April 1, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 12

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to rise on a point of privilege, according

to Standing Order 15 of our rules and procedure, and take a minute to lay out the point of

privilege as I understand it.

It came to my attention this morning that apparently a

member of this Legislature, supposedly from one of the Opposition parties, in the course

of debate last night, in the events that occurred in this Legislature, where we did have -

and we always welcome visitors to our gallery, because we would like for them to hear all

sides of the debate, understanding that they are welcome as long as they abide by the

rules, the same as we do in the Legislature.

I understand that after several incidents yesterday -

and we have had incidents in the past several days, because we are debating a fairly

contentious piece of legislation, and we have the right and we are elected to do so - that

the Speaker, you, Your Honour, cleared this Legislature after several events, and you, who

are the lone arbitrator of what happens in this House, declared after several warnings

that if there was another disturbance the gallery would be closed permanently for the

remainder of the parliamentary day. That was a ruling from the Chair, from yourself, Mr.

Speaker; not a ruling from the government, not a ruling proposed by the Opposition, but a

ruling from the Chair that we always abide by.

The information this morning - which really impedes our

ability to perform our duties here in the House, especially when we have visitors, and

especially if we ourselves are suggesting to the visitors that the rules are different

than what they really are -, the statement on one of the open line programs this morning

was that a member of the Opposition visited with our visitors in the main lobby - after

the doors were closed permanently for the day, after three or four incidents, and at the

instruction of yourself as the Speaker, the only person charged with responsibility to

conduct the business of this House according to the rules -, a member of the Opposition,

one of us, one of the elected members, went to the group and said: We would love to have

you back in, we invite you back in, we are trying to get you back in, but the Liberals

won't let you in the Legislature.

I contend it is a very grave breach of privilege for all

of us if somebody knowingly misrepresents the rules of this Legislature. I would like

maybe an opportunity now for someone in the Opposition to stand and acknowledge that, if

that did occur, because it was only reported on open line. I don't know if it happened or

not, but people believe it occurred. If that is the case, the conduct of ourselves as

members, when we misrepresent our own rules - especially when we are in periods of heated

debate, when we want to have the galleries full so people can hear all sides of the matter

debated in this Chamber -, if we ourselves are going to misrepresent the rules and suggest

that one side or the other of this Legislature determines if the gallery is opened or

closed, then I believe my privilege has been offended as a member. Because somebody has

misrepresented what occurs in this Chamber. It is serious. It was obviously deliberate if

it happened, and I think all of us should feel offended.

I know you would rule on it at some point in the future

after considering it. It is certainly an opportunity for someone who, if they did do it,

to stand and acknowledge that they made a mistake, and apologize, so that we can proceed

for the rest of the day with at least all of us acknowledging what the rules are, and

those who have come to join us understanding what the rules are and your role, Mr.

Speaker, on behalf of all of us in enforcing the procedures in this Legislature.

I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you take that particular matter

of privilege under advisement, and if appropriate at some future point, I would move the

appropriate motion under our Standing Orders to have it investigated further.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there is a due process.

It is what debate in this Legislature is all about. I would contend that there is no point

of privilege from this point of view. As the minister himself has said, he did not know if

it happened, he did not hear it himself, but that he heard that it did happen from

someone.

However, I contend there is no point of privilege, and

that it is a reminder to everybody in this House. The reality and the truth of how the

process in this Assembly works is that through our Standing Orders, standing traditions of

the House, tested, held to be true, that provide for the appropriate amount of debate to

take place on all matters and legislation before this Assembly.

I acknowledge as well, for all people in the gallery to

understand as well, that the Speaker of the Assembly is the impartial Chair of this

Assembly. He decides what is appropriate, he governs not only my behaviour, the Premier's

behaviour - and sometimes he could control the ministers' behaviour a little better, but

that is only an opinion - the ministers' behaviour, and all of us, and also the activities

in the public gallery.

I will contend and say I believe the minister has no

point of privilege. He has not laid before this House one single shred of evidence to

suggest, in a definitive way, that such activity occurred. If it did I can only say this.

We uphold and live and die by the rulings of the Chair, and that we will continue to do

so.

For those people who are in the gallery today, it is a

legitimate point. The debate will take place. At times debate is more heated than others

because some legislation is more controversial than others, as is the legislation we will

be debating today. If people want to see how members in this House want to vote then my

advice, and the advice of our caucus is, to listen to the Speaker, listen to his rulings.

You will see for yourselves before the day is over how members will vote on Bill 3.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised

that the minister would use a point of privilege to levy accusations based on speculation

to the opposite side of the House. Having raised the matter before Your Honour, I do not

think it is a point of privilege.

Certainly I think all members of this House recognize

that the Speaker has a right to make rulings and the public galleries are there for the

public to view the proceedings of the House. I would certainly want to encourage anyone in

the public galleries to act in the proper manner and act as observers. Because if that

does not happen they will not be able to be observers of what is going on in the House. It

is pretty important legislation, although it may certainly be very emotional as well. As

the Speaker has ruled, members of the public gallery are not entitled to participate in

the debate that takes place by encouragement or otherwise.

Having raised the issue of the clearing of the galleries

by his point of privilege, I would like to ask Your Honour to rule, by way of

clarification, what the situation is with respect to the press gallery as a separate and

distinct gallery from the public galleries. Because I understand from media reports and

from individual reports of members of the press gallery that after the public gallery was

cleared, and after the House in fact had adjourned, the members of the press who were in

the press gallery and who were not, to my knowledge at least, participating in any

disturbance, were also ordered to be removed from the House.

While we do understand that the rules are very clear

with respect to the public galleries, it is the first time I have ever heard of the press

being excluded from the House. I find it very disturbing that that would take place. I do

not know whether it was by ruling of the Chair or otherwise, but I think, for the sake of

the notion of freedom of the press, and the fact that our deliberations are to be in

public unless there are very extraordinary circumstance that calls for a private,

confidential, closed session of the House - which is very unusual, and I do not know if

there is any parliamentary precedence for it. I am not an expert in that field.

I do think, Your Honour, that it does raise a very

important, significant, perhaps constitutional point, that demands clarification; because

I do not think that is something we should treat in a light manner.

As I say, we understand the rules with respect to public

galleries. I hope all members of the public who are here, whether they are nurses or other

interested people, recognize that those rules are well known; but, with respect to the

press, I think that it is a very important and significant point. I think that Your Honour

could assist us all by clarifying that on the record.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise and

associate myself with the essence of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition and

the Leader of the NDP arising out of, I think, the point of order, the point of privilege,

raised by the Minister of Mines and Energy.

Indeed, it is a very important point and I suspect that

the Legislature and the process is served by having this point raised and giving us a

chance to reflect upon it and to respond to it.

Mr. Speaker, I concur with the Leader of the Opposition,

and concur with the Leader of the NDP, in submitting to Your Honour the discipline of

myself and all members on this side of the House in recognizing Your Honour's authority in

this place, and recognizing that Your Honour is the sole authority who determines the

presence or absence of visitors in the gallery. I am glad that has been acknowledged by my

colleagues opposite and I think they have served the Legislature well in making that

acknowledgement.

I join with both the Leader of the Opposition and the

Leader of the NDP in suggesting to members of the public in the gallery, to visitors in

the gallery, that the debate which will unfold this afternoon is an important one. It is

unquestionably a controversial one, and if there is to be an opportunity for the public to

view the debate, to hear what is being said, to watch the vote as it occurs, then it is

important that the rules of the House, as has been suggested by both leaders opposite, be

observed, and that Your Honour's authority be respected.

Mr. Speaker, I think that this dialogue, in advance of

today's proceedings, is important and it serves to remind us all that at the end of the

day this Legislature is here to allow vigorous debate on the floor of the Legislature. The

gallery is served to allow those who are interested, and who have every right to be there,

to observe that debate.

Mr. Speaker, one final point. I want to concur with

concerns raised by the Leader of the NDP about the question of the press. Of course, again

we submit to His Honour's judgement here. I, too, found it unusual, and perhaps in the

heat of the moment it may well have been a mistake. I think we are well served in this

place by those who serve us under trying and difficult circumstances, but I submit to His

Honour's judgement that the press gallery was cleared when it was; but, again, that too is

subject to the authority of the Chair.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just touch that first point first, as I have

already articulated to Your Honour, Speaker, my view on the gallery is that I feel

certainly (inaudible) should be entitled to stay. I have already passed that observation

on.

I would like to just add that the hon. Minister of Mines

and Energy now raises a point here that he heard from a caller raised on Open Line. The

Minister of Mines and Energy has been in this House since 1989 at least, and he should

quite well know the basic rules of this House. I quote Beauchesne '31.(3),

"Statements made outside the House by a Member may not be used as the basis for a

question of privilege."

This is only a delaying tactic here in this House and he

should very well know that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will take the point raised under advisement

and report to the House at a later date.

With regard to the point the hon. Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi raised, the Chair has had some correspondence from the press asking for

clarification. I have not had an opportunity to communicate with them since I received

that correspondence, but I guess I can do that now and say that the press gallery can

remain. It will not be cleared unless there are obvious reasons for it being cleared. When

the galleries are cleared, it will be the public gallery where the disturbance occurs from

here on in.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment

and Labour.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to take this opportunity today to inform

the Members of the House of Assembly that the Voisey's Bay Environmental Assessment Panel

has released its much anticipated report on the proposed mine/mill complex at Voisey's

Bay, Labrador.

The government welcomes the release of the panel report.

This report is the result of a precedent-setting process that began in January 1997 when a

Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador, the federal government, the Innu Nation and the Labrador Inuit Association. From

this MOU, the panel was jointly established.

The environmental assessment of the Voisey's Bay

mine/mill proposal has been, to say the least, a complex task. On behalf of the Government

of Newfoundland and Labrador, I would like to thank the individual panel members for the

patience, understanding, and professionalism that they exhibited in this effort. I would

also like to thank the many individuals and groups who participated in the process. While

the work of the panel is now finished, ours is just beginning.

Honourable members of this House may recall that the

procedure established to deal with the panel report entailed a thirty-day process of

review and consultation with the Innu Nation and Labrador Inuit Association. It has since

been agreed upon by the four MOU parties that given the anticipated number of

recommendations and the complexity of the report, it would be reasonable to allow for a

sixty-day period of review and consultation. This will be a harmonized effort involving

consultations with the federal government, the Innu Nation and the Labrador Inuit

Association. At the end of the process, recommendations will be made to the two levels of

government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

South.

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

I will respond with the clarity and conciseness that I

feel the statement should have been given. I would like to thank the individual members of

the panel, as well, and I understand why it has to go sixty days.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I agree, it was a complex issue to deal with and we

certainly welcome the opportunity to review the panel's report and the submissions that

were made to it. I do not know when we can expect to receive that. The minister, maybe,

could provide us an answer.

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

Trade and Technology.

MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to update my

hon. colleagues on Americana '99, a bi-annual environmental technology exhibition held in

Montreal last week.

During the exhibition, our delegation was part of an

Atlantic Canadian pavilion, which proved to be an effective and economical way to position

ourselves. Participation at the event was organized by my Department of Industry, Trade

and Technology, in cooperation with the Newfoundland Environmental Industry Association,

NEIA.

Several months ago, the Cuban Department of Science,

Technology and Environment approached Seacom Consulting of St. John's on the possibility

of organizing technical seminars for Latin America's Second International Convention on

Environment and Development.

Americana '99 in Montreal was an excellent venue for

discussions between senior Cuban officials and the provincial delegation regarding the

seminars, which will take place in Cuba this June. It is anticipated that between eight

and ten Newfoundland and Labrador companies will participate.

Americana '99 provided other opportunities for new

business development.

Seacom Consulting Inc. of St. John's has a tentative

agreement with a private company in Venezuela, as well as with a number of Peruvian

companies, to provide emergency response planning and environmental consulting for the oil

and gas industry.

Seacom also secured a tentative agreement with a

Venezuelan national oil company for the supply of software. In addition, they will be

supplying IT related products to the Peruvian government.

Genesis Organic held discussions with the Cuban Ministry

of Agriculture on the potential of applying Genesis' composting technology to waste

problems in their sugar cane industry. Further follow-up on this is expected to take place

during the June mission to Cuba.

Pardy's Waste Management had promising discussions with

the Cuban delegation on oily water and septic waste treatment and disposal. They too will

be doing follow-up work during the June mission.

While at Americana '99, NEIA made contact with potential

clients from Europe, Ireland, South America, India, China and Japan. Meetings were held

with potential investors, environmental training consultants and suppliers of

environmental equipment. NEIA is currently identifying local companies who might be

interested in following up on these leads.

Mr. Speaker, this proved to be a very beneficial

exhibition for the Newfoundland and Labrador delegation. Businesses look forward to the

mission to Cuba in June to follow up on the initiatives that unfolded at Americana '99.

Thank you.

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

South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today - first I would like to thank the minister

for a copy of her statement, although I did not have it very much before I got in my seat

here today. I would certainly like to get them a little bit earlier.

I would like to say to the minister that not only,

Madame Minister, should we be looking at Cuba but anywhere and everywhere that we have

businesses in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that can make an impact on our

Province, that we can seek out business, that we can find business to create employment

for our own Province, whether it be in Newfoundland, in Nova Scotia, in British Columbia

or in Cuba, we should always be ready and willingly available to seek out such

initiatives. I wish you and our delegation good luck on your trip to Cuba.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal

Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to thank the minister for doing what I asked the

last time she spoke, to give us a report on some positive progress. It is very exciting to

see Newfoundland companies active internationally in various countries, particularly in

Latin America, our former trading partners in the fishing industry. Our independence as a

people depends on us having trading relationships all over the place, and I am delighted

that we have seen some success in this particular field.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the

Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, over the last several days there have been

many questions concerning the nurses' strike, concerning the impact on health care,

concerning the impact upon collective bargaining, and concerning the impact upon the

Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. Obviously, and it is clear to everybody in the

House and those who have been taking an interest in the ongoing debate, government has

taken a firm policy position with respect to not invoking sections 30 through close of the

Public Service Collective Bargaining Act which refer to binding arbitration.

I would like to ask the Premier this: In lieu of that

firm position, which essentially says that they do not believe that those sections of the

act will work, does the Premier have any plans to introduce legislation or amendments to

formally remove those sections of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act from the

law and from the books as it now exists?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is an

interesting answer. If the Premier has no plans to remove it, then could he enlighten the

House, from his point of view, under what set of circumstances does he believe that

section of the act would apply?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when we have had the circumstances which we

are now into in Newfoundland and Labrador where, after a long period of freeze - before I

came back to this House, or had the opportunity to serve in this House, we saw a rollback

of settlements because they could not be afforded, and subsequently saw a long freeze put

in place where literally the public service was subjected to zero, zero and zero, year

after year after year, and where the Province had, as it did in 1996, a deficit position

of about $290 million, and where we said we would be the government, the Administration,

for the first time in many years to go back to the collective bargaining table and to lift

the freeze, to end the zero wage increases on an annual basis, but that we would do so

within the framework of a fiscal plan that was sustainable and one that we could afford,

and where we negotiated with all other public service bargaining units - with every other

group that we sat down and negotiated with - more than thirty bargaining units, collective

agreements, over thirty-nine months at 7 per cent, and where such agreements are

consistent with all other public service agreements all across Canada - in fact, are at

the high level of agreements all across Canada - and where in one case we were unable to

conclude an agreement that we think is affordable and sustainable to the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador, and where there is indication that if one agreement is reached

that is dramatically at variance with that of all others it will cause labour unrest where

labour agreements have already been reached, and where each 1 per cent will cost $16

million a year more, and where the last offer was 10 per cent higher than that settled by

everybody else, and where such offer would result in a $160 million a year of additional

labour cost, and where such cost would translate into up to $800 over five years, where

all that occurs, I think then, but only then - and it should not be a precedent we should

ever go back to, if it can at all be avoided - only then should this legislation be used.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

the Opposition.

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

The Premier did not answer the question. He has stated

that any settlement over 7 per cent - that is a collective bargaining issue. I am talking

about binding arbitration. You cannot predetermine. Which seems to be the mental block

that this government has, predetermining what an arbitrator is going to do.

I ask the Premier again: If this set of circumstances

that exists today, if this in your view is not applicable to those sections of the act and

you do not have any plans to remove those sections of the act, then could you please

describe for everybody what set of circumstances would have to exist for you to invoke

binding arbitration?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, personally I think that

moving to binding arbitration when we have settled with every other group within a

prescribed range, roughly agreements that reflect in terms of equity and fairness equal

treatment across the public service, and you have one proposal before you which is

two-and-a-half times greater than with that which has been settled by everybody else, that

is not the time to go to binding arbitration.

It is important for us in the House to acknowledge that

this is not a philosophical question. This is not a right-left question. This is not a

Liberal question, a Conservative question or a New Democratic Party question. I have in my

hand a copy of

an act which was passed in the Saskatchewan Legislature five months ago. It

is called The Maintenance of Saskatchewan Power Corporation's Operations Act, 1998. It is

a legislated end to a strike and it is a legislated wage settlement imposing 6 per cent

over three years; a legislated end to a strike and a legislated settlement on the

employees affected.

Now that was done by the NDP Government of Saskatchewan

five months ago. It is relevant, because the notion that this is something that has not

been done by Conservative governments or NDP governments is simply false. It is something

that should be done rarely. It is something that should be done with the greatest of

reluctance, as it is being done here today, but where necessary, where other solutions

have failed to reach a consensus, then government at the end of the day, with respect to

an essential service, has to act. That is what we are doing after a unanimous request from

the fourteen CEOs of all the health services boards in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me get it straight. We are now

taking as an example and justification high-handed legislation in other jurisdictions for

justification for what we are about to debate in this Legislature. Is that what the

Premier is saying? The reality is again -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: - to confuse and destroy. We are now

comparing a set of circumstances like hydro employees in the Province of Saskatchewan to

nurses in our Province? Is that what the Premier is saying? Is that what you are doing?

Mr. Speaker, he still has not answered the question. You have indicated to this

Legislature today that you are not introducing legislation to amend the Public Service

Collective Bargaining Act that would take those sections away describing binding

arbitration.

I ask you again, what set of circumstances would have to

exist for you to live up to the letter of the law with sections 30 through close in the

Public Service Collective Bargaining Act? What set of circumstances would have to exist?

Wouldn't you agree that the ones that are present in this Province today legitimise the

notion of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, and the action that you and your

government should be taking by referring to it, and that in doing so you would live up to

the request by the hospital administrators and you could end this strike today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree that

the appropriate action today is to go to binding arbitration for all the reasons I have

been giving over many days. I can repeat them all but I do not think it would necessarily

enlighten the House. It would a repetition of what I've already said.

If the Leader of the Opposition does not want me to cite

the actions of an NDP government five months ago in this country to legislate an end to a

strike and to legislate a settlement, maybe he would like me to cite the speech of the

leader of the Conservative Party and a Conservative premier, Premier Peckford, February

29, 1984, when he stood before this House in this jurisdiction -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: I do not believe Premier Peckford was

a communist. I think he was a premier -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to read from that

speech: In order to get our finances more in line, to get that deficit down in our current

account, government has decided to implement a new wage restraint policy in that there

will be no increase in the salary or wage scales of employees of the provincial government

or its agencies for two years.

Mr. Speaker, that was unilaterally announced, zero and

zero, by government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, yesterday one of the

deputy House Leaders, the Member for Lewisporte, was referring to

an act brought in by a

government he was a member of in 1981, and he referred to the provisions of that act. This

was

an act that also legislated, by the way, in the health sector, employees back to work.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, I will. Let me quote this

section: Where an employee does not report to work at a hospital in accordance with

section 10, the employer shall forthwith terminate the employment of that employee.

Mr. Speaker, this was a penalty which would not just

fine somebody but terminate their job. That was proposed and supported by the member

opposite from Lewisporte as part of the last Conservative administration in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: He strolled all around the ring, Mr.

Speaker. It is interesting that the Premier raises the point of what happened in the

Legislature probably over fifteen or sixteen years ago. It is interesting in terms of the

comments he made, that we have to get our deficit down.

We have stood in this House in the last three years and

listened to every Throne Speech. This is where we get to the issue of money. The Premier

said yesterday it is about money, and indeed it is. We will get to it in a second. He

talked about: We have had our three best years. We came off a year last year with a

surplus, so the circumstances are different.

I would like to ask the Premier this. The Premier has

been stating that any settlement over 7 per cent with nurses will have to be extended to

others who have already signed contracts. That is if government decides to settle for over

7 per cent. Government cannot, and I repeat, predetermine what an arbitrator would do

because nobody knows what the arbitration board would do.

Will the Premier acknowledge that this is not the case,

that settling beyond is not the case? If he wants to talk about it, let's ask him this.

Won't he admit that the collective bargaining units bargain individually based upon their

own individual needs, based upon their own individual circumstances, based upon what may

exist in an extraordinary set of circumstances? That binding agreements that are in place

now are exactly that, binding agreements, and that there is no justification for

re-opening contracts when different settlements are reached with different bargaining

teams.

I want the Premier to clearly stand in his place and

acknowledge - when he gets wound up with the political rhetoric - that such a set of

circumstances existed a year-and-a-half ago, an extraordinary set of circumstances,

different needs, different set of circumstances, to provide essential services to the

people when he settled with physicians as a health care profession for 23 per cent. What

is the difference, Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the

Opposition's question really betrays, in my mind, a lack of responsibility in this House.

The Leader of the Opposition knows that when you start dealing with the numbers of

teachers in the Province, the numbers of nurses in the Province, the numbers of people who

fill some of the other public service unions, and the number of doctors and the

availability of doctors, as time goes on - and let me say, because I know that nurses are

listening - that as we need as a province to address the issue of an aging workforce, and

the issue of having to provide the necessary incentives in the next rounds of contracts to

provide for a retention and recruitment of nurses, that will become an issue in due

course.

The Leader of the Opposition knows that we had a chronic

shortage of doctors, that we were in a competitive basis with every other province of this

country. He knows that the gentleman sitting to his right not only called for the

additional monies that were provided in the health care budget to recruit the doctors, but

the gentleman sitting to his right, more to the point, suggested that that amount of money

was not enough, that doctors should get far more than that which was already provided.

It is the easiest thing in the world, I say to the

Leader of the Opposition, to stand and, to every request in Opposition, from every group,

say: I am your champion. One of, I think, productive things about having the galleries

filled is that during the course of Question Period over the last few days we have heard

members stand and ask for more, far more for education. We have heard members stand and

ask for more, far more for health care in the area of dialysis and physicians' wages and

salaries and new facilities. We have heard members stand and ask for more, far more for

those who are on social services.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude. We have

heard members stand and ask for more, far more for infrastructure, for roads, for water

and sewer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to conclude.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, governing is about

making choices, informed intelligent choices. That is what government is trying to do even

when they are hard choices.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier for the first

time in this debate in the last eight days admitted that 7 per cent was not the benchmark,

that there existed a set of circumstances under his Administration with the shortage of

doctors in this Province, whereby they had to settle for more than 7 per cent. That the

situation demanded a settlement of 23 per cent because of the shortage of physicians.

Premier, the point I am making to you -

PREMIER TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: One second. I understand that, but you

finally admitted that you -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Listen to me. The question is: In

addressing the fundamental realities within the health care profession, surely you must

acknowledge that there is a serious situation developing that exists, and is continuing to

develop and compound itself, on recruitment and retention issues? Surely you must be

briefed on the exodus of graduating nurses in this Province and, in understanding that and

being briefed on that, surely you must acknowledge then that, like physicians, there is a

set of circumstances that warrants a special set of responses?

Premier, the benchmark of 7 per cent will not meet the

fundamental requirements for health care delivery in this Province. Will you stand and

acknowledge that Premier, and do the right thing, send this dispute to binding

arbitration?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, no matter how many ways

the Leader of the Opposition would choose during the course of Question Period day in and

day out to phrase the question, government has taken its decision. We are not going to

send this matter to binding arbitration because we know it leads to instability. We know

it leads to an escalation, a run on the public purse, which cannot be sustained and cannot

be afforded.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the record of Hansard

will show - and I invite those who watch the Legislature to examine it - that it has been

the submission of the Leader of the Opposition repeatedly that the real deficit, he has

told us many times - and I invite him to indicate today whether or not he is still of that

view - he has said many times here, in press conferences outside the House, in statements

inside the House, that it is his view that the real deficit of the Province is $200

million; up to $200 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER TOBIN: Oh, yes!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, you cannot have it both

ways. How much is it now, Ed?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TULK: One hundred and sixty now, he just said.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: Perhaps I can sit down and allow the

Leader of the Opposition to tell us what he thinks the real deficit is.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: I very much appreciate the opportunity

for a little bit of role reversal in the House today. Let the Premier ask me a question

and I will tell him what his numbers are, based on his own numbers, no problem!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Last year's budget - not this year's

now -

AN HON. MEMBER: Your numbers.

MR. E. BYRNE: Based on your numbers. Would you like

to hear the answer?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I am going to show you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, yours.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

his question.

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

I understand now. We are playing a little bit of role

reversal so I am going to answer the Premier's question. Is that what we are doing?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: You do not want it answered?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: You do not want the answer?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if it wasn't for the $180

million cheque because the Canadian economy had improved, right here in government's own

numbers, they would have been off $164 million this year; $117 million on gross

expenditure and $46 million more on capital account. The Minister of Finance knows it.

Everybody knows it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question quickly,

please.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what is even more

important today is that last September I knew it and it was proven true.

Now to ask a question for another -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I would like to ask the Premier

another question.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Well, it's true.

I would like to ask the Premier another question;

because again, and it is clear to everybody sitting in this Legislature, he did not answer

the question I asked before. He acknowledged that in the health care field government

responded to an extraordinary set of circumstances on recruitment and retention of rural

physicians in order to provide essential services in medicine and health care to rural

Newfoundland and Labrador, and physicians generally.

In responding to that, government had to sit down, look

at comparable rates across Atlantic Canada and offered 23 per cent.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question; he is on a

supplementary.

MR. E. BYRNE: Will he not stand and answer the

question I originally asked? Would you not acknowledge that nurses in this Province face

some of the very same fundamental problems on recruitment, retention, comparability of

wage and compensation? Will you not do exactly what you did for physicians, either act in

the same way and, if you cannot, because you say you cannot afford to, invoke

section 30

of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act and let an independent arbitrator decide

and settle this dispute, Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, separating all of the

rhetoric on both sides, let us listen to what the Leader of the Opposition has just told

the House. He has told the House that it is his conviction that the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador - according to the Leader of the Opposition - in the absence of

one-time equalization payments from the national government, is running a deficit of $160

million. How can the Leader of the Opposition maintain the position that the Province,

according to him, has a $160 million deficit and turn around and ask for an annual

increase in wages, if you equalize it at 17 per cent, of another $160 million? How is that

being responsible in the House of Assembly?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

My questions are to the President of Treasury Board.

Madame Minister, the collective bargaining relationship between the RNCA and the

government is not positive and, according to Dr. John Scott in his arbitration decision,

this poor collective bargaining climate is the consequence of the tendency of government

to confuse its role of employer with its roles as legislator and fiscal manager.

Government rejected the interest arbitration of Dr.

Scott's arbitration board for a 14 per cent increase for RNCA membership. Why, Madam

Minister, however, has government treated some members of the RNC management quite

differently? Why did your government reclassify eight senior officers from lieutenants to

inspectors with a result in salary increase of 9.5 per cent? Why did you make that change

retroactive to May 9, 1997? And will you confirm that these officers, whose salary went

from $48,000 a year to $54,000 a year, are still eligible for the extra 7 per cent offered

to all other members of the RNC?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, reclassifications occur

all the time within the public service. As a matter of fact, the member opposite was

reclassified from Deputy House Leader to his current duty and the Deputy House Leader was

reclassified from his former duty to his current job, and consequently had changes in

salaries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford

Valley.

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

Quite obviously, either the members opposite do not know

the answer or they do not want to admit to the truth.

Madam Minister, the newly classified inspectors will

receive a compound salary increase of more than 17 per cent while others in the force

receive 7 per cent over a thirty-nine month life of the new contract.

Madam Minister, all officers with the rank of constable

receive an annual salary of $39,531.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get to his question. He is on a

supplementary.

MR. H. HODDER: I ask, Madam Minister: Why have you

extended the reclassification of some other members of the civilian personnel in the RNC

to give them an increase of $4,000 a year before you add the 7 per cent that you talked

about? Why have you refused to introduce a new classification of senior constable within

the force? Do you believe, by your decisions, that you were fair and reasonable to the RNC

in your classification decisions?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Finance and Justice.

MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, there are great number of

different ways that members of the public service get additional compensation. Pay equity

has affected a large number of people in our public service, primarily women, who brought

up the issue, who had an independent review, and who found that their pay was

substantially increased. That includes nurses, for example, and we are well aware of that.

Secondly, members get step progressions. So members

doing the same work, having been here longer, get additional step progressions. They also

have the ability to reclassify if they believe that the compensation they receive is out

of line with other parallel groups in the public service. The majority of people who get

reclassified in the public service are not members of management; they are members of

unions.

I say to the hon. member that he is distorting the facts

here, that these are broad remedies available to anybody in the public service to ensure

that every public servant is paid equitably. What he is proposing here is patently false

on the basis of percentages.

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

for Waterford Valley.

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

I go again to the President of Treasury Board. I do not

quite know who that is right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Two different ones stood already.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: Cabinet portfolios switch so often.

Madam Minister, I say to you that the Province pays 70

per cent of the cost associated with the RCMP who are stationed in Newfoundland and

Labrador. Since 1991, while the RNC skills have been frozen, the RCMP personnel in this

Province received a 22 per cent increase in their pay. If we do the 70-30 split, 70 per

cent paid by the Province, 30 per cent by the federal government, it means the Province

has paid 15.5 per cent of the increase to the RCMP. Why the difference, Madam Minister?

Why do you treat your own RNC differently than you treat, indirectly, with your money the

members of the RCMP in Newfoundland and Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Member

for Waterford Valley, your line of questioning is absurd.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, what the member opposite is

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Waterford

Valley is trying to ask a question which has no relevance to the RNC in comparison to the

RCMP in this Province. Everyone knows that salaries for the public sector for the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador are in line with what this Province can afford to pay. There

are many variances between us and our Maritime counterparts and the rest of Canada. What

we provide for our public sector, including in the RNC, is what this Province has the

ability to pay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Member for Waterford Valley.

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

Madam Minister, the salary for a RNCA constable was

$39,531; for the RCMP it is $52,424. In 1991 the gap between the two people of equal rank

was $6,213. That gap today is $12,893.

Madam Minister, aren't you concerned with the widening

of that gap? Why does your government make decisions that continues to widen that gap? Why

do you not fulfil your mandate to our police force, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury

Board.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, recently a non-binding

arbitration board awarded an increase, a settlement, a recommendation to our RNC of 14.55

per cent. I would like to ask the member opposite, as he is a taxpayer of this Province:

Would you be prepared to pay that increase?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) RCMP!

MS THISTLE: To the whole public sector. The RNCA's

non-binding recommendation through arbitration was 14.55 per cent. We have nurses in our

gallery today that want compensation of 17 per cent. I ask the Member of Waterford Valley,

are you prepared to add that onto your tax bill?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has ended.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have six copies of four special warrants to be tabled

today.

Thank you.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia

& St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to move the following private member's

resolution:

WHEREAS we have celebrated the 50th Anniversary of

Newfoundland and Labrador's entry into Confederation with Canada; and

WHEREAS certain benefits have accrued to Newfoundland

and Labrador because of Confederation and tremendous benefits have also accrued to our

fellow Canadians; and

WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador's limited power within

Confederation to control matters affecting our destiny has often been the source of great

concern, frustration and strife for the people of this Province; and

WHEREAS national policies relating to our own resources

have often provided greater benefits to other parts of Canada and therefore have not been

fair and equitable;

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House call upon

discussions immediately on adjusting roles and responsibilities for Newfoundland and

Labrador within Confederation to give the people of Newfoundland and Labrador greater say

in decisions affecting the overall welfare of this Province and to give to our people a

greater measure of control of our own destiny.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure today to rise and present a petition.

I will read the prayer of the petition:

To the hon. House of Assembly in legislative session

convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland.

Wherefore your petitioners urge the Government of

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

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

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

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

nurses and their issues.

I might add that since the eve of that election, since

February 9, there has not been positive direction to deal with the issues that are crucial

to nurses here. We paid lip service in the election campaign. This very government here,

the former President of Treasury Board back in 1991, stood in the House and said: We have

reached a tentative settlement with nurses, and it should not "be considered as

precedent-setting for all bargaining units..." Further, he said that "nurses are

a special case." I will summarize his remarks: We have to close the gap between

nurses and other sectors, and between nurses in other parts of this country and Atlantic

Canada. That was the rationale. He said we have to "...stop the loss of nurses to

other jurisdictions..."

The Leader of the Opposition mentioned today, and I have

mentioned before, with reference to doctors, that we created a problem in this Province by

allowing the disparity in wages of doctors to fall too far behind Atlantic Canada. We dug

the hole so deep we cannot get out of it and we are going to do the same with nurses. The

Minister of Health today, the former President of the Nurses' Union, back in 1991 said:

Nurses are shocked that a government, whose Premier is a lawyer, would renege on a

contract. She said: We are angry and quite honest. The fact that the collective agreement

have been broken destroys our sense of trust in the collective bargaining system for what

it is worth. She said: How can nurses go back to the bargaining table in the future only

to have the government give you a star and take it away?

She went on to say that the contracts signed last March,

and this is back in 1991, were not worth the paper it was written on. She said: The

Provincial Budget shows government is only paying lip service. The Budget here this year

told of the rosy economy in this Province, a $4.3 million surplus, the best in our

history. The Premier stood and said we had the three best years in the history of this

Province. Now he turns around and says: We cannot afford to pay nurses, they are just

fair, and let the gap widen between here and Atlantic Canada?

Lowly Prince Edward Island, they pay a starting nurse 17

per cent more, and their contract expired on March 1 and is up for renegotiation. Nova

Scotia pays 29 per cent. There is an out-migration. We have to start employing, not

exporting, our nurses in this Province.

The current Minister of Health and Community Services,

the former president of the union, stood and fought for nurses' issues here. She said: I

feel for the nurses that are going to be left in the system when they talk about the 900

jobs that were cut back in the early 1990s. She went on to say that she is angry with

government's perceived discrimination against women, saying: They deferred the $27 million

they had committed then in pay equity. She said: We are not going to let government

destroy the collective bargaining process without reviewing all of our options, and

including a legal challenge.

That is what she said in 1991. I would like to know what

she says today. The silence is deafening today. The only time she was front and foremost

was during the election campaign, and then slipped into the back rooms from the public on

issues that are of vital importance to nurses here. They have been betrayed, I would say.

The president fears government is misleading the public

when they talk about the figures. They are playing with the same figures. Last week, or

earlier this week, in fact, I think it was Tuesday, in a statement by this minister, 125

new nurses she said, transferring another 200 casuals into permanent nurses.

This is the issue, the thrust of the petition, that the

people are calling on. They are calling to lighten the workloads, increase pay to nurses.

Treating nurses fairly is what the petition is about. That is what it is all about, I say.

I will have an opportunity in debate, too, this afternoon to address many more issues. I

will do it. It is the thrust of this petition, and that is what I will do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) abusing the rules of the

House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: A former Speaker of the House should

know better than to interrupt a speaker when they are speaking. If he wants to stand, and

has a point, let him do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: A former Speaker should be setting an

example here in the House, I say to him.

I am not going to be bullied and pushed into -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. SULLIVAN: - listening to what people are telling

me.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. LUSH: I do not want to interrupt the House. I

have, on several occasions, told the Opposition House Leader, who is the member most

guilty for presenting petitions that are entirely out of order, that presenting petitions

is not a place to debate. I want people in the gallery to realize this. It is not a matter

of not allowing their concerns to be presented to the House; there is a place for it.

There will be a debate.

The Orders of the Day - when the hon. member is

permitted to read from other letters that he just read from -

AN HON. MEMBER: There is not point of order.

MR. LUSH: There is a point of order. The point of

order is that, when a member is presenting a petition, he is only to refer to the material

allegations of the petition. He is not allowed to engage in any debate, not allowed to

read extraneous material as he was reading. It was just provocative and that is not

permitted in petitions.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

To the point of order, the Chair again wants to remind

hon. members that when they are presenting petitions, under Standing Order 92 it clearly

states, "Every member offering a petition to the House shall confine himself or

herself to the statement of the parties from whom it comes, the number of signatures

attached to it and the material allegations it contains."

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

The petition makes several statements. It calls upon

government to bargain with nurses in good faith.

I find it difficult that last Wednesday morning when the

nurses went on strike, that within twenty-four hours we saw a huge advertising campaign.

We saw the evidence of, on the one hand, the government saying: We are in consolidation

and we do not want to have any comment because that would be the wrong thing to do.

When we got The Telegram , we had full-page ads.

When the nurses go to bargain, they want to be dealt with fairly. They want to be dealt

with in good faith, straightforwardly and honestly.

When the petition talks about bargaining in good faith,

or accusing the government of bargaining in bad faith, that particular comment, I say to

the Member for Terra Nova, is very relevant.

The petition calls upon government to be fair to nurses,

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

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

made by the Premier. That is the prayer of the petition.

Yesterday, the president of the nurses' association said

in a written communication: We were told from the beginning that government would win. In

fact, since the beginning of this process government has threatened nurses. They have used

statements like: You cannot win. They told us we have the right to strike, but if we did

they would legislate nurses back to work and impose a 7 per cent settlement.

That is what we call collective bargaining by this

government's standards. It is a new kind of standard and it simply is new rules written

for this particular occasion.

This petition here says very clearly that they want

government to live up to their commitments. They want government to be fair, to be

reasonable, to be straightforward, to come into a collective bargaining approach with the

true meaning of the word "collective". You cannot come into collective

bargaining and look across the table and say: Oh, by the way, we will win - and tell them

in advance: If you do not go along with us, we have the power, we have the residual power

in this Province. We have all of that on our side - you are just a Newfoundland and

Labrador Nurses' Union - and at the end of the day we will use that power to make sure

that we get our way.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. H. HODDER: I say to the minister, I am quoting

the very words of the president -

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you are not.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: - of the Newfoundland and Labrador

Nurses' Union when she says: We were told, you cannot win.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is a lot different than what

you just said.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we want to say to

government that it is not too late. As the Leader of the Opposition has said this

afternoon, if government were to be fair to nurses today they would say: Let us impose the

provisions of current legislation which says that we can have binding arbitration. We do

no have to stay here.

We on this side have said to the government: If you want

to change the rules, we will give you leave on this side so we can have this strike to

binding arbitration in about twenty minutes. We would do that, willingly, if the Premier

would stand in his place and say: I have seen the light. I now know what is best for the

Province, I know what is best for nurses, and we will now change our mind. It would be an

honourable thing to do.

Certainly we on this side would say, for the benefit of

nurses, it would be what they want. It would solve the problem. We would be out of our

current difficulties, and it would be what the laws of this Province provide for right

now.

Instead, what we have here is a government that says: We

do not like the current law so we are going to write a new one. Therefore, we will just

recreate the law. We will just go out and say: We do not like the current provisions, with

all the statutes you have over there. They do not let us do what we want, so we are going

to go and say: Well, if they will not let us do what we want we will write a new one.

We have to ask ourselves: Where are we? What kind of

machiavellian, banana republic are we in? This is Newfoundland and Labrador, not some

small republic in Central America.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate an opportunity to respond briefly to the

petition. Basically, as I understand, the prayer of it is suggesting that there has not

been a meaningful negotiation between the employer in the Province, which happens to be

the government, and the hospital boards, the institution boards, community health and

service, and the nurses' union.

Hopefully, because we will have several opportunities

throughout the day and the evening and tomorrow and so on as we go through this, to

establish certain things...

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that we have

established one thing today already, one thing for clear and certain already that has been

established in this Legislature today, and that is that either somebody representing the

nurses' union - and I don't say this to be provocative; I say this because it is a matter

of fact - either somebody representing the nurses' union called an Open Line show and lied

about what happened out here last night or somebody on that side of the House who was

brave enough to go out in the lobby last night and incite the group would not stand up and

admit it today. That has been established.

Now to the point of the petition, and they know which is

which.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: To the point of the petition, no

collective bargaining has occurred is the point. No collective bargaining is the point. We

understand collective bargaining. We have already negotiated successfully with thirty-two

groups. With the nurses themselves, we had negotiated successfully to the point that the

negotiating team and the executive of the nurses' union had felt that they had made so

much progress that they agreed to take it out and recommend it to their membership. Now

that is not a sign that no negotiations has occurred. That is a sign that considerable

negotiation had occurred, because it had.

Mr. Speaker, the members of this House, particularly the

Opposition, were shocked last week - we have used that word a bit -shocked that there was

actually a strike, and at the same time we did not want to talk about matters in the House

because the negotiations were still ongoing, almost unheard of, but it showed again the

willingness of this government to bend over backwards -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: - to continue the process, to provide

every single opportunity to try to reach a negotiated settlement.

I understand that some people might have a different

version of events. That is fair. I hope everybody stays today because they will hear these

kinds of comments over and over again, because it happens to be the fact from a certain

side of the argument, and the facts all need to be out there.

Mr. Speaker, we do not understand bargaining in the way

the Leader of the Opposition does. Last week the Leader of the Opposition, with respect to

workload issues, casuals being converted to permanent and additional permanents,

suggested, backed-up by his right-hand man, the health critic, that we should not be

negotiating that with nurses, we should have read it in the Budget. It should have been

read in the Budget.

Their view was: You should not be negotiating this. As a

matter of fact, the Leader of the Opposition is in Hansard as saying: You do not negotiate

the number of teachers, you do not negotiate anything else, do not negotiate the number of

nurses. Tell them in the Budget how many nurses are going to be there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is clear it is going

to be an interesting evening with the Minister of Mines and Energy on his feet a lot.

Let's be clear. It was not suggested by me; I actually

told you, Minister, I did not suggest anything. The number of people who implement the

health care system, who provide services, whether they be nurses, doctors, lab and X-ray

workers, that is a government decision. It is not a bargaining issue.

Government decides on the teacher allocations,

government decides on how many social workers, and when it comes to collective bargaining

it should be constrained to the collective bargaining, the agreement that exists, in terms

of compensation language and contractual language. You do not use, as your government did,

the issue of how many nurses should be put back into the system.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to take his seat.

There is no point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: More nurses for the sake of nurses.

The reality is that it is appropriate and proper for it to be done in the Budget, and not

to be used as a negotiating chip against your own employees, Minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Mines and Energy made a statement in the

House he attributed to me that is not accurate. The statement is not accurate. I said

there was a responsibility for the government to announce to put more nurses in the

system. They do not have to be going to collective bargaining for that. They have the

power to do it and they should do it because it is needed, not because nurses want it. I

said: Because there are sick people, and the families of these people want to see it. That

is what I said.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member take his seat. There is no point

of order.

The hon. member's time is up.

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

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

Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Not to delay the issue, because we will have lots of

opportunities, but I appreciate the clarification from both members. They do not believe

we ever should have even talked to nurses about how many nurses should be in the system.

They clarified it. We will get to it many times before the day is over.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition:

To the House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador in parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of

Newfoundland and Labrador humbly show that;

whereas throughout the issues of education

reform both the provincial government and the Avalon East School Board have assured all

parents in the district of an enhanced and more efficient educational system; and

whereas

the Avalon East School Board has already been promised the sum of $15 million to carry out

the necessary renovations to the existing schools and provide for a smooth transition to

the new school system; and

whereas the Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local

1560 has already provided their employer with viable alternatives to layoffs which will

essentially negate any additional costs for the school year; we, the undersigned, petition

the House of Assembly to direct the government to intervene in this dispute and have both

parties sit down with the view to settling this matter within the framework of the union

proposal.

Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by about 760

residents, mostly of the St. John's area, who support the position of the Canadian Union

of Public Employees. Perhaps, by way of background, I should tell you that the Avalon East

Board is in the process of laying off nine of its thirteen skilled trades people. That

includes seven carpenters, one electrician, and one plumber. The end result would be that

there would be only one mechanic, one plumber, one carpenter and one electrician to look

after all of the eighty-two schools of the Avalon East region.

If you can imagine, eighty-two schools in the Avalon

East region with over 33,000 students, and we have one plumber, one carpenter, one

electrician, and one mechanic to look after all these schools. That is clearly not a

viable situation to be in. The union involved, CUPE Local 1560, has presented a whole

series of proposals to the employer to try to offer some alternatives to them, and they

have done that. The employer to date has not responded. The Avalon East Board is

responsible for managing the system and I acknowledge that. It has taken the position that

they are going to try to get by with the four people instead of the thirteen they had.

Just by comparison, the Deer Lake board, District #3,

representing Deer Lake, Corner Brook and St. Barbe, has thirty-eight schools with about

9,500 students - therefore, they have about one-third of the population, less than half

the buildings - and they have four carpenters, one plumber, and two electricians, and they

are discussing plans for a third.

Clearly something funny is going on here when the school

board in St. John's sees that it is going to try to operate with one plumber, one

electrician, one carpenter and one mechanic for eighty-two schools. Larger schools too, I

might add, because they are dealing with a school population which is three times, for

example, that of the Deer Lake, Corner Brook and St. Barbe board. There is something wrong

with that.

There are alternatives to layoffs that have been

proposed by the union, and the board to date has not considered them. They have offered

various ways of dealing with holidays, dealing with other ways of filling in the

positions, making some positions part-time, and doing other things that would maintain the

school system at a cheaper rate.

One of the important things to recognize with this

group, the thirteen people, the seniority level for these individuals is quite long. These

are individuals who have worked for that board up to twenty-four years. The majority of

them are in the range from sixteen to twenty-four years.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: I ask the minister to intervene and try

to find a solution to this problem, to intervene in the dispute, and ask the board to be

reasonable in coming to terms with the problem they are facing and the needs of the school

board.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The focus of this petition I think strikes to the very

heart of a situation that is more than layoffs. It speaks to a situation where I think

labour relations within that workplace have deteriorated to a degree where cooperation is

non-existent.

If you look at the numbers that are being quoted for

eighty-two schools and four employees, then I think anyone in this House and anyone in the

public can certainly understand that four trades' people are not adequate to look after

the needs that eighty-two buildings filled with young people need to be maintained. There

is going to be a concern from the parents of the children who attend these schools, simply

because conditions will deteriorate to the point where they will become safety hazards or

unsanitary conditions will prevail.

It is important also that in today's economy, with the

unemployment level in this Province, for this government to take notice and have meetings

with their school boards and give direction. In today's economy with the high unemployment

level we face there have to be alternatives, rather than just going by a seniority list

and laying off the bottom people, when there are alternatives available such as early

retirement, attrition and other means.

I think it is very important that this government talk

to this school board and instruct this school board to have more meaningful discussion

with the union and to follow the framework of what the union has proposed to deal with

this situation.

Thank you.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Order 2, that the

House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole.

Mr. Speaker, I also move that we not adjourn at 5:00

p.m. nor at 10:00 p.m.

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

moved that the House not adjourn at 5:00 nor at 10:00 p.m.

All those in favour, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against?

Carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee

of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!

We are into Committee on Bill 3. Is it, by agreement,

ten and ten?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Okay.

Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I am prepared again today to stand in my place and say a

few words with respect to this bill that is going before the House today.

I have to make a few comments. I spoke on this yesterday

for about half an hour, and I made a lot of points. We on this side of the House have been

speaking on this bill for approximately twelve hours, which is roughly four legislative

days. Not one member on that side of the House has stood in their place and spoke to this

bill, other than the President of Treasury Board.

Early this morning - the wee hours of this morning - we

had a vote on this piece of legislation on second reading. Everyone on that side of the

House, who was in their place, stood and voted in favour of this legislation. Yet, not one

of them has spoken and said why they support this legislation, other than the Minister of

Mines and Energy, who was up approximately ten times yesterday on points of order on which

the Chair and Speaker did not rule in his favour once. Not once was it a point of order -

just completely abusing the time of the House of this issue -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: - and trying to be smart, zero for

ten.

Mr. Chairman there was a certain minister on the Open

Line this morning - I did not hear him but I was told - that he said that he heard the

same speeches over and over again on this side of the House. At least, I say to you, Mr.

Chairman, members on this side of the House had the guts and the gumption to get up and

say why they are against this piece of legislation. Not too many on that side stood and

said why they are in favour of this legislation.

I said yesterday that there have to be people on that

side of the House - members on the government side of the House - who, down in their gut

and in their very being, have to be opposed to this.

If they are getting one-tenth of the calls that I had

gotten on this piece of legislation, and speaking to nurses and to the general public,

they must know that the general public does not favour this legislation.

The Premier will stand in his place and try to make the

case that it is 7 per cent across the board for everyone, and that is the way it should

be; but, as I said here yesterday - and I got a note from the gallery from one of the

nurses - some of the questions they were asking: Haven't the bargaining units already

signed legal binding agreements? They have to wait until their agreements are up and then

try to negotiate increases or changes to their collective bargaining agreements.

That is the process. It seems to me that the Premier,

the President of Treasury Board, the people who are negotiating - and who have been

negotiating, by the way, in bad faith, from my perspective, from what I have seen in the

media - do not understand what collective bargaining is all about.

If the nurses - and, by the way, the RNC Association,

who had binding arbitration -

MR. GRIMES: No they did, non-binding.

MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, non-binding arbitration. They

had arbitration.

MR. GRIMES: A slight difference.

MR. J. BYRNE: So what is legally right and what is

morally right are two different things, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy. What is

legally right and what is morally right are two different things. They had non-binding

arbitration. They went through the process and government ignored it. It is what they are

doing here today.

There is a system in place now for binding arbitration

when certain conditions fall in place. We have them now for the nurses and it is being

ignored.

I find it more than passing strange when the President

of Treasury Board got up to speak on this piece of legislation - I took note of the time.

She started at 3:04 p.m. yesterday afternoon and stopped at 3:21 p.m. - seventeen minutes

- seventeen minutes to introduce a bill that she said was probably the most important

piece of legislation that has come to the House in many years. She spoke for seventeen

minutes on it.

I can tell you this: If it is as important as she has

said it is, and the impact it is having not only on the nurses but on other bargaining

units within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador... If I got up to speak, I could

speak for seventeen minutes about my hair, and I don't have too much to speak about!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: To speak for seventeen minutes on a

piece of legislation that is having the impact that this is having in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: You wouldn't have much to say there,

Jack.

MR. J. BYRNE: I can speak seventeen minutes on it, I

guarantee you that.

Mr. Chairman, seventeen minutes she spoke on it.

MS THISTLE: Sometimes you can say more in seventeen

minutes than you can in seventeen hours.

MR. J. BYRNE: The President of Treasury Board just

said that sometimes you can say more in seventeen minutes than you can say in hours. Well,

I can tell you, President of Treasury Board, that you did not say a lot yesterday in

seventeen minutes.

As a matter of fact, from what I saw on that side of the

House, the people over there are telling me they do not support this. Now, someone is

going to jump to their feet and say: No one told you any such thing; but, according to

what the President of Treasury Board is saying, I can say this: Body language can speak

volumes, I can guarantee you that, I say to the President of Treasury Board, who has

introduced this bill.

There are so many things that you can get into with this

piece of legislation, it is absolutely ridiculous. Just the penalties alone, I mean,

really. We are living in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, which is a part of the

Country of Canada. We are now celebrating fifty years in Canada; the number one country,

for the past three or four years, in a list of countries -

MR. SULLIVAN: Chrtien got it pushed down

(inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Chrtien got it dropped down one or

two, I suppose, to number two or three.

Here we are, and we are going to impose legislation that

is going to require the union, if they decide to be so bold as to even question - to stay

out and not to honour this piece of legislation - $100,000 a day.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Conception Bay

East & Bell Island - let me handle this - the Member for Conception Bay East &

Bell Island said in this House yesterday that he was going to get up and speak on this

piece of legislation. I did not see him up yesterday. Twelve hours, four legislative days,

and you have not been up yet. If you want to get up and speak for ten or fifteen minutes,

I will take my place. I will gladly take my place, I say to the Member for Conception Bay

East & Bell Island. It is not likely to happen but I would like to know, from your

mouth, why you think this is such a great piece of legislation. You voted in favour of it.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. J. BYRNE: Now, I say to the people in the

galleries -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Conception Bay East

& Bell Island is talking about back in the eighties. Do you want to go back to the

sixties, the fifties, the forties? I was born in 1951. I was not here back in the

eighties. How many here were in the eighties? Were you?

I say to the people in the galleries who want to be here

and watch the vote that is going to be taking place - because there are going to be a

number of votes taking place - we are starting here now in Committee and each clause -

there are eight clauses and there will be what we call Division on each clause, and the

people will have to stand in their place - it will not be just by voice - and be counted.

Yesterday we saw the galleries being cleared a couple of

times. Last night they were cleared for the remainder of the evening around 9:00 p.m. or

10:00 p.m. We were here until 1:30 a.m., going on 2:00 a.m. I know because we were here. I

remember coming into this House of Assembly oftentimes, sitting in the galleries, long

before I got in politics, and looking down like you are looking down now, and saying: What

is wrong with those people down there? I was totally disgusted with them; but it is hard

to be down here sometimes, when you hear comments back and forth, and not interject back

and forth. That is a part of the system to a certain extent. It does get out of hand

sometimes, but that is the nature of the beast we are living with.

In the meantime, I say to you now, control yourselves

the best you can; because there are going to be many votes and you can see for yourself

what is happening in this House of Assembly with respect to this piece of legislation. It

is regressive, it is backward, it is archaic. I do not what other words to use.

I could say that across this country, of course, in this

Province in the past, there has been back-to-work legislation brought in. They have tried

to twist it back on us on this side of the House with respect to back in the 1980s and

1970s, or whatever the case may be, when the Tories or the PCs were in power.

The previous government - the PCs - brought in the

legislation that could be used today to settle this very argument that is going on, and

that is binding arbitration that is there now. We brought that in. This Administration was

trying to get rid of it.

When you see the Premier in his place, and in particular

the Minister of Mines and Energy up and down like a yo-yo in this House of Assembly on

points of order that are not points of order, they will try and twist it back on us.

The first day that we came in here with this

legislation, I think it was Monday or Tuesday, the Government House Leader stood in his

place and tried to force us to discuss this piece of legislation on that day.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the opportunity to again make a few

comments and try to establish a few things for the record of Hansard and make sure that we

are clear on what is happening in this particular debate. We are debating clause-by-clause

this particular bill which we recognize as being rather controversial.

The previous member, the Member for Cape St. Francis,

referred to the issue that the matter with the RNC is not yet settled at this point

either. He neglected to point out that the legislation under which the government

negotiated with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association was established by the

Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador when they were the government.

They had a full debate and decided that the legislation that governs bargaining for the

Constabulary was fair the way it is written today, because they wrote it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: No, I am just making sure that we are

clear for the record, just to make sure everybody understands what is happening.

So they wrote the legislation -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: In the legislation, after a full, fair

and open democratic debate like is going on here today, they decided - that group, when

they were the government, decided - that the best and fairest mechanism for the

Constabulary when they are negotiating is for them to not have the right to strike but to

be able to go to arbitration. The arbitration would not be binding on the government. That

was a law created by the members opposite.

They have the former Premier sitting in their midst, who

made an impassioned plea last night and cleared the galleries with a speech that he made.

They brought him back as their star candidate because they were so proud of the kind of

legislation that they put in place when they were the government. They were so proud of

the fact that they thought the best mechanism for the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary

Association was to have arbitration that was not binding on the government. What we saw in

the last few weeks was that piece of legislation being used to its full extent, being used

as it is written. We abided by the law.

Mr. Chairman, guess what? The government abided by the

law that they wrote. Do not miss the point - I am sure people are not - the government -

MR. H. HODDER: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: I have lots of time Harvey. I will be up

lots of times today.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, the member is only

partially telling the truth; because he knows that in 1986 there was a commitment given to

the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association by the Progressive Conservative Government

to give them binding arbitration.

He also knows, in 1992, the Minister of Finance, the

Minister of Justice and this government, gave the RNC a written commitment again to

introduce binding arbitration. They have interest arbitration. In 1991, the Picher

arbitration said that process that he is talking about now is not working.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: He said it was not a positive

relationship because the parties relied too much on the arbitrator's decision.

They gave a commitment to change it into binding

arbitration in 1992. They did nothing about it. I admit that the Conservatives (inaudible)

1986 but something happened in 1989. It was called an election.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. H. HODDER: The minister only tells half the

story. He twists the whole story.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will continue on and make my point in the context of

where we are today, because the hon. member raised the issue of the RNC. The hon. member

just made it clear - exactly confirmed what I was saying - the Progressive Conservative

government debated this issue, brought in the law which is still the law today. His

misrepresentation is this, Mr. Chairman: This government, when we wrote a letter appended

to their agreement in 1992, did not say we would give them binding arbitration. We said we

would undertake to bring the matter before the Legislature.

Since that time there has been a Royal Newfoundland

Constabulary Act, a brand new one, brought to this Legislature and considered and passed

without a change. This government did what we said we would do. We considered it and

considered it and came to the same conclusion that they did when they were the government:

that the best mechanism for the RNC at this point in time is non-binding arbitration. So

we abided by the law, and we abided by our commitment in the letter.

I know the public speeches are not saying that and so

on, and people might be a bit confused; however, we abided by the law. The point that I

make is this: When we abided by the law, the position of the Official Opposition is: The

RNC do not like that, we are on the side of the RNC so we want you to change the law. He

just got up and made another representation suggesting that we should change the law. When

we abided by the law, there was a result that they did not like because the RNC say they

do not like it and they support the RNC.

In this circumstance - now follow the argument - we

abided by the law and they said: Please change the law. In this circumstance with the

nurses, we are changing the law, we are bringing it here for debate, we are changing the

law, and guess what the Opposition is saying this time? Do not change the law.

Now, because they are supporting nurses they do not want

to change the law this time. Last week, and even today, when they jump up and say, we are

supporting the RNC, the only way they can support the RNC and their association is to

suggest that the government change the law, which is what we are doing today. That is

convenient because that is what they want done for the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary

Association.

We respect to nurses, we are about to change the law and

their argument flips 180 degrees and says: Oh, we do not want you to change the law.

Please, do not change the law. Leave the law like it is. Because that is the only way they

can build a case to support the argument to support the nurses.

MR. H. HODDER: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, I will be back several

times. There is lots of time in this debate. That is only the first point that I wanted to

make today.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

Valley.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, the minister can stand

as often as he wishes and say what he wants to say. It is a free and open parliamentary

democracy. He can live within the rules and he will be okay. However, he cannot

misrepresent the truth.

The truth is that in 1992 the evidence had come in, he

had been in office, he was a minister, and he was part of a decision of Cabinet that said:

Please, would you attach this memorandum to the RNC's collective agreement whereby we will

say that over the life of this contract - that is what it said - we will introduce

legislation to give binding arbitration to the RNC.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I do not have the

letter here in front of me. I can certainly go and get it. I have it in my files. I can

have it and come back with it and I will read it directly into the record. That is what it

said, and you did not live up to your commitment to the RNC.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, I assume my time of ten

minutes has elapsed.

CHAIR: No, it has not.

MR. GRIMES: It has not?

CHAIR: The member has two minutes left.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: It just seems long, Roger.

MR. GRIMES: I understand, and it will seem longer

before the night is over.

Mr. Chairman, the second thing in terms of trying to

establish certain pieces of information - and I hesitate to do this but I will do it one

more time for the record. I think we have established here today again that unfortunately

either some nurse has phoned an Open Line show and lied about what happened here last

night - because most people listen to the Open Line show and believe it to be true - or

somebody on that side of the House who did what the nurse said has not been a man enough

or a person enough today to stand up and acknowledge.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: They were brave enough last night;

because I am willing to assume that the Open Line call was the truth, which means that

somebody here today who was very brave last night and went out there and said, we would

love to have you back in but the Liberals will not let you in, will not stand up today

because it is on the official record today, to be followed historically for anybody who

wants to look at this in the future. They will not stand up today in the Legislature,

where it is written down, and admit what they did last night; because I believe the nurse

that phoned Open Line. What it means is that there is somebody there - I am looking at

somebody - who was brave last night, and now that the lights are on in broad daylight they

are not so brave today.

It is very convenient to play to the crowd, be a big

hero, show what a great supporter you are, but stand up - stand up is the challenge -

stand up and debate the issues. Debate them fairly and openly and fully, like we will do

for the rest of the day, and declare where you stand, on the record.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am pleased to rise again today and speak against this

bill. I am glad to sit here - no, I am not really glad to sit here and listen again. I say

to the people who are in the galleries today, do not be fooled by the Minister of Mines

and Energy because he did the same thing last night.

AN HON. MEMBER: Was it you, Bob?

MR. FRENCH: No, if it was me I would admit it, Sir.

I have more backbone than that, and more backbone than you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: Maybe we should get Viagra in liquid

form for you.

Anyway, I am very glad to stand here in my place today

and talk about this legislation. I have letters here today, some of which, if I have the

time, I am going to read. I also have a poem which was sent to me. I know my colleague

from Burin-Placentia West did not write this one. It shows the frustration of nurses, of a

very dedicated group of people in our Province.

I hope the Minister of Health and Community Services

listens to some of these letters because she should, if she does not, understand the

frustration that some of her colleagues are going through.

I have a letter here which is addressed to I guess to

just about every Member of this House of Assembly. The subject is, of course, back-to-work

legislation. It says: As a Member of the House of Assembly, you were elected by the voters

of your district to represent their best interests. A strong health care system staffed by

a full-time work force, paid fairly for their duties is in their best interest. If you

must legislate a resolution to labour disputes with the nurses' union, sending the matter

to binding arbitration is the only acceptable alternative. It is the only acceptable

alternative. It is the union's right and, more importantly, it is the law.

As well, this is a poem which I received which was

written by a nurse. It goes something like this:

One time, I smoothed the fevered brow;

I have no time to do that now.

Once, I held the dying hand,

But now, no time - you understand?

I once had time to sit and chat,

No time left now for such as that.

You have a question? - it has to wait,

This man hasn't finished what's on his plate.

I wish he'd hurry; so slow to chew,

When I have so many things to do.

The lady there needs something for pain,

As my beeper rings and rings again.

Perhaps all she needs is a ready smile -

Mine seems to have disappeared awhile.

The man down the hall has wet the bed,

I'm not quick enough, is what he said.

I once had time to stop and talk;

Now I seem to run, not walk.

The paper work is still not done -

It remains a battle that's never won.

The doctor wants to make a round,

So I find the time that can't be found.

I tell myself I have just two hands

That try to meet with all demands.

Yet I leave my shift, always wondering about

Those things I've done - and those left out.

It seems, at times, things go from bad to worse;

One time I thought I made a good nurse.

I hope that especially the Minister of Mines and Energy

was listening to that, because there is a message in there. It should tell you, as you

were in another life, a professional, how professional some of these people are. I say to

you, as a former union leader and somebody who should know, if he does not know, the

difference of what labour negotiations are all about.

The legislation that we have seen here since yesterday

afternoon would not be introduced in a banana republic. It is the low-down, dirtiest thing

I have seen in this House since I have been a member. It is worse, I say to the minister,

than the Kodak bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: I am not talking about my colleague. I

am talking to you.

I would now like to read another letter which was

written, by the way, to the Premier. It says: Dear Sir, I am a registered nurse who came

to Newfoundland from Ontario in 1972. I married a widower and we raised his three

children, as well as a son of our own. I served on our local school board for fifteen

years with no remuneration. I am fifty years old and money is not a major issue for me

personally in this nurses' strike, but for others it has to be.

We expect all our young nurses to be university

graduates. We are graduating well-educated young men and women who are forced to leave

home because: (

a) we are the lowest paid in Canada; and, (

b) there are no permanent jobs

offered to them.

Please note that the average age of the registered

nurses in Canada is forty-seven years old. I work in community health care in Flower's

Cove in your district. We have twelve nurses who work in our area. One nurse is sixty

years old, five nurses are from fifty to sixty, five nurses are from forty to fifty, and

one nurse is from thirty to forty years old.

Within five to ten years this Province will be forced to

offer lucrative salaries and job incentives to foreign nurses because we forced our own

sons and daughters to leave home. How embarrassing and how shameful.

When I was eighteen years old, I campaigned for the

Liberal Party because I believed that we could work toward a just society; but you

lawmakers who expect us to respect this letter of the law are the very people who

manipulate the law to suit yourselves.

Until yesterday, I believed that we had a civilized

democracy. I am embarrassed that I was so naive, so stupid for all these years. I now know

that I will never vote Liberal again. That is a promise.

This letter, of course, is signed. On and on it goes,

Mr. Chairman.

I have another fax which I have received from a

bargaining unit in our Province, again asking me, as an elected member of this House of

Assembly, to vote against this very, very - to me - reprehensive piece of garbage that has

been laid on the floor of this Assembly.

I have never seen a government in my life that is out

working so hard to drive unions, maybe in this Province, to civil disobedience. I go out

and talk to people -

AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible).

MR. FRENCH: You are going to get your chance, mouth

over there. When you get up, you are going to tell us why you got fired!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: I hope you are, anyway. When you get up,

you are going to tell this House why you got fired! Hopefully, you can stand up here -

MR. WALSH: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

Bay East & Bell Island.

MR. WALSH: Not a point of order, a point of personal

privilege, Mr. Chairman.

If the member wants to take this debate there, I am

willing to go with you. You know that I did the honourable thing. I stepped down because

there were rumours being spread, maybe by you and others, about something I may have done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WALSH: Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, if you

want to try to rekindle those rumours, you go right ahead. I did the honourable thing, and

any member who has served in this Assembly knows that. I was also cleared of anything, so

don't you crawl into the gutter. I think if you have any decency at all you will

apologize.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

No point of privilege.

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. FRENCH: To that point of privilege.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I said that there was no point of privilege.

MR. FRENCH: I would like to make a point of order of

my own, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for

Conception Bay South.

MR. FRENCH: Or a point of personal privilege. I

would say to the member that I certainly did not spread any rumours. I think the member

knows me well enough and long enough that if I thought something I would certainly go and

tell the member personally. I'm not that type of individual. He knows that, Mr. Chairman,

so I do not have to apologize for anything.

The time will come when he stands in his place and we

are going to see how he votes and where the backbone is on this very regressive piece of

legislation.

CHAIR: Order, please!

No point of privilege.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate another few minutes to again add to the

points that I will try to make as the debate goes on. I think everybody in the Legislature

was very taken a couple of days ago actually with the poem that was read, because it was

presented in the Legislature by the Member for Waterford Valley, as I understand it, two

or three days ago, I think, the poem that was read from the nurse in Gander that was

repeated again by the Member for Conception Bay South. I think he described it as from a

nurse in Gander, I believe, but it was the same poem you read the other day.

Again, the letter, with respect to manipulating the law,

that was read as part of the debate yesterday and the day before, takes me back to

restating a couple of points. This is a point I will make repeatedly as the debate goes

on. The Opposition is in the position to be on everybody's side. Talk about manipulating

the law. Today we are about to change the law, and I will just briefly restate the point I

made in my previous submission. We are about to change the law and I will give more

reasons in a future presentation as to why. I have done it before, but since there are new

people here I guess and others who will want to hear it I will take the opportunity to do

it again.

Today we are about to change the law. The proposition of

the Opposition is: We want to support the nurses fully and openly and the only way we can

do that is to ask you to not to change the law. A week ago when we used the current law

which applies to the Constabulary Association they wanted to support the RNC, and they

begged us in this Legislature to change the law. They have shown a willingness, depending

on what the issue is, to change the law if it serves their purposes, and to insist that

there is something wrong with changing the law.

The member that just spoke talked about garbage and

awful legislation, the worst he ever saw. He obviously did not know the Member for

Lewisporte back in the mid-1980s when he was in a Cabinet that had paddy wagons out in the

front hauling people off to jail for people out there exercising their right. They were

dragged off to jail. We talk about how bad it gets and we will see what happens over time.

I hope that cooler heads prevail through the whole piece.

I indicated again, and I will repeat it just this time

briefly, because it should be said for the record, the willingness for members of the

Opposition, because they have the luxury to do so, to play to the crowd, but when given an

opportunity today to admit that they did what was alleged today on open line, so far the

Member for Conception Bay South said: I did not do it. I guess we will ask them all one at

a time. The Member for Baie Verte has indicated from his seat that he did not do it. There

are fourteen there, and two down there is sixteen. Two did not do it. There is fourteen

left, and we will ask fourteen more questions.

Mr. Chairman, the next point, talking about the whole

issue of negotiations -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: I want to make sure that the historical

record shows what is going on here, because this is an historic, significant debate and

all the points need to be made.

Talk about negotiations and the stand. I mentioned it

earlier in response to the petition. There has been a lot of negotiations. At least we

recognize negotiations as and for what they are. The Opposition again - let me

characterize it, because they can say what they like, because they do not have to make any

decisions. They can promise tax cuts and at the same time promise everybody a raise. They

can get up like they did today and say: There is really a $160 million deficit, not a $4

million surplus, and still, knowing that they are convinced that we are giving the wrong

numbers and they are giving the right ones, still suggest that everybody should get a

raise.

I will talk now about negotiations. The issue of

workload contained in two significant items, that being casualization being converted to

permanent - discussed fully at a health care forum that I chaired on behalf of the

government a year ago at Littledale. There were two issues that predominated.

Casualization was one, and the government undertook to do something about it. We started

doing something about it back in January. There is more being accomplished as a result of

this round of bargaining. Also, the other issue that everybody at that particular forum

agreed on was that we had a shortage of doctors. The government at that forum, and by the

Opposition critic, was encouraged to do something that. We have done something about it.

He keeps saying it is not enough, so he wants more for the doctors, more here, more there.

Meanwhile, in the election they were going to cut $800 million in taxes. I don't know how

they were going to get the money. So they were going to have less money and give everybody

more. A little bit of magic but people did not vote for it.

I was delighted that today with the galleries full, both

the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition health critic, the Member for Ferryland,

jumped to their feet to defend the position that the government should never have

discussed workload issues relating to how many nurses are in the system with the nurses.

Get up and say it again. If I am misrepresenting it, tell me again what you said. I heard

it. It is in the record. It is written on a piece of paper. Everybody in this gallery

heard it today. You said it, your leader said it, that it is no role for the government to

negotiate that. Just like teachers, like in the Budget. The representation was: In the

Budget you told the school boards how many teachers they are going to get. In the Budget

you should have told the hospital boards how many nurses they were going to get. You

should not be negotiating that.

Now they forget that normally we do not. In the past we

never have. It does not appear in the collective agreement, but this time we were

negotiating it because the nurses asked us to. At a request of the nurses arising from the

health care forum last year, they said: We can advise you best, government, as to how many

nurses should be in the system and how many casuals need to be converted to permanent.

We said: Okay, we will discuss that in the context of

workload in the negotiation. We had made some progress, to the point that I will remind

people again - and particularly those in the gallery - that the negotiating team and the

executive of the union had thought we had made significant enough progress that they

recommended the settlement to their members. That is not to be forgotten. A key part of it

was because we addressed the issues that the nurses' representatives asked to address at

the bargaining table. It included talking about how many nurses should be in the system.

The Opposition says: You never should have talked to

them about it. If we were the government we would not be talking to them about it. We do

not negotiate that. We just tell you how many you are going to have. We just tell you

that.

Now when asked that for clarification last week, because

I put it to the Leader of the Opposition at some point, I asked: Is that really your

position, that if you were the government you would never have discussed that with nurses?

You would not want the advantage and value of their advice? You would just sit down

yourself and tell them how many they were going to have? He jumped up and said: Oh no, we

would not dictate like you people, we would negotiate.

So one day he is saying: We should not be negotiating

that because the government should tell you. When challenged on that, was that the real

position?, he says: Oh no, we would not dictate. Guess when he gave that answer? It was

the day after the Minister of Health rose and said how many new nurses are going into the

system and said how many casuals were going to change to permanent. When we did what he

asked us to do the week before - and it is too bad you were not here in the gallery, you

would have seen it - the week before, three days in a row, the Leader of the Opposition,

aided by his sidekick from Ferryland, the Opposition health critic, said: Do not negotiate

that with nurses. Tell them! It is your prerogative to tell them how many nurses are going

to be there.

The Minister of Health stands up after the negotiations

broke off a second time - because we had a strike, we tried for three more days -, on the

Monday after the Minister of Health stands and does exactly what they asked us to do on

Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. She announced how many nurses were going to be brand new

to the system. She announced how many casuals were going to be converted to permanent.

Guess what he said that day? I will repeat it. He said: What are you doing dictating that

stuff? Why don't you negotiate those things with the nurses? You are negotiating in bad

faith.

I am getting completely confused as to what the position

of the Opposition is because they are bending over backwards so much, trying to be on

everybody's side, that it has becoming very obvious.

Then today, better still: Always support the nurses. We

all support the nurses in their cause to have better health care. We are trying to do it

by giving them more people in the system so that their own individual workload situations

will be reduced and diminished, better managed, so that they can provide better care. We

all believe in that. Have we gone far enough? Maybe not. Have we gone as far as we think

we can go financially at this point without again going back through an issue that I will

deal with later? We will see. We have gone as far as we think we can afford, without

doubt.

The other point that was being made on behalf of the

nurses in the Legislature by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the NDP was

that this was not about money. Because the President of the nurses' union was saying: This

was not about money, this was about other issues - workload, casualization. They repeated

the statements in the legislature.

Today, for the first time, the Leader of the Opposition

says: I do not believe the President of the nurses' union. Because guess what he said in

one of his answers today: It is only about money. He said: I agree with the Premier, this

is all about money.

Now he has decided he does not believe the President of

the nurses' union. There are not any other issues. Today he is on the record. Get the

written record. I challenge anyone to get out the verbatim written record and he will say:

It is all about money.

CHAIR (Smith): Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be back.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Today being Thursday, I would just like to read into

record the questions for the Late Show.

The hon. Member for Ferryland: I am dissatisfied with

the answer provided by the Minister of Health re my question on the emergency room doctor

funding.

The hon. Member for Waterford Valley: I am dissatisfied

with the answer provided by the Minister of Health and Community Services re my question

regarding the nurses' negotiations.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, that would be

a great speech if it had any shred of credibility attached to it. Let's review the record

he just put forward.

All during negotiations this government ran a public

relations campaign while at the same time they were saying they were bargaining in good

faith. During negotiations, three days before this legislation came before the House, the

bargaining team on behalf of nurses in this Province indicated to me government said: You

will have to take it, you cannot win, we will legislate it. Fact. If you do not, we will

legislate penalties such that you will have to go back.

I had information that I dropped on the table here of

what the fines were, and they were correct. Let's be very clear on what the Leader of the

Opposition said. The number of nurses in the system is not a collective bargaining tool.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thank you, you have said it again.

Thank you.

MR. E. BYRNE: The Minister of Mines and Energy

indicates and attributes the fact that we said we would dictate. The reality is, I say to

the minister - and in a question in Question Period - and I would gladly pass out Hansard

- under direct questioning I asked the Premier this question. It was: If you stood in your

place and lived up to the commitments made during the election and during the budgetary

process, and on Budget day made the announcement of how many new nurses were going to be

in the system - outside of casualization, outside of workplace health and safety issues,

outside of the negotiations around the collective agreement over monetary benefits -,

don't you think that that would go a long way at the bargaining table of demonstrating

good faith?

That is the question that was asked. Of demonstrating

good faith that your word, during the recent weeks in particular, during the election, and

your word during the weeks following up to the Budget tabled, wouldn't you think that on

Budget Day, if the Minister of Finance, on behalf of government, stood in the House and

indicated what they would give back to the system in terms of extra number of nurses -

they all know what they are, by the way, because the Budget process dictates it.

Every hospital board, through its institutions, whether

it be community health or otherwise, sends through the Department of Health, then into

Treasury Board and the Department of Finance, what the requirement is for front line

health care workers. I have not seen that tabled, and we are not going to see it tabled,

because what was released, or what was put back into the system, is not going to come

anywhere near.

Just to be clear, that question was asked under this set

of circumstances: Premier, would you not agree that if you lived up to your commitment and

on Budget Day announced how many were going back into the system, don't you think it would

be a significant sign of good faith, demonstrated clearly, and that that would go a long

way to resolving the outstanding labour dispute? That is the context.

Secondly, on Monday the Minister of Health stood in the

House, after negotiations had broken down, supposedly in good faith collective bargaining,

and said about the additional nurses that were going to be put back into the system, and

talked about, for the sake of perception, the 125 which were put back last year. One

hundred and sixteen have already been placed so there is an extra nine to place. Clearly

trying to leave the impression that the numbers were higher than they were.

Essentially what happened in this Legislature was no

different than what was happening throughout the negotiations. Government came in through

the ministerial statement by the Minister of Health and said this: Here is what we are

prepared to do in casualization issues, that and only that. Here is the number of extra

new nurses. That is it.

Government has already made weeks before, through their

public relations exercise, supposedly while good faith collective bargaining was taking

place, a public relations campaign on to convince the public, which obviously has not

worked, and has probably cost all of us in excess of $30,000 or $40,000, but supposedly

announced that 7 per cent was it.

What were the outstanding issues? There were no

outstanding issues because government demonstrated clearly through their actions in this

House that good faith bargaining was not on the table. That the 7 per cent solution, one

size fits all, that they are talking about was dictated in this Legislature (inaudible)

clearly over the last four or five days in particular.

We have demonstrated many exceptions government have

made because of special circumstances, because of circumstances that warrant a special

consideration. The Minister of Mines and Energy wants to stand in the House - he is

apparently the lead dog today on the clause-by-clause debate. That is fine, he has every

right to do it. I will sit and listen to him. I will not interrupt him, as much as I may

find it laughable, and as much as I may find it insincere of him to do so when he tries to

distort the real issues.

The real issues in this are very simple, that during

good faith collective bargaining you do not run public relations campaigns if you are

negotiating in good faith. You do not say to bargaining agents on behalf of people: It is

our way or the highway. That does not occur.

Thirdly, during good faith collective bargaining, you do

not intimidate, threaten and bully the other side by saying: You cannot win. Back-to-work

legislation is coming. If we have to do it, we will do it. We will impose such fines on

you that if you break the back-to-work legislation they will exceed $4.5 million a day.

That is not how you negotiate collectively in good faith. That is what is very clear to

everybody in this Legislature. No matter what spin you want to put on it, no matter how

you want to distort it, no matter what you may try today, the people in this House will

listen to you intent