical

emerging Bell Island ferry issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne is presenting a petition. We ask the

cooperation of the House so we all can hear the prayer of the petitioners and we

can listen tentatively to his presentation.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the interest of time, the prayer of the petition is rather lengthy, so I

will go through the highlights, Mr. Speaker.

To the Hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in

parliament assembled, we the undersigned petitioners of Bell Island, as in duty

bound, petition, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly.

Therefore we petition:

(

A) Reconsideration of ferry rate increases; (

B) Reconsideration of proposals

to reduce Bell Island's ferry service and

schedule by 20 per cent; (

C) Proceed

with an investment in 2004 to construct a new provincial replacement ferry; (

D) Appeal for fairness for Bell Island in any 2004 ferry service

schedule

reductions; (

E) Seek to renegotiate NAPE strike essential services agreement,

which resulted in a cut of 95 per cent of Bell Island's daily schedule; (

F) Move to have all sixteen intra-provincial ferry services designated as strike

free.

As in duty bound your petitioners humbly pray.

Again, certainly as a Member of the House of Assembly, I have been asked to

present a petition on behalf of 1,600 residents of Bell Island. I take great

honour, Mr. Speaker, in standing and speaking for those 1,600 people on Bell

Island.

MR. REID: Why doesn't the member speak for them?

MR. HEDDERSON: I make no apologies to the other side with regard to my

right to stand and speak on behalf of those 1,600. Bell Island is a proud and

historic community that has to depend on a viable ferry service in order to be

an effective and independent -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not, at all, refute the right of any member to present a petition on any

issue, at any time, on behalf of the people of the Province. For clarification,

Mr. Speaker, are you aware of any rule which suggests that a member for a riding

in which the service is impacted - whether they are a private member or a

Cabinet minister - is prohibited in some way from presenting a petition? Because

the member who is sitting right next to the person presenting the petition is

the member in which the ferry service is actually located. Is there any rule,

that you are aware of, Mr. Speaker, that would prohibit the Member for

Conception Bay East & Bell Island from presenting a similar petition herself

if she wanted to?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This does not constitute a point of order in that it is not something that

affects the proceedings of the House. So consequently, the Chair rules that

there is no point of order.

We will go back for about another thirty seconds to the hon. the Member for

Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The residents for Bell Island look upon the ferry as their marine highway,

their link to the rest of the Province. They depend, Mr. Speaker, on this ferry

service for their fuel, their food, their medical needs and for transportation,

for a huge workforce that cross Conception Bay every day. Hundreds of workers

depend on that ferry service to get to and from their daily work. The ferry is

their essential lifeline for their welfare, their economic and social survival.

Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has now expired.

MR. HEDDERSON: Just a minute.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there leave for the member to continue?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, continue.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, on March 30 a public meeting was held on Bell

Island to discuss the pending strike and the ferry service. Following that

meeting, Mr. Speaker, a petition was circulated on Bell Island, and in excess of

1,600 names were affixed to that petition. I now present this petition to the

hon. House on behalf of the residents of Bell Island.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure today to stand and present a petition, another

petition I should say, from the people of my district, as well as into the

community of Codroy Valley. It goes up as far as South Branch.

I have 1,200 names on this petition concerning the possible decrease in

health care services and facilities in that area if, as anticipated, the

Department of Health restructures the Western Health Care Corporation. We all

know that the minister asked the corporation how they were going to save $3

million up to March 31, and $21 million over the next four years. Which, no

doubt, based upon information that is in the public domain now, will lead to

some very drastic cuts in health care services in that area, particularly in

clinics.

Now, we heard the word coping a lot in the last couple of days in the context

of: Are the health care facilities and services in the Province coping

throughout the strike? Well, I can assure the members opposite and the Minister

of Health, that the health care services in my neck of the woods, in

Southwestern Newfoundland, are coping on an annual basis and have for many, many

years. It is not a case of, we have any luxuries, or we have fat to cut out of

the system. They are basically coping. What the prayer here is for, we are

already down to the bones, so please do not make moves that in a cost-saving

measure starts to scrape the bone. There are minimum facilities that people in

rural Newfoundland need. They don't live in urban centres where they have

Janeways and health care centres.

What we are asking here is that the bare minimum of clinics that these people

can go to on a bi-weekly basis and see their doctor without having to incur the

cost of traveling to Port aux Basques or traveling into Corner Brook, that those

services would remain intact. They are conscious that this might happen, it is

in the wind, you know, the old saying, where there is smoke there is fire. Well,

there is certainly lots of smoke out there about what is going to happen in the

health care system in this Province and in Western Newfoundland in particular.

We would ask that this minister do the honourable thing, do the right thing,

and when the time comes douse any flames that exist, get rid of the smoke that

is there, and give the people in South Western Newfoundland the assurance that

their already bare minimum health care services and facilities will continue.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I say to the Member for Ferryland, notwithstanding the noble

efforts of the previous administration to improve the situation, we kept what

was there, we certainly didn't slash what was there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

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

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

I believe we are moving to Motion 1, which is the move that this House

approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

I believe we are going to hear, again this afternoon, from the Member for

Grand Falls-Buchans, who I believe, Mr. Speaker, if I am correct, and the

information provided from your office, has spoken right now directly - because

for people listening or tuning into the legislative channel, as critic on this

motion she has unlimited time to speak. I do want to point out, a noble effort

thus far, that she has spoken eleven hours and forty-five minutes straight; a

noble effort, I want to acknowledge. My understanding is that if you speak

another hour and forty-five minutes you would have broken the previous critic's

record who sits across from you now.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do appreciate the comments of the Government House Leader but my intention

today is not to break any records. The only record I am going to break here is

telling the people of this Province how this Budget is going to impact on them

and inflict the pain that we heard about last week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: I think, Mr. Speaker, it is only proper that I would talk,

first today, about the issue that is close at hand, and that is the issue in our

Province about 20,000 people being on picket lines all over our Province. That

is a great concern to me and I am sure every member of this House.

Tomorrow is Good Friday and Sunday is Easter Sunday. This is the time of the

year when you look at hope and encouragement, and it is a very important

religious celebration in our Christian society. I cannot help but think what it

would be like to have those 20,000 people out huddled around an oil cast with a

fire going on Good Friday or Easter Sunday morning when they should be in church

or celebrating at home, for the goodness that we all enjoy, celebrating with

their families.

I would like to say to the government opposite, up until this very moment I

have not seen any indication that we are going to see a break in that strike,

and I would say to members opposite, just forget about partisan, forget about

politics, forget about everything. Forget about the unusual moves that you have

made, and whatever, but get to work and get this settled before the weekend is

over, because I think it would be terrible to see those people out there

tomorrow, on Good Friday. I just cannot imagine it.

I wanted to let this House know that over the past ten days, I suppose, I

have received a lot of phone calls myself, about this strike. People are saying:

What is this government going to do about the strike? This one, actually, this

is the latest one that came yesterday - no, April 7 - I will not name the person

but it does come from the District of Gander, an e-mail. It is addressed to the

Member for Gander and it says: As my representative in the House of Assembly, I

ask for your help in ending the strike.

Now, I do not think the Member for Gander is listening, because this is an

e-mail which I hope he has read: Those of us in the public service made our

contribution to the financial well-being of the Province with frozen wages

through most of the 1990s, and I am willing to contribute again with the

two-year wage freeze.

Now that was a public servant who, after going through frozen wages of ten

years, in the 1990s, was willing to go through another two years of wage

freezes. It says: If concessions are removed and fair salary increases follow,

they will be willing to look after a two-year wage freeze. It says: Please

review the e-mail below that I sent to the Premier. This is the one that the

constituent in Gander sent to the Premier. It said: Dear Mr. Williams, I have

seen -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask for the co-operation of the House. We are hearing the Member for Grand

Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The e-mail went on - this one was addressed to the Premier - and said: I have

seen and I have heard you on the media over the last week suggesting that the

majority of NAPE members would vote for your contract offer of March 31 to April

4, 2004. If presented for a vote, I would not accept that offer, primarily

because of the concessions that remain on the table. I am disappointed that you

omit the details of these major concessions to the media, to the public and to

NAPE members.

I do not know if I am allowed to say this, but it says: A lie of omission is

still a lie - although I am not blaming anybody. It says: I am willing,

reluctantly, to accept the major concession of a two-year wage freeze but with

fair increases after, and no concessions. I fully support and trust my

negotiating team and Leo Puddister, and I am quite confident the vast majority

of NAPE members are like-minded.

I think that probably sums up the sentiments of all NAPE members and probably

CUPE members out there today, but I think what we are seeing, and I never

thought when this strike started - this is day eight - that it would get to this

proportion that we are experiencing today. I think it all goes back - and, you

know, I have been riding in taxis all this week, instead of taking my vehicle to

work here, out of respect for the picketers, and I have been getting off outside

the Confederation Building. I think probably a lot of us respect what we hear

from cab drivers, and they generally have an overall position of the general

public. Most of them will say: You know, what is the problem here with this

strike? Most of them will say: Well, I think the strike, the whole thing got off

on the wrong foot. The whole thing got off on the wrong foot; because, as I

stated in this House earlier this week, the Premier has been around this House

for three years and he was an observer in the gallery prior to, and he had the

consultation benefit of colleagues right around him. He had colleagues who had

sat in the Opposition for twelve years, had lots of experience, and it is clear

to see that he did not accept the benefit of that experience, because if he had,

the first thing he would have done on becoming elected Premier, he would have

put his Blue Book in his Premier's Office right on his desk and called in all

of the groups to whom he made promises. The very first group that he should have

called in were the people who ensure the economy of this Province. They are

union membership and the leaders who represent them.

We already heard today here about the public sector membership of CUPE and

NAPE. We also know that there is the Association of Registered Nurses of

Newfoundland and Labrador coming up. We know about the Newfoundland and Labrador

Teachers' Association. We also heard about fisherpeople. You know, you have

the largest group in the Province, of people who are going to generate the

dollars that are going to drive this economy.

It is interesting to make a comparison of private business and running

government. It is never easy, I know, when you have to look at a bottom line on

a financial statement. You can just arbitrarily make decisions if you own a

company. You make those decisions, people get their pink slips and they leave,

and that is all you hear of them. You do not do that in government. You

certainly do not do that in government, because if people get their pink slip in

government there are a lot of effects that come from that pink slip. Number one

is directly to that person and their family, and it is always the indirect

effect of not being able to provide the services.

I do not care what anyone says in this House; if you have five people doing

one job and then you reduce it to two people, you are not going to get the same

end result. You are going to have people stressed, people are going to use more

sick leave, their morale is going to be shot, and they are just not going to be

performing at the workplace. I do not think that is any mystery. Anyone who has

been in business or has been in any kind of profession will -

[Comment from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I ask members who are visiting the gallery to respect the proceedings

within the House, and I ask for their co-operation. Again, we inform you that

you are always welcome; however, we ask you not to participate in debates in any

kind of way.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While I do not condone disorder in the public House, we all acknowledge that

what we have heard in the past two days is definitely a feeling of frustration

that workers out there are expressing. I guess we only need to put ourselves in

the position of those workers who have been sitting in our gallery the past two

days.

Just imagine if you were one of those workers, and yesterday was payday, and

your paycheque was $200 or $210, and you had to make a mortgage payment, buy

groceries, pay your heat and light, your telephone, your children have expenses

and you have a car payment to make. My goodness, wouldn't that make anybody

angry, frustrated and want to vent their frustration even though there are

supposed to be rules in this House?

I think what is happening now, after ten days, our health care system is

going to break down. It has already started. We are hearing, in the media, that

there are cracks in the system. I, myself, had a call this morning from a

constituent of mine. Her sister had been diagnosed just two days ago with

terminal cancer, and she lives on the Northern Peninsula. She is trying, like

everything, to get her sister into St. John's for immediate surgery, and I am

doing my utmost. I am trying to help my constituent assist her sister in getting

that surgery that her sister needs. These are the kinds of things.... All

hospitals and health care facilities can generally cope - and when I say cope -

they can just make do for probably four or five days. After that, there are

going to be cracks in the system.

We have heard it said, and my colleague, the Member for Cartwright-L'anse

au Clair, said today that she was repeating what she had heard in the media and

from people who work at those institutions, that our elderly now are not able to

take up the recreation activities that they had. In fact, some of them are

confined to their beds because there is just not enough human power to take them

out of their beds and sit them in chairs and do all the normal things that they

used to do. Even the fact of trying to get their meals on time and having

someone to feed them.

Everyone knows today that most families have two people working in a family.

How are people juggling that time to actually go to these senior care homes and

try to feed and dress and wash and care for their aged parents?

This is day eight and, without question, something has to be done. Something

has to be done going into this Easter weekend.

I am wanting to go back now, at this time, on the path where I started. That

was asking for the co-operation of union leaders when the time was right, and

not expecting it after the fact. If our Premier had to do what he had promised

in his Blue Book and in the speeches that he made to the NAPE convention and all

the different places that he went throughout the Province prior to the election

and prior to the campaign and during the campaign, he would have clearly built

up the relationship with union leaders and their membership - a relationship of

trust. Now, that trust has been shattered. There is no question, that trust has

been shattered.

I was looking over some of the things that the Premier had said. I do not

have it available to me right now, but he definitely talked about no job layoffs

in the public sector, and he made that commitment to the NAPE annual convention.

I think that the membership of NAPE, they bought into that. They certainly

bought into that. In fact, the leader publicly expressed that the Premier has

been his friend for many years, and he certainly did believe the statement that

the Premier had made. He took him at his word and he encouraged his membership

to do likewise, but I think - the Premier has not acknowledged this, but he

should. He has not acknowledged the fact that there was no relationship of trust

and goodwill built up prior to January 5 with the people he would have counted

on at this particular moment to negotiate a settlement, bring it back to their

members, being the best for their members and the best for the people of the

Province. That is what it is all about.

There is an onerous task on union leadership. There is an onerous task,

because any union leader serves a membership just the same as we serve

constituents. They are tasked with the job of looking for the best package of

employee benefits and wages and everything that goes into that package, whether

it be severance, whether it be paid leave, vacations, and salary increase has

been the key one. So, they are charged with finding the best package, the best

envelope they can for the membership that they represent. That is their job.

The Premier of the Province is also charged with finding the best deal that

he can for the people of the Province, and that means being able to provide the

best services and being able to get the best people to provide those services at

a good and fair level of salary and related benefits. Now, it is very difficult

to achieve that. If you do not have a good relationship built up going into the

bargaining process, it is going to put a big task on the union leader to go back

and sell something to the members that he feels, in his own mind, that he cannot

accept nor can he sell. Now, if the union leadership had, prior to January 5,

the Premier's address to the people of this Province, if they had to have been

into the Premier's Office and laid their cards on the table and said: We are

approaching April 1; we know the situation in the Province. Is there some

cooperation here that we can talk about from both sides? You open up the books

now, Mr. Premier, and let us have a look ourselves. We have a relationship that

we had built up previously, with the previous Administration. They had gone a

long way. They had a new relationship with business, government and labour. I

can clearly state - I was the minister in charge at that time in the Department

of Labour - we had, for the first time in ten years, built up a new

relationship.

You can talk to anybody out there in the business community; things were

generally different. We had taken a lot of issues concerning labour off the back

burner. We had brought them out to the front burner and we had dealt with them

through legislation in this House of Assembly. They were pleased that there was

so much action taken on the labour front.

People who operated businesses in this Province were starting to feel that we

had crossed many of the hurdles in developing a common relationship because we

were all scoring for the same end result, which was for the good of the whole

economy.

The Premier is into a bit of a bind at this time. He is definitely into a bit

of a bind. He has never - since January 5, when he came out blatantly,

arrogantly, and said to the whole world, or to the whole Province, all of the

workers, that they were getting a wage freeze.

If the union had been party to that announcement and felt a degree of trust

and a degree of co-operation for this Premier, it could have been more palatable

at the time, but it was not. It seemed to be arrogant and uncaring. It looked

like, to the general public, it was strictly a business decision. It looked like

it was strictly a business decision, that the Premier looked at his set of books

and said: This is what we are going to do. Of course, the easiest angle through

all of that was the most obvious. Most of the money paid out in government goes

to public sector workers. This is the age-old tactic that most Premiers will

use.

I am proud to say that since the downsizing, or right sizing, whatever was

done in 1996, there have not been any pink slips given out in the fall of the

year up to Christmas, or any time since.

This is the problem, Mr. Speaker. The Premier of our Province is definitely

on a crossroads as I speak today, because with no interaction from the people

who matter the most, a business decision was made, clear cut: I will cut this,

this, this and this. He was into a bit of a tight spot because he had been out

in the general public and he had made commitments that he was not going to cut

out public sector jobs. So the problem was, how was he going to get around that

obstacle? The way he saw about getting around that obstacle was, well, through

attrition. There will not be massive cuts, because if you cut and it is not

massive it is not a cut; but it is a cut. Any cut to public service employees is

definitely a cut. You can say it any way you want to say it, but a cut is a cut

whether it is through attrition or a layoff or whatever. If you do not replace

that position that is there -

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Government

House Leader.

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

I rise on a point of order, or more on a point of information. The member has

unlimited time, so I am not eating out of any time that she would have.

I wonder, would the member acknowledge that while she was part of a Cabinet

that three years prior to that government losing power, that they actually had a

policy in place that, when individuals retired, they would not be replaced

through attrition? Will she acknowledge for three years that was ongoing and

there was no public statement on it?

I want to provide some evidence of that. In the Department of Forestry, the

division of forestry within my Department of Natural Resources, for example,

fifty-seven positions over a period of three to four years, what I have been

told, individuals retired but were not hired back because of their policy of

attrition.

I wonder, will she acknowledge that her government had a policy of attrition

in place, just like this one, but the only difference is that this government

has told people about it and you did not? I wonder, will she acknowledge that,

Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, the hon. the Opposition

House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the point of order, which the hon. Government House Leader knows full well

is not a point of order, in terms of a point of information, I am not sure if he

was asking a question or giving the information but in any case he knows full

well that Question Period takes place by us asking the questions and not him.

We would appreciate it again that, notwithstanding the member's unlimited

time, it would be greatly appreciate if he did not disrupt her cohesive

presentation of the facts that she is giving to the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order; a point of clarification, probably, but

definitely not a point of order.

The debate will resume with the hon. the Member for Grand Falls- Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, acknowledge that there is no point of order.

I must say that I was party to what we call regionalization, where we

distributed the wealth of government employment and we put it outside the

overpass. I must say, in the District of Grand Falls-Buchans we were proud to

have a new addition of Fisheries and Aquaculture, where the industry is. We were

proud to have medicare, MCP, and we were proud to expand the Department of

Labour, and we were proud to bring in the fuel oil commissioner's office

there. That is what spreading the wealth all around is about, not leaving it

inside the overpass.

I remember at the time, the now sitting member of government pooh-poohed that

particular move. In fact, the Member for Windsor-Springdale was against it, and

it has brought economic benefit all around our Province that has become the best

thing yet.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, to my speech, because I know the object of the

interference was to get me off track and not speak about the particular matter

at hand which is the strike. The matter at hand, as I said before, it is very

easy if you are a business person and trying to make cold, hard decisions. Cold,

hard decisions, when you look at your financial bottom line when you are a

business person, you do the obvious and you make cuts and you move on, but when

you are a part of government - I came from private enterprise myself and I had a

great transition to make because my greatest obstacle, when I first came to

government, was trying to rationalize, in my mind, how it took so long to get

things done. Because, coming from private business, or public business - public

and private - you are used to getting things done on the customer's request

and providing excellent service. Within government, I had to get used to the

fact that it took a long time to get the same job done in government and you had

to know your way around the system and have your contacts and then you got

things done. Being in business, you look at a business decision month to month,

but in the case of government it is generally on an annual basis when it comes

time to do a budget. So, it is not the same comparison whatsoever in making a

business decision to cut out jobs as being in government and deciding to cut out

jobs. If you are the Premier of a Province and you decide a make a unilateral

cut in the public service, there are many things to think about. Yes, your

bottom line will improve. Yes, you will not be looking at pensions to pay out in

years to come, but, in fact, what you might be doing, you may be depriving

people of a pension. There are many people who will leave this public service

with not the required number of years. They will be getting a partial pension or

no pension. Then you have to look at: Will you be able to deliver the services

that the general population of this Province have been accustomed to receiving?

That is another consideration. Where are the jobs going to be cut? Which sector?

Which sector will be least impacted? Are you going to cut the jobs in the

schools where our young students are? People in rural communities are going to

have a reduced curriculum unlike if they were in a bigger centre. Are you going

to cut the jobs in health care where the people are vulnerable and need

excellent service, and the best of equipment, and the best of professionals, as

they would in a school and education system? Are you going to cut it on the

maintenance, the roads and the bridges? Are you going to cut it in service

delivery, in government services?

All of these questions are real. Where are you going to cut out those jobs?

You might have a rural community that might have two government jobs. Two

government jobs in a small community is like having 100 in Grand Falls-Windsor

or Gander. Are you going to put people on our welfare system by cutting out

these jobs, that normally would not be on our welfare system? There are a lot of

people working for the public sector who are receiving low wages. Now, if they

are put out the door and cannot find work, are we going to then add them to our

social service roles, and have to provide all the benefits that come with being

on social services and all the services? That is more costly than if we had them

employed. Then you have to think about, none of that money they would be

normally getting is coming back into our economy. It is only a drain on our

economy if they cannot produce. So, it is not like when you are a private

business and you say: Well, I have a decision to make. I have to take twenty

jobs out of this system, and that is it.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of mistrust, and I think that is the reason

for the position we are in. I was surprised myself to see - after government

laid their offer on the table for the public sector - that public sector

members, CUPE and NAPE, were willing to actually go with a two year wage freeze.

So they, themselves, were buying into the tonic and medicine that the Premier

had proposed. But, when it came to the crunch of losing something that the NAPE

and CUPE members had negotiated and bargained for, for years and years and

years, that was a bitter pill to swallow. That is where the stumbling block was.

I am not privy to the bargaining that is going on. What I hear is what I hear in

the general public and from people themselves who are affected. I get phone

calls from union members, I get phone calls from constituents, and I get phone

calls from businesses around the Province that are very concerned about what is

going on here today. Any community can accept a few days of inconvenience, and

any facility can, but I am hearing now that the people in the Province are

concerned and other unions are concerned.

There was a story today in the paper, "Nurses won't cut

benefits". It says here, "As if Premier Danny Williams didn't have

enough to worry about - and he does have a lot to worry about - the province's

nurses have sent a stern reminder that they're waiting in the wings.

"At the call of its leadership, about 400 nurses packed a hotel ballroom

Wednesday night to serve notice they're watching and learning as government

grapples with one of the largest public sector strikes in the province's

history."

I think what is happening now is that whatever comes out of this strike -

there will be a settlement some time, every strike ends. The fallout, I think,

is what is going to be important, because the last time that our public sector

went through ten years of wage freezes they were absolutely demoralized. They

were absolutely demoralized! Sick leave was at its highest point in our Province

and they didn't feel good about their situations. There was a helpless feeling

out there that they were not keeping in line with their counterparts in Atlantic

Canada. That is the measuring stick. All the public sector in our Province look

at their counterparts and the first place they look is Atlantic Canada. Then

they look and see what other professions like theirs are paying. It is only

natural that they talk amongst themselves, and if they are not making what their

counterparts are making - they still have the growing expenses of running a

household that everybody has. They are slipping behind and that is a

demoralizing feeling and it is natural that the morale of a group like that

would be shattered. That is what happens.

You are going to hear that again from nurses and you are going to hear it

from teachers. Teachers put forward a strong argument to the former

administration when I was there. They said that even though Dr. Williams and Dr.

Sparkes had done their report, what we needed to take into consideration was the

fact that the geography of our Province is so vast that - I acknowledge that

myself, just flying over our Province and seeing all the communities and all the

road systems, all the water systems, all the sewer systems, and the number of

people scattered throughout. Providing services to Newfoundland and Labrador is

the biggest challenge, I think, of any province in Canada, but what does it mean

to rural Newfoundland and Labrador? If you go strictly by a report by Dr.

Williams and Dr. Sparkes, you would be playing the numbers game. Based on the

number of students, you would apply the number of teachers to match the number

of students, and there are plenty of educators in this House who know exactly

what I am talking about.

Now, that all looks well and fine in a glossy report and it looks good when

you are just basically looking at black and white and numbers, but you try to

tell that to somebody in rural Newfoundland who is trying to get a good

education, one that when they attend Memorial University they will not flunk out

in their first year because they do not want any surprises and find out they

have not been doing the courses they needed to do in order to get through their

first year and start a foundation on a degree program.

You tell the people in rural Newfoundland that you are going to have to get

your education by long distance. You are going to have to look into a computer

screen. I am sorry, but based on a certain report by a certain group of

professionals who get a good report, this is what it says. We are going to live

by those guidelines today and that means the following. That means, based on the

new government, the Williams' government, we are going to take almost 400

teachers out of this system in the next two years. Now, how is that going to

impact your school board? I do not know how that is going to impact the school

board because the half messages that have been put out by this government are

alarming; the half messages.

A few nights ago I had the occasion to look at Roger's Cable and I saw an

interview done with the CEO for Avalon East. He was being interviewed by an

interviewer who was asking the question as to how he figured the outcome of the

consolidation of school boards was going to affect Avalon East and Avalon West.

Well, he had a very good memory because he had gone through education reform and

he had also gone through the amalgamation of school boards after that. He said,

the one missing ingredient in this particular exercise that is being undertaken

by the new Williams' government is the fact that there has been no

consultation. No consultation. He said he recalls, himself, that when the last

change was made after education reform and the new boards were put into place,

before anyone at all could get down to the business of the day, which actually

was dealing with student issues and curriculum, and how they could improve the

well-being of students in the classroom and the teachers who were giving them

guidance, before they could actually do that, it took at least three years into

the system of consolidation.

This new government, called the Williams' government, is embarking on this

plan of consolidating school boards. They have not gone around the Province and

done one iota of consultation, not one. No consultation, just do as I say.

There is one thing at play here. There was a democratic exercise that elected

all of those individual members to those school boards for four years. That is

what we are so proud of in our society: democracy. Those members who were

elected, democratically, have a four-year term. They are supposed to have a

four-year term where they can have the say as to how their particular board

should operate. The schools will have the opportunity to have representation

through their board members, but what has this new government done? They said:

We do not care about democracy; you are out of here.

They are definitely out of here. We have a plan. We are going to consolidate

the school boards and, by golly, it is going to be up-and-running for September

1, 2004. Here are your layoff notices; you can reapply for your job. Good luck.

That is what we are saying, the new government.

Do you know something? This government did not go out and consult with the

people. This government did not go out and consult with the students. They did

not go out and consult with the school boards. They did not consult with the

community, or the Chamber of Commerce, or any players that make up the vast

array of people who would be involved in the school operation of a particular

board. They did not do that.

That is the part that is galling. There are communities out there today that

have operations in their communities, of school boards. I do not think it is

right for a government who has a new approach to come out and leave half pieces

of information and then have communities fighting amongst themselves for the

scraps. Communities fighting amongst themselves for the scraps, that is what it

is all about. It is just tearing the whole economic fibre in half.

Right now they have come out and announced in their Budget that there will be

consolidation and we are going to have mega school boards. They have not had the

courage or the common decency to come out and say to communities: This is where

the school board is going to be and this is going to be the makeup and this is

what we can expect. We have done the consultation, we have done our homework,

and this is the new plan. Instead of that, they have run roughshod over the

people, with no care or concern.

Now, for a Premier who has a right-wing agenda of doing everything with the

justification that it is for the generations to follow, I do not think anyone

there now - young people - can take much heart from that. If he is making these

decisions and the justification of the generations to follow, if I were a young

person out there today looking for a job, I would be a little bit concerned. I

would be a little bit disappointed and I would be discouraged. I would be

discouraged. I am discouraged as an adult, as a parent and as a politician, but

I am trying to give hope to the people in my constituency and the people around

the Province. I would definitely be concerned because if this is the idea of

helping the students, deciding on consolidation of school boards without any

input from those who are going to use it the most, what is there in this

right-wing agenda that gives any encouragement to a young person who is looking

to be employed in this Province today?

Prior to January 5, young people around our Province were ecstatic. They were

feeling good; they were involved. There was a group, as the former

Administration, an advocacy group of young people advocating on behalf of their

peers, independently, providing information to government through non-partisan

makeup. Everybody had to apply and they were selected from officials in the

department, based on their gender, their geography, and their skills that they

could bring. It was a good group and they brought a lot of good information to

government through way of their group and also the Canadian Federation of

Students. All around the Province, students were genuinely interested in talking

to government and letting us know, when we were the government, what their needs

were.

Of course, based on our fiscal capacity we made incredible changes in the

past three years, so much so that our first budget, under the leadership of our

present Opposition Leader, was an education budget. We were very proud of that

one, and every student in the Province will acknowledge that.

What does a student have to look forward to today when they know that they

cannot apply for a job in the public service? There will be 4,000 jobs gone that

will not be replaced. They have been ordered - the two primary public

institutions in our Province, the College of the North Atlantic and Memorial

University, which we are all so very proud of - to find $2 million each within

their budget. That means that either program delivery is going to be decreased

or people will lose their jobs. If people lose their jobs, they are not able to

deliver programs so effectively.

In addition to that, there is no hope - according to a Doug House report -

that rural Newfoundland will be maintained as we know it today. That is a

frightening prospect. That is a frightening prospect. It is very well for

professional officials to sit in the office at Confederation Building, look into

their computer screen and map out what they feel is the be-all and end-all for

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I can tell you something now. If you

come from rural Newfoundland and Labrador - I suppose, growing up in Carbonear,

you would not exactly call it rural. We were only about - in those days - about

an hour-and-a-half from St. John's. It is closer now with the improved

highway. I understand rural Newfoundland, growing up without indoor plumbing. I

understand all of that. I experienced all of that. I have experienced everything

since I have been a politician.

I know what it is like to go to the food bank and pick up a bag of groceries

for a constituent. I know what that is like. I know what it is like to lobby to

try to get false teeth for a person. I know what it is like to try to get home

care. I know what it is like to try and lobby to get an apparatus put in a

bathroom so a disabled person can be comfortable. I know what it is like to

lobby Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to get a piece built on a house because

there is a disabled person who needs to put a bedroom there. I know what it is

like to go to Value Village and pick up clothing for a constituent in my

district. I know all about this stuff.

I know what it is like to be a politician around rural Newfoundland, but I do

not know if Dr. Doug House knows what it is like. Because if you can sit down in

your office in the new Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development and

you can map out what you feel is the answer to the economic woes of this

Province, without experiencing it firsthand, day to day. He has a twelve-year

plan that he had prepared. He had this plan prepared twelve years ago and he was

waiting for the opportunity when he could put this into action. Now, his first

assignment - and I am not saying anything negative about the man. I am not

saying anything negative about the man. All I can say is that his vision of

economic development is probably not the same as most people in the Province. He

developed a plan twelve years ago which was not, at that time, acceptable to

that particular government. He had an opportunity some few months ago to write

what we know today as the Blue Book for the Tory Party. He was the author of the

Blue Book for the Tory Party, the one that wrote all the promises that the new

government now are trying to hide under the desk and wiggle around.

MR. GRIMES: Who was that, the Premier himself or Doug House?

MS THISTLE: Doug House.

MR. GRIMES: Doug House.

MS THISTLE: Doug House.

MR. GRIMES: The unelected minister.

MS THISTLE: The unelected minister.

So, right now the new government are in a bit of a quandary. They are trying

to wiggle around everything that is in that Blue Book by coming up with a new

legal word. So cuts, unless they are massive, are not cuts in the public

service.

MR. REID: If you open half of the hospital, you have opened it.

MS THISTLE: My colleague just mentioned to me, my colleague from

Twillingate & Fogo - and I heard him this morning on the Open Line. By

golly, he is a politician with a heart. He is from Carbonear, where I am from,

and I am proud to say that, and we have another colleague here from

Carbonear-Harbour Grace. I can tell you, this colleague from Twillingate &

Fogo has a heart. He championed and lobbied to have a new hospital in Fogo,

despite, Mr. Speaker, all the activity and the protests and the to and fro of

people on the Island. Eventually, it came together and Fogo Island was the

recipient of a brand new health care facility. This member here, I can remember

when he was lobbying us in Cabinet for that, and he put forward a really strong

case. He is a politician that understands rural Newfoundland. He knows his

district needed that new facility. We found, as part of the former

administration, the money to build that facility. I think it was somewhere in

the vicinity of $17 million - was it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Thirteen million dollars to build a facility on Fogo Island;

a brand new facility. Now, everything was going good. The Premier of our

Province was out in Gander this week. He was not out on Fogo Island. Mr. Speaker

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I said the Premier of our Province this week was

out in Gander for some kind of a luncheon that someone had arranged, or he

arranged. In the midst of that, we heard from the media after that he made a

very troubling announcement which was going to affect the people on Fogo Island.

He made a decision - I do not know, by himself or on the fly, or somewhere. I do

not think the Health Minister knew anything about it. I tell you what else is

important, the mayor never knew anything about it. None of the mayors out there

on Fogo Island knew anything about it, or any people in the health care, they

did not know anything about it. The people in the Province did not know anything

about it, his Cabinet did not know anything about it, and his caucus did not

know anything about it. He made an announcement out in Gander, when questioned,

that the Fogo Hospital is going to open with only half the hospital available to

the people on Fogo Island. Now, can you imagine how callous and heartless

someone could be, as to come out and make an announcement like that?

I understand that the Minister of Health does not know, and she just left

this House. How can a Premier, in the height of the biggest strike in this

Province's history, head out in the middle of it for a luncheon engagement?

Then to slap news like this on the general population and the people of Fogo

Island, and aggravate people like that without having the common decency and

courtesy - never told a member, never told his caucus, never told the Cabinet,

never told any mayor on Fogo Island, not one, that he was going to do this, and

to come out and levy that on the people of Fogo Island. I mean that is callous,

that is heartless. What other words can you use to describe it?

It is just like the Minister of Human Resources and Employment and the

Minister of Finance in his Budget, they came out and said they were going to

close twenty offices of Human Resources and Employment. They never had the

courage, they never had the compassion, they never had the decency to come out

and give the rest of that announcement. No, they never had the gumption to do

it; the soul.

Anyway, there are twenty communities out there somewhere in our wonderful

Province that is going to lose these offices. There are also many people -

MR. REID: Probably the one in Fogo.

MS THISTLE: It might be Fogo. It could be anywhere in my district. It

could be in members across the way or it could be anybody here. We do not know.

That gives rise to the next question. Was there any planning? Was there any

consultation? Was there any interaction with the people who use that system? No,

I do not think so. That was a decision that was made by one person. Every time

the Minister of Human Resources and Employment is asked that question, she does

not know the answer. She does not know the answer.

That gives rise to the other question. They are talking about integrating

hospital boards. Now, has there been any consultation done on that?

MR. REID: Not a word. Just like they did with the school boards.

MS THISTLE: The same thing as they did with the school boards. There is a

big void in this government and it is called connecting with the people. There

is a big void in this government. I said yesterday, when I stood on my feet,

this very important phrase: the biggest casualty of this government has been the

truth.

If you mind to look at any decision that has been made by this government -

although I doubt if it is the entire government that is making the decisions. I

have seen a lot of members in the nosebleed

section here since we opened this

House, they have had to look down at their desks. I have seen members in the

nosebleed

section of the government, they could not look me straight in the

face, and they could not look at members on this side of the House straight in

the face because they know the medicine that is being proposed for the people of

this Province is going to inflict a lot of pain. There has been no consultation

done with the people. There is no connection to the government and the people.

Who does the government work for? That is the next question. Who does the

government work for? Who elected this Member for Grand Falls- Buchans? Who

elected this member?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I ask that the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans be heard. She has been

recognized by the Chair and if members would show some respect and allow her to

speak.

I call on the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans to continue with her wisdom.

MS THISTLE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

It is clear that the members of the governing side do not take this exercise

very seriously. They are laughing in their seats and yet, here they are, they

have to deal with 20,000 people who are stood around an oil cast out there today

stroking a fire. That is what they have to deal with over Good Friday, tomorrow,

and Easter Sunday, and they are sitting back in their chairs laughing away.

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

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

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

It is one thing to stand and have the opportunity to do what you want to do.

That is fair enough and that is not for me to judge or not to judge, but, Mr.

Speaker, to play to the cameras like the member just did, to say that members on

the government side are all laughing when you stood up and asked members, all

members, on both sides of the House, to hear the hon. member.

She knows full well that there were a number of members engaged in

conversation on both sides of the House. For her to insinuate or leave the

impression that government members on this side were all laughing at what she

was saying, she knows that not to be true. She is standing right here; she knows

it not to be true. Her own colleagues to the left of her were engaged in

conversation with colleagues on the other side of the House and the impression

is wrong. I ask the member if any of us, at any time, are doing that, fair

enough, but not to leave an impression that you know not to be true and try to

leave that with the public who might be listening to you.

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. PARSONS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

This is the second time this afternoon the Government House Leader has stood

up. Again, I would submit it is not a point of order. It might be a point, it

may be a valid point, but it is not a point of order.

I guess all of us here, from time to time, maybe smile some times when we are

not supposed to smile and people make remarks and so on. What he himself, in

addressing the issue, has done is exactly what he is suggesting that the Member

for Grand Falls-Buchans has done, which is trying to make another side, or

someone in this House, feel inappropriate or in some way had done something

inappropriate.

I think, again, I would say we have done okay in the past couple of weeks

except for some incidents in this House. Hopefully, we are going to get back on

the right track, but I think if we keep interjecting at every opportunity just

to get one up on somebody in this House again we are going to find ourselves

back to where I thought we had moved on from.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes there is no point of order. The actions

of individuals here in this House sometimes are not related to what members are

saying in their speech. There is certainly no point of order, but I ask all

members of the House if they would be kind enough to allow the Member for Grand

Falls-Buchans, who has been recognized by the Chair, to speak without

interruption. If there is a conversation to be carried out, maybe it can be done

on the outside or behind the Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly appreciate your ruling on that particular point of order. There

was no point of order and that is about, I suppose - I have not been counting,

but I think it is up in the high forties, the number of times I have been

interrupted since I started my speech, by a member from the other side. Anyway,

that is not going to deter me, not in the least.

Before I was interrupted, I was saying: How did people in this House of

Assembly get elected? Now, I am the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans. I did not

get elected by a broker on Wall Street. I did not get elected by a broker on

Wall Street or Water Street. I got elected by people, real people, in Grand

Falls-Buchans. I am proud and privileged and honoured that they gave me another

chance to do the work for them for the next term. They have put their confidence

in me and I certainly will not let them down. I will be vigilant for their

concerns. I appreciate the chance to do that, but the government here in this

Province was elected by the people. Now, they are only in government a very

short time and if they have not made any connections so far with the people who

put them there, they should be worried. They should be worried. They should be

really worried, because I have seen members opposite, I have seen the members

there who are not into Cabinet, and they have been watching events in this House

and they have been concerned. They have been concerned; there is no two ways

about it. They show it. They show it - expressions and sometimes expressionless

faces. They look down at their work on their desk and they cringe in their

seats. They have to go back and report to their constituents as well as anyone

else.

It is time that this government look at their past performance over the past

few months. I will not get them a rating on their House session. That will be

left for the people of the Province to do. They can do the rating on that, but

we have on our hands today a very serious situation. I, for one - and I know

that all members feel the same way - want that matter cleared up because it is

having a huge effect. I saw an

article in the paper from the Mayor of St.

Anthony. The Mayor of St. Anthony was very concerned about how this is hurting

his community economically. I have heard from mayors all over the Province. They

are concerned. They were concerned January 5 but they felt that once April 1

came and the matter of the public sector labour dispute was looked after, they

would be okay, but we are into day eight and I wonder: Is there any end in

sight? I really sympathize with the people who are out there tomorrow, on Good

Friday. That is going to be hard to look at. That is going to be hard to look

at. I think what the Premier needs to look at is the lesson and the comments

that he is hearing in the media. People want straightforward answers and they

want to see a sign of compassion. They want to see someone being reasonable, and

I think if you go by that and try to develop the relationship, instead of

destroy it, you might get a settlement.

I was listening to, the other night, the open line show, and the Member for

Gander talked about the hard-core reality the fiscal situation. He said: There

are serious problems in the health care which first must be addressed. There is

a serious shortage of doctors in his own district, and thousands of people do

not have a physician.

Well, you know, I am proud to say that we were an Administration that

addressed the shortage of doctors in this Province. We addressed it by providing

funding to hire new doctors and also funding to increase the pay scales of

doctors.

I understand there is an issue in Gander. He also said that people in his

district agreed with the Budget measures that were brought down last week. I

wonder, is that the real truth? I do not think so. When we were the government,

people from Gander were continually asking for the completion of their hospital.

They were asking for the completion of their hospital and, I can tell you, the

former member, the Cabinet minister, was successful in attracting some $65

million to that particular health care facility, and for the new member to come

out and say that the people now are satisfied and they are going to take their

medicine, and they are not concerned about the hospital being deferred, I do not

know if that is the real impression of the people of Gander. I wonder, is he

really speaking for his constituents? It is hard to say, isn't it? The e-mail

that I read out here this afternoon was addressed to the Member for Gander,

asking him to get involved.

SOME HON. ME