March 26, 1999 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLIV No. 8

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!

Before we begin our routine proceedings, the Chair would like to

welcome to the gallery today fourteen Level III students from Fitzgerald Academy in

Langdon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today

in order to inform all hon. members that government has recently negotiated two more

collective agreements. Thirty signed agreements are currently in place covering in excess

of 30,000 workers. This represents 85 per cent of government's workforce. These two

agreements were reached through the collective bargaining process and both provide for a

wage settlement of 7 per cent over thirty-nine months, as with all other collective

agreements.

Negotiations of a new collective agreement for the Newfoundland and

Labrador Teachers' Association in Labrador West have produced a basis for a tentative

agreement which the parties will be presenting to their principals for acceptance.

The negotiating committees are confident that they have reached a

settlement covering approximately 120 teachers in Labrador West. Both the NLTA and the

school board will be consulting with their principals prior to confirming that a tentative

agreement has been reached.

I am also delighted to announce that the Avalon West School Board has

reached a tentative agreement with their support staff. These 246 employees are

represented by the Newfoundland Association of Public Employees. The school board feels

confident the NAPE negotiation committee will be successful in presenting their deal to

the membership.

Mr. Speaker, this government has moved forward on collective bargaining

with many of the public sector unions. It must be recognized, however, that to reach

agreement good faith negotiation from both sides of the bargaining table is required. As

we continue the collective bargaining process, I am confident that we will reach

agreements with the other unions that have outstanding contracts with government.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I want to say that it is good news to hear that we have reached those

agreements. However, Madam Minister, we know that when you say here - I just want to point

out a word - you are talking about the school board taking it to their principal, I hope

they take it to their teachers, the rank-and-file. I know that is only a play on words

here, but we want to say as well that we say to you today that this is part of the

bargaining process that is good. Of course, that has been done for a while in one case,

and we know as well that this morning it is designed to deflect attention, to bring some

good news.

The real issue is: What are you doing with nurses' negotiations, what

are you doing with allied health professionals, where are you going with these, and when

do you intend to bargain meaningfully with nurses and with allied health professionals in

this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister's statement this morning underscores the fact that in

excess of 90 percent of collective agreements are reached without resort to a strike, and

obviously these are two examples of it.

I also note that she talks about in excess of thirty agreements. We

have over thirty or forty bargaining units in the public sector because the circumstances

of each bargaining unit are different. Good faith negotiations, as the minister speaks of,

requires government and both sides to recognize that different bargaining units have

different circumstances.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: I ask the minister and the government to use good faith

negotiations with the nurses.

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

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, a new and exciting program will be piloted

in secondary schools throughout the Province during the 1999-2000 school year.

The "Regional Economic Development and Schools" project will

build links between human resource development and regional economic development. Its

primary focus will be on the development of learning modules or local courses that address

or reflect regional economic challenges and opportunities.

This innovative program will help make students more aware of local

resources, potential development opportunities and possible career options that are

available in their communities. The program will help students make those important career

choices that will impact their future and, in so doing, help provide them with the

educational resources to be leaders for our Province in the global economy.

The Department of Education, through its Program Development Division,

will work as a partner in ensuring that these learning modules support and enrich existing

curriculum outcomes. Modules will be developed for growth sectors of the economy including

information technology, aquaculture, agrifoods and biotechnology.

The successful launch of a project of this type depends on many

factors, including the commitment of the partners and stakeholders. Especially remarkable

is the creativity and innovation of our teachers, who, working hands-on with children,

recognize a need in their community, spark an idea for a project such as this, and seize

the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of their students. Projects like this

one would not be possible without that first idea, and in many cases it comes from our

teachers.

The Department of Education is looking forward to partnering with the

Newfoundland and Labrador School Boards' Association, ACOA, school districts, regional

economic development boards, and really important are teachers in the development and

delivery of this program.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again this is a fine initiative, of no

doubt, which prepares our students to meet the future challenges regarding economic

challenges. It is a move in the right direction.

The program again is a very positive one, but I question our ability in

our system to action such a program. It wasn't just a few short days ago that 182 teachers

were taken out of the system, and this is another project that is placed on their backs. I

am wondering, especially in rural Newfoundland - we are getting calls - I am getting calls

- throughout the week from rural Newfoundlanders, asking me to put to the minister a

question as to the allocation formulas, and begging for more teachers.

Again, this initiative is a very positive one; but again, I say to the

minister, the action of these initiatives is the problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HEDDERSON: If you are going to take 182 teachers out of the

system, let's give it some consideration, please.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, rise in support of this initiative. I think it is a great day

for our schools when we move into areas such as this, rather than dealing with subjects

that were dealt with when I went to school, like history, ancient history, and all these

things. While it is worthwhile and probably has a purpose, I think initiatives of this

sort will better prepare students for their future endeavours. I think it will make them

more aware of the communities in which we live.

I commend the effort on the part of the minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Order ,please!

The hon. member's time is up.

The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As part of our commitment to the agricultural industry, I would like to

inform Members of the House of Assembly of the extension to the Agricultural Safety Nets

Agreement. This program will receive a provincial contribution of $800,000 of the

federal-provincial cost-shared program worth $2 million.

This program covers a national income stabilization account, crop

insurance, including the big game crop insurance loss compensation program, and the

Agrifoods Innovation Program. It includes marketing, development and diversification, and

human resources development program.

Mr. Speaker, this agreement has already contributed over $6 million to

non-supplied managed commodities since 1996. To date we have been concentrating on

developing the beef sector, forage and pasture development, the berry industry, fur

industry, sheep sectors and vegetables sectors.

Mr. Speaker, we have assisted 200 farms units and will continue to

support this sector of our rural economy. Jobs in agriculture are important and can be

expanded upon through further development of the industry. The regional economic

development boards across the Province have made agriculture a priority, and we have

initiated discussions with them directly to assist in their strategic plans.

Mr. Speaker, funds under this agreement will be used for land clearing,

land improvement and drainage, improvements to feed efficiency, as well as funds to

diversify the industry. This cost-shared program has provided the opportunity for industry

diversification, value added, and further processing opportunities.

The Department of Forestry Resources and Agrifoods are presently

negotiating with Agriculture and Agrifoods Canada and our provincial counterparts for a

new five-year commitment to the Safety Nets Agreement.

In July of 1999, our Province will participate in the

federal/provincial agricultural meeting to finalize agreement on future Safety Nets

funding. This will create the environment for continued support into the next millennium.

In closing, I would also like to thank the federal government, and in

particular the minister, Lyle Vanclief, for his continued support of this program.

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to continuing diversification

of the farm industry as well as assisting farmers in creating new markets.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for forwarding a copy

of the Ministerial Statement. I agree with the minister on this very important support

statement for the agricultural industry. Agriculture needs to be put on the front burner

because it can be a very important contributor to our economy and it needs this support.

This commitment was already stated in the Budget. Why do we have to

hear it today with other issues here? I think this government should deal with today's

issues today.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. The

agriculture industry in this Province is an underdeveloped industry. We, in the New

Democratic Party caucus, support any effort to develop this industry because it has such

an important potential, particularly in rural Newfoundland. We can, through the

development of the agrifoods industry, replace imports and have a more vibrant economy.

Oral Questions

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

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

Yesterday, under questioning from the Member for Ferryland, the Premier

referred to the hiring of more nurses as a collective bargaining issue.

Premier, it was in the Budget, recently announced, it is government who

decides how many employees it takes within the public sector service - whether it be

teachers - and decided on teacher allocations, how many teachers will or will not be in

the system.

The reality is that in recent weeks, leading up before Budget, you

talked about a commitment made to - and understanding the need for more nurses in the

system. Will you admit today that this is not a collective bargaining issue, that this is

a government priority issue? Will you also admit and live up to the promise made in recent

weeks and recent months that it is time to hire more nurses and put them back into the

front-line system?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the Leader of the

Opposition to the extent that he suggested this is not an issue to be discussed with the

representatives of the nurses in the Province, because they have put this issue before us

on the collective bargaining table and want to understand not only what the wage and

compensation issues are going to be at the end of the process but also how the workload

issues are going to be addressed.

The nurses' union and nurses themselves have said, and said repeatedly,

that the issues that they have brought to the collective bargaining table and now the

issues that they are striking over are not just salary issues. I can confirm, that is

true.

They have asked to discuss workload issues; and government, out of

respect for the process, rather than unilaterally saying in the Budget that this is what

we are going to do in the area of workload - it is announced, that is the end of the

discussion, we are not going to hear from anybody else - we set aside that issue. We said

as such on Budget day. We said that those numbers would ultimately be determined and would

become known when we finish the collective bargaining process with nurses.

The talks, as you know, are scheduled to resume again today at 12:00

noon. There was dialogue, primarily through a conciliator, yesterday between 10:00 a.m.

and about 6:00 p.m. Both teams then took a break and will back today at about 12:00 noon,

and we will see what progress is being made.

The issue of permanents, and the issue of conversion of casuals to

permanents, is very much at the table and we are going to respect the process at the table

and not unilaterally make a determination on those issues.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, putting enough people in the system,

determining what is required to run an effect health care system for everybody in

Newfoundland and Labrador and putting enough people in it in terms of hiring of

individuals, in this case more front line nurses, while it may be an issue in terms of

collective bargaining with respect to casualization and permanence, the reality is - the

Premier knows it, government knows it - government has it within its control. It does it

for all other professions that they control, all other professions where it is

government's responsibility to deliver effective public services.

Again, Premier, leave the collective bargaining process for a second.

Why is it that government cannot today stand up and say: We will be putting x number of

new nurses in the system to correct what has happened over the past several years, to put

more people in the front line system so every Newfoundlander and Labradorian can enjoy a

higher level of health care services in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, before this process is over that is

exactly what we will be doing. We will be putting more people back into the system. I have

said already that part of the discussion, as part of the negotiation we have had,

government has put a position on the table that has dealt with the issue of permanents,

that has dealt with the issue of casuals, and that has dealt with compensation. I am not

going to reveal what any of that was. I note that the nurses' union has also respected the

confidentiality of the collective bargaining table. We will continue to do that in terms

of its detail. All I can say to the Leader of the Opposition is that all of these matters

are being discussed, and being discussed at the request of the nurses' union.

I think if I were to take the advice of the Leader of the Opposition

and to stand and unilaterally say: This is it, these are the numbers, that is all we are

going to do, and do it in isolation of the collective bargaining table, I think I would

shatter any chance that remains, and I hope a chance remains -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: I say to members opposite, you know, the strike

process regrettably, on occasion, does occur, but the strike process does not prevent the

parties from ultimately reaching agreement at the collective bargaining table. On this

side of the House we remain hopeful that we can negotiate a settlement. I hope that is

what the other side of the House wants as well, a negotiated settlement. I believe it is

what nurses want and I continue to believe it is what the nurses' union wants.

When there is a strike there are tensions, there is no question about

it. It is difficult for everybody, on every side, but you do not solve the issues

ultimately and you do not find agreement ultimately if unilaterally, before the process

has exhausted itself, one side or the other says publicly this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER TOBIN: I am answering a question. If one side or the other

says: These are the numbers, we have determined it by ourselves, we are not interested in

determining it at the collective bargaining table. If we were to do that today I can tell

you we would end the process of negotiation, and quite rightly end the process of

negotiation.

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, cheap public relation campaigns in the

middle of collective bargaining is what shatters the process, Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Inflammatory comments during the collective

bargaining process are what shatters the opportunity for resolution. Make no mistake that

members on this side of the House, within our caucus, want what every Newfoundlander and

Labradorian wants: a successful conclusion, fair and equitable treatment for health care

workers, which means better treatment for all of us should we need the system when we need

it.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier talks about should he follow the advice of the

Leader of the Opposition. Putting more people, determining more front line workers, is not

a collective bargaining issue. Government does it with teachers, it does it with social

workers, it does it in every spectrum of the public service. Will the Premier live up to

the commitment he made in recent weeks which says he understands, finally, that more

nurses are needed? He will not collectively bargain in public, which he said during the

election, but he did acknowledge that more nurses were needed in the front line system.

Will he live up to that commitment today? Won't he admit that in doing so it may go a long

way in bringing a resolution to the ongoing strike right now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have said for some time - and I was

particulary impressed with the dialogue, and there was dialogue and discussion many times

during the course of the last election campaign, in which I listened to what nurses were

saying - I was absolutely convinced at the end of the process that many of the people who

were talking to me were working under very stressful conditions. I was convinced, by

physically what I saw in the faces of the nurses that I talked to, that workload stress is

real. The people who were talking to me were exhausted in many cases, very stressed, and

in need of having additional people, professionals, working beside them to reduce some of

the stress levels, and that they were being genuine when they said they were concerned not

only about their own circumstance but about patient care and the quality of patient care.

I was convinced of all those things.

That is why government is prepared during the course of this

negotiation to address that issue, and we have addressed that issue. I am going to see to

it that if we can find a negotiated settlement that the issues of permanents and casuals

are addressed at the negotiating table. I am not going to stand - it is in my mind

wonderful theatrics for the Leader of the Opposition - and unilaterally say: These are the

numbers, and I am going to announce it today away from the negotiating table.

Because you know what would happen then? The Leader of the Opposition

would probably get what he wants, an opportunity for political advantage. He would get a

strike that would definitely go on and an end to any possibility of a negotiated

settlement. The Leader of the Opposition should take a more responsible approach when the

health care system of Newfoundlanders is at risk as it is today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: If the assertion by the Premier was not so serious it

might be laughable. I am not going to take any advice from him. I can tell you this, that

the Leader of the Opposition, myself, what I said three, four, five or six weeks ago I

would be living up to today in this Assembly, unlike you sir. That is the difference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I want to ask you this. More than ever before, I

think it is obvious to everyone, that our hospitals are becoming acute care facilities

with high patient turnover as hospital stays decrease and long-term patients are shifted

elsewhere or moved to more home care.

This shift to acute care places more and different demands on health

care workers, nurses and every other worker within the system. Yet government has not

given and not lived up to the commitments made recently to put more people back into the

system, which is again not part of the collective bargaining process. Premier, it is time

to take a more holistic approach in your efforts to restructure the health care system.

When are you going to realize that the changing nature of our

facilities may bring with it, and does in fact bring with it, the need for more front line

health care workers for changes in the responsibilities that go with that shift?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I and members of this government

realize, and indeed every member I hope of the House, certainly all members on this side,

realize that we do need more permanent positions in the health care system and need more

of the casuals converted to permanent. We understand that and that is going to happen, but

I am not going to stand here unilaterally and dictate what those numbers are away from the

negotiating table. That is what we are at the negotiating table for. If the Leader of the

Opposition wanted to help rather than hinder the process of negotiation he would

understand that.

It is perfectly fine for the Leader of the Opposition to make his

points to say that he supports that point of view, to say that he wants to see more

permanent positions, to say that he wants to see more to see more conversions of casual to

permanent. If he really wanted to help the negotiation process and to see us get an

settlement, he would be asking me to listen to what Debbie Forward is saying at the

negotiating table and to respect some of the views being stated there, rather than telling

me to unilaterally decide the issues today in the House of Assembly. That is not the voice

of someone seeking a settlement. That is the voice of someone trying to profit from

conflict!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker, what is transparent is your

ability to say one thing on one day and do something completely different the next.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: That is what is transparent, Premier. I listened

intently this morning, prior to coming into the House, to what the President of the

nurses' union had to say on the front steps of the Confederation Building. I hope you did

as well.

I would like to ask the final question before we move on to other

questions by other questioners. Again Premier, the collective bargaining process is taking

care of itself. The reality is that you can determine - as you do with teacher

allocations, as you do with social workers, everything else - and government can set as a

priority as it does with everything else how many more people are needed in the system.

Why won't you stand and do that today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I find the position that is being taken

- I have already said it, so there is no point repeating it - to be totally at variance

with the process of collective bargaining.

The Leader of the Opposition wants to have it every which way. On the

issue of the RNC settlement, which was for 14 per cent, the Opposition party said they

supported the 14 per cent. We have asked the Opposition party whether they agree with the

principle that if you give 14 per cent to one group of public employees, do you give it to

all other groups of public employees? Because it is the government's position that you

treat everybody fairly.

I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition, if you give everybody in

the public service an amount of compensation or increase equal to that which the

Opposition say they support for the RNC, the annualized cost to the wage bill of this

Province is $119 million a year. That is $600 million more over the next five years. It is

$1.2 billion more over the next decade. To raise that amount of money we would have to

raise personal income taxes by 15 per cent or we would have to borrow it.

Of course we have to give fair compensation to our employees but we

have to cost it. We have to understand that in order to raise huge amounts of money you

either raise taxes or you increase the debt. Now everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador

understands that we have to be fair to the people who work for us, but we have also to

spend within our means. The Leader of the Opposition cannot have it both ways, saying: I

support every demand by every group for any amount of money and, by the way, my party

stands for tax decreases. You cannot have it both ways, sir, you have to stand one day and

be responsible. Be responsible!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: I was interested to hear the comment from the

Minister of Mines and Energy while I was up a few seconds ago saying: But have you

listened to nurses? I watched him come in the front door, see the crowd, hightail it

around to the back door. Have you listened to nurses, sir?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

and Energy.

MR. GRIMES: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

To set the record straight, because this is a very serious issue, I

parked in front of the building today. The nurses were having part of a rally and a

demonstration. As a matter of fact, from my old roots I almost joined in the song -

solidarity forever - out of force of habit. I tried to get up the steps. I got to the back

of the group. There was no parting of the way, so I just walked around the back, said good

morning to everybody I met on the way along, and came in the back door and did not disrupt

the event.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

No point of order.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: The Premier has raised the notion of 7 per cent.

PREMIER TOBIN: Why don't you answer the question?

MR. E. BYRNE: I am about to.

PREMIER TOBIN: Good.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: He raised the notion of 7 per cent. Out in the scrum

area yesterday, when questioned about the compensation issue, his response was - and

listen to the words: We are not going to offer anything too radically at variance with

what we have offered to all the other public sector unions.

What does that mean, really? Now, when I hear the statements made by

the Premier I think about settlements government made with physicians - 22 per cent, 23

per cent. I think about the settlements government has made with our judges, with water

bomber pilots, with Marine Institute employees, all above that. Premier, why is government

undermining collective bargaining in the Province and dealing in bad faith by setting

artificial standards for most and not for some that prevent agreements from being reached

at the bargaining table?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, those who are listening carefully now

see the Leader of the Opposition having been challenged to stand in this place - it is a

very quite House, it is a very full House, it has many visitors here - being asked to

stand and say what he would offer in a wage settlement, and whether or not he is going to

stand behind his party's position that if the RNC is given 14 per cent that 14 per cent

should be awarded; and whether or not it is his party's position that if 14 per cent is

good enough for the RNC, is it good enough for nurses? If it is good enough for nurses, is

it good enough for NAPE? If it is good enough for NAPE, is it good enough for CUPE?

If it is good enough for all of them it is going to cost, annually,

another $119 million. All I want is a yes or no. Would you award that wage increase? If

so, where would you find the $600 million over the next five years? We are all waiting for

an answer. Stand up and give us one!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

PREMIER TOBIN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition cannot

hide. The whole House is watching and waiting. Stand and give us an answer to the

question!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community

Services.

There are eight institutional boards in this Province and only three of

these boards have dialysis units. Consequently, people all over this Province who need

dialysis three times a week have to move residence and relocate to Corner Brook, Grand

Fall-Windsor or here in St. John's. This is devastating on patients, particularly elderly

people who have spent sixty years, seventy years and even eighty years in their own

communities, and must now pull up roots. Some of these people lives are dramatically

effected and they never cope with the change, not to mention the financial hardships

imposed on them.

I ask the minister: Why can't funding be provided to enable people on

the Northern Peninsula under the Grenfell board and people under a peninsula's board avail

of such services in St. Anthony and Clarenville, for example?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the member asked the question about why

we cannot find funding. I have asked the question of the current Leader of the Opposition,

and now I am going to ask the question of the former Leader of the Opposition, whether or

not it is the position of the Opposition Party - because they have endorsed a 14 per cent

wage settlement for the RNC -, do they support a 14 per cent wage settlement for nurses?

If they support it for nurses, do they support it for NAPE? If they support it for NAPE,

do they support it for CUPE? Do they realize that is $119 million more a year, each and

every year, for a total of $600 million over the next five years?

If they realize it, will the Leader of the Opposition, now that he has

time to think about it, because obviously he has never thought about it before, will he

now stand up and give the House, give the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, a clear

answer? Because if you want to pay for all these other programs we have to have money to

do it, including for dialysis on the Great Northern Peninsula. Will the Leader of the

Opposition take a responsible position today in this House?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what we support is a fair and equitable

process. Let me ask the Premier this: In negotiations at the bargaining table, was the

notion or offer from government about putting nurses back in terms of two-step progression

on the table? Yes or no.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I repeat: When the RNC asked the

support of the Opposition Party for a 14 per cent wage increase, the Opposition Party

said: Yes, we support 14 per cent. The nurses are in the gallery. Do you support 14 per

cent more for nurses? Yes or no.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The Premier is trying

to spin doctor, so I will be clear with him. Trying to spin doctor, defray, defer. I

understand it is a tough day for you, sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let me give it to you straight. The RNC, unlike every

other public sector employee, do not have the fundamental right to strike. What this

government has failed to do is to provide an appropriate dispute resolution mechanism for

that group. That is the reality!

The answer with respect to the RNC is that we have to put in place a

process that is fair, that allows them - because they do not have the fundamental right to

strike - that should be determined, as it is federally with the RCMP, by an independent

arbitrator. That is our position. Let an independent arbitrator decide.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the nurses, I am not going to stand in my

place like you have in your place and set a standard, and say: This is it, take it or

leave it, my way or the highway. If we were in your position today we would be negotiating

in good faith with the public sector employees of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is very comforting to know that the

Leader of the Opposition would not stand in his place when it comes to the number of

nurses and say: This is it, my way or the highway, when that is what he has been asking me

to do all morning in Question Period, to set a number today away from the negotiating

table!

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot the practice the politics of

convenience and you cannot practice partisanship trying to seek advantage out of misery

and out of conflict. We are negotiating in good faith. We shall continue to do so at the

bargaining table, not in this House of Assembly, where your empty rhetoric has just been

exposed for the empty rhetoric that it is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

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

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

If there is anybody that should not stand in this House and dictate or

chastise anybody for practising the politics of convenience it is this Premier sitting

right there who would say anything and do anything at any time for convenience.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Sir, when will you live up to the commitments you

made during the election campaign? When will you stand in your place and say and admit

that your management of the health care system has been flawed, and that what is required

are more front line services? Stand in your place, say how much, and acknowledge that that

will go a long way in solving the outstanding strike and outstanding dispute right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has had

the entire Question Period, and he will have an opportunity after Question Period, to give

an answer to the questions I have asked. I will predict he will continue not to give an

answer. Because he has not thought through this position of supporting everybody

everywhere every time without adding up the consequence of doing that.

He does not know whether, if he supports 14 per cent for the RNC, he

also supports 14 per cent for the nurses. He does not know whether NAPE and CUPE, having

signed at 7 per cent, whether their contract should be reopened and they should also be

given 14 per cent. He does not know what the cost of all that is. I have just told him it

is $119 million more a year. He does not know how we would pay for it, and he does not

know how to answer.

I have done a survey, and I am going to table this. Of all of the

Provinces of Canada, public sector unions, Newfoundland and Labrador is in line or at the

top for public sector settlements right across Canada. Mr. Speaker, we want to negotiate,

and we are working hard to negotiate a settlement with nurses on jobs, on permanents, on

conversion of casuals to permanents, and on compensation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we will do our best, but I want to

table this document which puts us in perspective with respect of the rest of the country,

given our ability to pay.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I asked the minister a question. The Premier stood to defend his

minister and did not give her permission to speak. I will ask another question.

I spoke with a man in his fifties who has to drive for three hours to

St. John's on a Sunday night and back home again on Friday, a person who needs dialysis

three times a week. Just last week I spoke with the son of a man from the Northern

Peninsula whose eighty-four year old father was devastated with a move to St. John's. He

passed away broken-hearted only three weeks after he came here to the city.

His son came to my office with a petition signed by 1,200 people from

the St. Anthony area. I understand there are another 1,200 names to follow on this

petition, petitioning this government to install a dialysis machine in the St. Anthony

area where there are several families in St. Anthony and the surrounding area requiring

this service.

I ask the minister: Will she consider giving people who live in rural

Newfoundland communities proper access to essential medical services?

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

Services.

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

I am sure the hon. member across the way realizes that we have a

population of less than the size of the city of Winnipeg. In this Province we have one

unit where we provide cardiovascular surgery, we have one unit where we provide

neurosurgery. It is because of the numbers, it is because of the supply, and mostly it is

because of the financial ability to pay.

When the numbers warranted we provided a dialysis unit in Central

Newfoundland, but it is not just the dialysis unit you need. You need the specialists to

go with it and the support system.

What I would say is what I have said for all issues around being able

to provide care. When the numbers warrant, if we are able to pay for it, we would consider

that like in any other case. It is difficult for people who are receiving dialysis, and it

is difficult for their families, but we can only do what we are able to pay for. We cannot

make empty promises. We cannot say to people that we are going to provide services

everywhere, because we are not able to do it. There is a reason why we have not put a

cardiovascular unit in Western Memorial Hospital, and they have been lobbing for it. We

cannot afford to do it. We do not have the numbers to do it.

If you ask me why we do not have a neurosurgeon up in the Northern

Peninsula it is for the same reason. We have one unit. We have to provide services based

on not only our ability to pay, but also on our ability to provide the support systems

that are necessary for that type of service.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The one in Central Newfoundland, we raised the issue here in this House

when a young man from Grand Falls came to my office a couple of years ago and pressure was

put by the public and by people. That is why you put one there. You will never get one if

you wait for numbers to warrant it, I say to the minister.

The minister is aware that there are numerous new dialysis machines now

being installed in hospitals in this city. They are replacing the ones that are currently

being used. I want to ask the minister: Will she confirm that the machines that are

currently being used are being given away to other countries - when they replace these -

while Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are being denied this service within a reasonable

distance from their communities?

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

Services.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I think the question really points

out the lack of understanding around - you just do not put a machine in a building and

say, come in for dialysis. You have to have specialists.

If you look at the process involved in putting dialysis machines in

Central Newfoundland, we had to ensure that we had the proper specialists, nursing staff,

to go along with providing the machines.

It is very clear, on much of our machinery - be it dialysis machines,

respirators - we have been long known for our response to other countries in giving them

equipment when we no longer find it acceptable to use in this environment, maybe because

new physicians come in and require different types of machinery. Yes, we constantly give

equipment and supplies to Peru and other places, but it is not just about putting a

machine there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: I think anybody here listening would understand,

if I might have an opportunity to finish, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

I think anyone here would understand that it takes more than a machine

to deliver health care. It requires the proper services and it requires the proper

numbers. There is a rationale for making those decisions. You just do not do it because

somebody comes in and makes a political statement. It is not how we make decisions. Maybe

it is the way the Opposition would make them, but it is not the way we make them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS J.M. AYLWARD: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services, on a point of

order.

MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very unfortunate that

the member across the way would take my response to an answer out of context.

Yes, we give many supplies to many less fortunate countries. The reason

we give it is because we try to do our part, as part of a humanitarian service. We are not

doing it to the detriment of the people in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

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

order.

MR. SULLIVAN: That person is the Minister of Health in Newfoundland

and Labrador, not Peru. Your responsibility is to people here in this Province, I say to

the minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I rise this morning to present a petition to the House of Assembly. It

reads as follows:

To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session

convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland;

WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador to bargain with nurses in good faith, to be fair to nurses, to provide a better

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

equitable wage and benefits package, and 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. We also urge the Premier and the government to cease and desist from

intimidation, truth twisting, and double-meaning promise making.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I have to bring the hon. member's attention to the issue that was

raised yesterday regarding petitions. These are inflammatory remarks and the hon. member

knows that petitions cannot be presented to this House that are inflammatory in any way,

that are offensive to the House.

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

The process we agreed to yesterday has been followed by this member in

presenting this petition to the House. Therefore I say to the House, if there is anything

here that is inflammatory, they are not my words. They are words of the people who signed

this petition. This petition is signed by nurses who were here in the gallery yesterday.

This is their House. It is their right to bring forward their opinions and to have them

expressed in this House. The process we agreed to yesterday was followed by this member

prior to the presentation of this petition.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the House that I know the process. It was

followed and the prayer is right. The wording has been approved. Therefore, I assume I can

have the right to continue.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to present his

petition?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair finds that the words in it are inflammatory. Members ought to

know, and they should know, that they cannot present petitions to this House which contain

inflammatory language. I ask the hon. member, and hon. members from here on in, not to use

- if the petition is of such a nature that it is inflammatory, that they must not present

it in this House.

MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, for the words you find inflammatory, I

will withdraw them and remove them from the petition. I assume, on clarification, that it

is the last sentence of the petition. I will re-read the petition, with leave.

Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to your attention the issues. I cannot do

it any better than a poem that was passed to me by Karen Street, a nurse. I have to read

it because I will let Karen speak for herself. She wrote as follows:

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 a while.

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 paperwork 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 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. H. HODDER: Those things I've done - and those left out.

Yet I leave my shift, always wondering about

Those things I've done - and those left out.

It seems, at times things go bad to worse;

One time I thought I made a good nurse.

Thanks to Karen Street. She expressed the opinion of nurses in this

Province today on the stresses and strains, and what this negotiation is all about.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to support this petition presented by my colleague for Waterford

Valley. I do not feel it should have gotten to this point before the concerns of sick

people in the Province were addressed, and I am not talking about the concerns of nurses.

I am talking about the concerns of sick people in the number of nurses that are put in the

system here.

It has been evident by the Premier - he has admitted that - that he

sees there is a need to hire new nurses. There was a need on February 4 and on February 5

to hire new nurses. We had a Budget come down just on Monday and it did not address hiring

new nurses in the system. That is fundamental. Anybody who visits a hospital, if they have

friends or family in hospital, they are overworked, they are stressed out, their sick

leave has gone higher, it is difficult to cope with it.

People here with families, too, are being called back on weekends,

casual budgets running out in the first week, and calling people back on overtime. It is

not cost-efficient. It is not in the best interest of patient care. It is not in the best

interest of the health of nurses. That is why 80-some per cent of nurses feel that not

only is the health of nurses endangered; in addition to that, the health of patients

entrusted to their care is endangered because of an overworked system.

That was done by - I am not sure if it was the Association of

Registered Nurses or the nurses' union - I think the ARNN, probably, on the welfare of

nurses and the health of nurses.

It is unfortunate that it has gotten to that point. If they were so

urgently needed on February 4, why were they not needed on Budget day, and why wasn't it

stated in the Budget that they were hiring nurses?

If they want to negotiate and talk about other nurses, to add on, fine,

the need is there. It has been identified. The Premier has admitted it. It was fine during

an election campaign, in a public forum, but it is not fine enough now on Budget day, that

lays out the expenditures for this Province and what we need for health care? We are a

public forum - and full page ads - and then telling us we do it around the negotiating

table. You pick up a newspaper, The Telegram - what does it cost for a page in The

Telegram ?

AN HON. MEMBER: Several thousand.

MR. SULLIVAN: Several thousand dollars, and it is good enough to do

it in a public forum to intimidate and drive a spike between union leadership and members

out there.

It is not working, Premier. It is not working, I can tell you, driving

a wedge in public support. It is not working because the public know how hard nurses are

working, how hard they are overworked. Anybody coming out of a hospital today will tell

you, it is not the quality of care the nurse gives; it is the quantity of care that we

have a problem with today. There are not enough on the system.

It should not have come to this. Maybe the Premier underestimated the

resolve. Maybe he figured he could play the game and turn the rest of the Province against

them. Premier, it is not working. You had better realize it and get this over as quickly

as possible and let them get back to work with more numbers, better conditions at work,

better care for our patients. Get on with it now and give people in this Province what

they want - adequate access and better health care.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think I could speak for members on

this side in saying that I think we appreciate the poem that was read by the Member for

Waterford Valley. We know of the tremendous stresses and strains that many of our health

care providers - in particular, nurses - are feeling.

The problem of finding sufficient resources for health care is not a

problem unique to Newfoundland. It is a problem being felt right across this country, in

every jurisdiction; in the Province of British Columbia, there with an NDP government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the Province of British Columbia - the problem of providing

sufficient funds for health care. There we have an NDP government that has been very much

in the news, and there we had a nurses' work action. The settlement in British Columbia

was 0 per cent in the first year, 0 per cent in the second year, 0 per cent in the third

year, and a promise of new permanent positions. That is a province with an NDP government.

In the Province of Alberta, a province with a Conservative government,

we had work actions within the health care system. In the Province of Ontario, we had work

actions in the health care system and representations by nurses; because it is a national

problem, trying to find sufficient resources to look after the needs of our health care

system.

There is not a member in the House who has not, at some time, through

either their own direct experience or through the experience of a family member,

appreciated the tremendous contribution that nurses make within the health care system,

and the tremendous - beyond the professional care - personal contribution they bring to

the bedside in dealing both with those who are sick and in trying to provide a degree of

comfort, when time allows it, to family members as well. There is not anybody who does not

appreciate that. There are some who can speak very painfully about recent experiences in

that regard.

This is not about a lack of appreciation for nurses. To put it in that

context is really failing to understand the issue, or failing to debate the seriousness of

the issue.

The issue here is, Newfoundland and Labrador is a small Province with

small fiscal means. We do not have a big budget. We do not have a $600 million surplus

projected over the next five years that we can spend on increased wages. It is an issue of

fairness. It is an issue of whether or not we believe, fundamentally, that those who work

in the public service ought to be treated fairly. There ought to be some equity in how we

treat members of NAPE, members of CUPE, members of the nurses' union, or the teachers who

have settled, for example, also at 7 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, if the members opposite really believe - and I would ask

them to go away and think about it because I am going to continue to ask the question -

that the Province can afford a 14 per cent settlement for everybody, they should say so.

If, on the other hand, they believe that the Province can afford 14 per cent for the RNC

but we should not give 14 per cent to nurses, they should say so. If, on the other hand,

they believe we should give 14 per cent to the RNC and 14 per cent to nurses, but all of

those who settled first should be saddled with 7 per cent, they should say so. Because

those who say they want to be on this side, those who say they want the responsibility to

govern, must also accept the responsibility to make choices. The choices are not easy if

you want the responsibility of government rather than enjoying the luxury of simply and

only being critics.

I think the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition party, and for

that matter the Leader of the NDP - hoping we won't notice him in this regard - have a

responsibility, since they want to participate in this debate, since they want to pretend

that they have all the answers, to put out an alternate budget; to tell the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador what they would give nurses, what they would give the RNC, and

what they would give the 30,000 others who have already settled. Would you strap them with

the contracts they have already signed, or would you give them an additional increase too?

If you would, how much? Then, one other important question: How would you pay for it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that I have not been

recognized in Question Period for the last six days on his important issue and other

issues, I wonder if the House would give leave to allow me to address this petition on

this important issue?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the hon. member have leave to address the petition?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: No leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to present a petition on behalf of approximately 200 students at

Memorial and their supporters who are petitioning the government with respect to the

situation of single parents on social assistance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I have just been asked to present another

petition here.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I can present two of them if you want.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I am going to present the students first, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the petition on behalf of the students -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: That petition is from students, too, Mr. Speaker.

The single parents on social assistance going to University are forced

to pay back to the government the shelter component, placing extra financial burden on

them.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy on a point of order.

MR. GRIMES: Not to interrupt, Mr. Speaker. Just for clarification -

because there is a written record of the proceedings of this House that we all know as

Hansard -, the hon. member who is now recognized to present a petition just begged the

House, not moment but seconds before, saying that he was deprived of speaking about the

most urgent issue in the Province today, which is the nurses. He is now recognized to

speak about any issue he wants to bring to the floor. Are we to understand that nurses

that he just begged to speak about are not his priority, but his priority is the petition

he is now going to present?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of response and

responsibility that we have on the government's side of the House. They refused unanimous

consent to allow me to speak to the petition that was presented about the most important

issue in the Province today. I do not have unlimited petitions in my place to speak about

anything I wanted. I was not given leave by him or anybody else to address whatever issue

I wanted.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: I have a petition to present -

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is on a petition and he ought to keep

his comments -

MR. HARRIS: - and I'm presenting it, Mr. Speaker. When that

petition is presented, and if I have another petition in my hands to present on the issue

of nurses, I will present that one too. If I have another one, I will present that too,

and we can go on all morning if the hon. minister wants to sit and listen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a petition. He ought to keep his remarks -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I won't go all morning because they will use bully

tactics to stop the procedure.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I know the members opposite do not care about the

single parents in university who are forced to live in dire circumstances!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a petition, and I ask him to keep his remarks

related to that petition and the material allegations in the petition.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, these petitioners, with my support, are

calling on the Minister of Health and Community Services, and the Minister Responsible for

the Status of Women, to change this discriminatory policy which effectively discriminates

against women in our Province, in particular students who are on social assistance who are

having their shelter component clawed back from their student loans.

This is a policy which is grossly unfair to students and people on

social assistance. In fact, according to a political science professor at Memorial: This

policy only serves to further marginalize those who rely on social assistance. The policy

is not logical. In a sense you have people on social assistance obviously, for the most

part, demonized or marginalized by society, that they are negatively treated, penalized in

fact, because they are different, in different circumstances, from students who are not on

social assistance.

The single parents at MUN is basically an non-gender organization. The

reality is that of the students who are affected by this policy, of the 345 single parent

families affected by this policy, 341 of them are single parent families where a woman is

the single parent. This is a policy that is aimed at, directed at and has consequences

upon single parents who are women and is discriminatory towards them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: I call on the minister to recognize that this is a

discriminatory policy and to insist that her Cabinet colleagues change that policy that

discriminates against woman.

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to second the petition

presented by the hon. member.

Since I have been elected to this House of Assembly, particularly in

the fall of 1997, I recall visiting the homes of many of the single parents who are on

social assistance who are attending Memorial University or some other post-secondary

institution.

At that time I asked the Minister of Human Resources if she would visit

the homes and see the humble but very clean homes, and how hard those people were trying;

and the position they were put in by money being clawed back from them, how hard they were

trying to get out of the system - on the system for so many years - and now trying, under

very difficult circumstances, because to be on social assistance in the beginning is not

easy for them.

As the member said, they are under very difficult circumstances and

this particular policy tends to keep them down. At that time, I can remember, I was so

touched by the homes I had visited and how hard these people were trying that I asked the

minister would she review this policy. I support this petition again today.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Orders of the Day

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

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

Nova.

MR. LUSH: I was waiting for this to raise my point of order. The

Minister of Social Services arose but the Speaker probably did not see her. I think she

was about to address the petition.

MR. SPEAKER: No, the Chair did not see the hon. minister.

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a point of order.

MR. LUSH: I am on a point of order. If the House wants to go back

and recognize the minister, that is fine. She was standing in her place and I am sure the

Speaker did not see her.

MR. SPEAKER: No, the Chair did not see the hon. minister. I am sure

we can revert to Petitions if the hon. member wishes to speak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Petitions.

The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.

MS BETTNEY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I simply wanted to respond to some of the factual information that is

related to the particular petition that has been presented, and to re-emphasize that when

dealing with issues like this there are always difficult choices that have to be made.

Certainly, as the Premier has pointed out in his previous comments, when you have to make

decisions in government around what kind of policies and what kind of initiatives you can

support, there is always a difficulty in trying to choose between these difficult choices

as to where you will allocate your resources.

This was a decision that took a great deal of difficulty at the time

that we made it in 1997, because we had recognized and really empathized with the efforts

and the initiatives of student parents, and particularly single parents, to improve their

education so as to increase their chances of becoming employable and being able to become

self-sufficient and self-reliant.

We also want to point out however, as we did at the time, that the

shelter component of student loans is available to all students, and it is for the

purposes of trying to support their living expenses. Student Aid is available to students

based on need and on their eligibility. In the case of student parents who are on social

assistance, that is duplicated by the social assistance that they receive. In fact, the

amount we require for the shelter component was negotiated with the Single Parent

Association, with the student parents association, at MUN, so that it could be as little

as possible in order to ensure that these parents would be able to retain as much

financial assistance as possible.

The amount of social assistance that parents who are attending

post-secondary education receive is approximately three times the amount they return

through the shelter component. I know that the member opposite understands this, but in

addition to this we went to extra efforts to try and accommodate and assist parents who

are in this position. Because not only, we know, that single parents who are on social

assistance are attending post-secondary education; there are as many student parents at

post-secondary institutions in this Province who do not receive social assistance. We

tried to put in new programs which would also help them financially as well as parents who

are on social assistance. The grants that are provided through the Department of Education

and the grants that are available through the federal government are ones that are

available to all of these parents. They are not included as a non-allowable expense on

social assistance.

We instituted an employment program in cooperation with Memorial

University and with CONA to permit and enable single parents who could take advantage of

employment to help their financial means and to get good work experience during this time

in their education to also be able to do this. I think from my meetings and discussions

with this group at Memorial University that they have appreciated the benefit this has

provided.

So there is a lot of cooperation that is taking place. There is a lot

of support that is being provided. I would say to you that the results also show that

student parents and single parents on social assistance are continuing to be able to

sustain themselves and continue their education. In fact, the numbers show that there has

been an increase in the number of single parents - student parents - on social assistance,

who are not attending post-secondary education as compared to before 1997. This has not

shown to be an insurmountable obstacle. It has not proven to be a disincentive. We do know

that it is a difficult policy, but it is also a very costly one.

As I said in the beginning, when you are in a position of trying to

manage the resources of this Province, you have the make those difficult choices and you

have to be fair about it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

Nova.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I am just curious about a procedure that I

saw in the House this morning. I want to say to hon. members that Parliament works because

of rules and regulations, and because of hundreds of year of refinement and honing of the

processes and procedures that we use. I can tell hon. members, if we do not use them, this

place will become nothing but chaos. That is why we have the rules and the regulations and

the processes and the procedures that we do. You cannot say that we are going to follow

some today and not follow them tomorrow.

Mr. Speaker, the procedure that I observed - and I just ask the

question; I may be entirely wrong - I thought I saw the Opposition House Leader - I could

be wrong and I apologize if I am - present a petition during Question Period.

This is quite unusual. There is a procedure for Question Period that

ought to be followed, and for the presentation of petitions; it is the period called

Petitions. They must not be done during Question Period. It is unusual, it is irregular,

it is wrong, but I may have not seen that at all.

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the hon. the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, when I read the petition, it said: We

petition the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, not the House of Assembly. It was

not in order to have it presented in Petitions. The gentlemen who raised it with me is

sitting in the gallery today; he is there now. I presented it to the minister because it

is petitioning the government. That is why I gave it to the minister.

Had it been petitioning the House of Assembly, I would have given it

here; because I did not want 1,200 people in the St. Anthony area denied the right to

present their petition because it said: We petition the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador.

It is the only avenue I had in this House to represent those people who

came to me, and several people needing the service on the Northern Peninsula who called me

on this issue - not their member, I might add.

MR. TULK: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Bonavista North made an inaccurate

statement here that I presented a petition.

MR. TULK: You called it a petition.

MR. SULLIVAN: I said, they presented a petition to the government.

That is what I said - to the government. I did not say to the House of Assembly. There is

a difference. That difference, I might add -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I checked with the Chair on the petition. It was not

properly worded to be presented, and it was on the topic so I passed it to the minister

today. That is proper, it is in order, and it is not contrary to the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: It is not a petition to this House of Assembly. It is

one that came to the government that I passed to the minister. I can do that, if I so

desire, pass a petition to the minister. I do not see anything in that, that tells me...

It is not a petition to this House because it is not properly worded. Who said I cannot

pass a document, a paper, a comment, to the minister? There is nothing in the House to

prevent me from doing it.

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: Mr. Speaker, (inaudible) on this: number one, that a

petition is supposed to be presented to the House and not to the minister. That is the

process of petitions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LUSH: I sat and listened to the hon. member. I am asking for

the same courtesy.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, furthermore, the hon. member is not allowed

to table a document. That has been dealt with in this House on many occasions.

AN HON. MEMBER: Pass it back. I will take it back.

MR. LUSH: It is not a matter of taking it back; it is a matter of

doing it in the right place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: If I could have the order of the House, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be an inclination, there

seems to be a propensity, among members on the opposite side that anything passed to them,

written in any way, they can present. That is not the case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: This place has rules and regulations, procedures and

processes that have to be followed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: I am going to make my points, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. LUSH: The hon. member could have risen in his place at

Petitions and asked for permission to do this, the same as we have always done, and I am

sure he would have been granted the permission. The problem with this is that it was done

during Question Period, and this is not permitted.

I also refer hon. members to Beauchesne , page 155, ' 454 (6), I think it is, which says that no private

member has the right or the obligation to present any form of a document.

Again, the member was out of order and not doing what was proper or

appropriate.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will hear one more submission on this point of order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, this morning, for anybody who was here,

I sat in my place. When Question Period was over, I held up my hand and asked the Page to

pass this over to the minister. I did not have ask to have it tabled. I made reference to

the document I had in my hand, and then I asked the Page to bring it over to the minister.

I did not ask for it to be tabled. It was the only avenue. I went to the Chair with it, I

went to the Table with it. It was not in order as a petition. It was the only avenue I

had. I did not violate any rules of the House in doing so. I followed what was agreed to

here yesterday. I asked the Page to bring it to the minister, as I often send notes over

to other people in the House. He is not in order. There is nothing that I have seen in Beauchesne

that tells me that I cannot make reference to something that was given to me, and after I

am finished ask the Page to deliver that across the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: It is not. It does not say it in that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair will take the point of order that was raised under advisement

and report back to the House.

The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.

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

I would like to present a petition. I will read the entire prayer of

the petition so we will not have this fuss again.

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

assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador ask the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer.

I am proud and pleased today to present this petition on behalf of the

residents of Pacquet in the District of Baie Verte who do hereby petition the House of

Assembly to pave our road, route 417. We feel that because of its deteriorated condition

the road is often unsafe to travel, especially for school students, some of whom have to

commute a total of 80 kilometres, including a part of the La Scie highway, each school

day.

I will start off by saying very clearly and very forthright that the

biggest point that these residents raise time after time again is the fact that with the

school reform and so on, the students now, young children, have to get on a bus that is

unsafe in the first place, a bus that is unsafe under normal conditions, but also to

travel over not just a bad paved road on the La Scie part of the highway but also a gravel

road.

Here we are, in our 50th birthday -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SHELLEY: Fifty kilometres.

I am being interrupted here, Mr. Speaker, so I will try to get my

thoughts back.

I am here to present it especially on behalf of the school students. I

have told this story in the House before, that last year one of the bus drivers in the

area, and the students, asked me to get on the bus with them. I sat in the back of the bus

- the students insisted on that - and I travelled with them just between the communities

of Pacquet and Woodstock, not the full route. It was an experience that everybody here - I

suggest that the Premier and the Minister of Transportation experience that. Then ask

yourself, if that was your six-year old or seven-year old child that was ready to go to

school, would you put them in that circumstance? I have children six and nine years old

who attend school everyday, and I cannot imagine bringing them to the bus and putting them

on a bus with those conditions.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: That is what these people in these communities face

every single day. If some members on the other side want to make a joke that children are

getting on gravel roads and travelling buses, they shouldn't. The Member for Twillingate

a& Fogo especially, Mr. Speaker. He should be more sensitive and understand what is

happening in rural Newfoundland. I thought he did, he usually does, but I guess when he

gets in a certain mood he thinks another way.

I can tell him that my district is most like his when it comes to bad

road conditions and so. We all should look at this for the children who are on those

buses, and from the parents who have to travel that every day, when they look at us

celebrating our Soiree '99, 50 Years in Confederation. I support anywhere in this Province

that has a situation where we are still driving over the gravel roads in this day and age.

I still look at the Roads for Rail money and how that was spent when we

see the ring road and double-lanes through Grand Falls and so on. We are talking about a

priority of spending, where the money was spent over the years. That is what we should be

looking at. When people are getting up every day early in the morning to take a six-year

old to put them on a bus that is unsafe to begin with, but not only that, add to that that

they have to travel over a gravel road, especially in the spring, but especially this year

in particular. As the Deputy Minister has even mentioned to me, this year in particular

with the weather conditions, a lot of mild weather and then freezing again, the roads,

including the paved roads and gravel roads, are in a worse condition than probably ever

before.

It is not any good to go back and grade them again because, simply put,

and residents have said this over and over, there is nothing left to grade. They were

upgraded for paving, they were supposed to be paved and then it stopped again. For the

last few years, and again this year, just $16 million in provincial roads again this year.

I am very pleased. They were upgraded at the time, and it took a long to get them all

upgraded to get the paving. They were ready to be paved and it was stopped. That is the

problem.

The road system we have on the Baie Verte Peninsula is very unique to

the Province. They call it a spider system where all roads branch off and go separate ways

for a single community. That is the problem we have. I do not expect all the roads to be

paved, just a decent share for the people who live in those areas. They are

Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who deserve that and they should have it. Especially I

draw attention today again to the main concern of the people of Pacquet and that is to

their schoolchildren that are travelling on that bus every (inaudible) day.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, Order 2. I move the House resolve itself

into a Committee of the Whole for Bill 2.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on

Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole On Supply

CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have listened intently this morning to members on the opposite side

present what they believe to be their concerns or what they profess to be their concerns

for the nurses of the Province and the people of the Province.

I heard the Premier of the Province ask the Leader of the Opposition a

question. What I heard a couple of days ago, when he was on the Open Line, a caller called

in and asked the Leader of the Opposition almost the identical question. If you gave out,

if you put into dollars and cents, your party's policy on the agreements that are put

before the collective bargaining system and you imposed your party's policy, where would

you get the money? Or do you agree, would you give the nurses 14 per cent or 15 per cent

or whatever? Or the RNC. Where would you get the money? His answer to this individual on

Open Line was: I don't know all the facts, therefore I can't answer your question.

Let's go back to 1972.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. EFFORD: No, seriously now. In 1972 when the Tory government

took over the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador there was a debt of $790 million; that

would be the exact amount. Through seventeen years of government - keep in mind now, their

policy of the day - those years that the Tory government was in power, from 1972 to 1989,

keeping in mind they took over a debt of $800 million, at the end of the day when the

Liberal government took over power what they had facing them was in excess of $7 billion.

MR. TULK: Eight thousand million dollars.

MR. EFFORD: Okay, that's a better way of putting it, a clearer way.

Eight thousand million dollars in debt, that is what we had facing us.

MR. TULK: From $800 million to $8,000 million.

MR. EFFORD: Eight thousand million dollars, a tenfold increase.

The Premier asked the Leader of the Opposition a question this morning:

Where would you get the money? What is one of the complaints in Newfoundland and Labrador

about the tax system? Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will say, in every walk of life,

that we are paying too much taxes. So if you have to find $600 million to meet the

obligations you would have to raise taxes, or you would do what the previous Tory

government did, you would borrow the money. So you either raise the taxes or you put us

further in debt.

Government is no different than a business. If you operate a business,

you have an income through whatever means the money comes in, and you spend more than you

take in, at the end of the day there is only one answer: bankruptcy. That's right, there

is only one answer, bankruptcy. It would be great to be able to hand out everything that

everybody wants.

What is one of the problems with Newfoundland and Labrador and how to

spend the amount of money that you have to give the people the services they need? One of

the problems is the geography of Newfoundland and Labrador, the scattered population. As

the Minister of Health said this morning in response to a question put forth by the

Opposition House Leader, the population of Newfoundland and Labrador is comparable to the

city of Winnipeg, but look at the geography that population is dispersed over. Look at the

amount of services you have to put over across Newfoundland and Labrador.

What do we spend on health care today? Without any further increases on

the demand that is put on it, it is $1,159,699,400 for a population of 560,000 people.

Everybody is saying it is not enough. Okay. If it is not enough how much do you have

increase it? How much do you have to increase, when that dollar figure is arrived at?

Where do you get the money?

Nobody sits down and looks at the overall responsibility of a

government. I remember sitting over there on the Opposition from 1985-1989 and the

government of the day saw fit to put paddy wagons on the parking lot of Confederation

Building to take away the people who were on strike. That was okay. This government is

being condemned because it wants the collective bargaining system to seek its own level,

to do what is right. Sit down across the table and let both parties work out a negotiable

settlement that is satisfactory to both parties, as the President of Treasury Board has

said time after time in the last four or five days. We are not bringing the paddy wagons

on the parking lot. We are not doing anything similar to a dictatorship government like

the Leader of the Opposition said this morning. We are letting the process take place.

Whatever agreement is arrived at, somebody has to pay for it. There is

no magic wand. There is no pot at the end of the rainbow. The money must come from

somewhere. Is everybody in this Province saying: Give everybody everything they are asking

for and raise our taxes and we will be happy? Is everybody in this Province saying: Give

everybody everything they are asking for and we are satisfied that you borrow the money

and put us another $3 billion, $4 billion or $5 billion in debt?

The Member from Baie Verte just said about all the roads in his

district that need upgrading. Look at Newfoundland and Labrador, look at the thousands of

kilometres of roads, look at the population and look at the taxes. The Leader of the NDP

got up and talked about all the single parent students at the university and what they

require, then somebody else stands up and says what they need.

Ladies and gentlemen, it costs money. Every service that government

provides costs money. What any government has a responsibility to do is to manage the

affairs of the people of the Province in a fair and equitable manner without over-taxing

or without driving the Province further into debt. I, for one, as one minister, as one

member, as one citizen, do not want my children or my grandchildren or my

great-grandchildren to pay off a debt of an irresponsible government.

Let me tell you the interest we are paying on the debt that we took

over from the former Tory government. In 1989, when I was a minister in the government, we

were paying in excess of $585 million interest on that debt every year. Let's put in

another $3 billion in debt, or $4 billion, and let's double the interest payments to $1

billion. So on top of all the services you have to pay for and all of the increase in

wages, now you have to find double the amount of the interest to pay the people who loaned

you the money. There is nobody out there in the world saying: Here is $1 billion and there

is no interest.

If the government of the day runs this Province in the manner in which

it was run in the past, we have nowhere to go only into bankruptcy, and our children, our

grandchildren and great-grandchildren will pay for it. I do not think there is one person

in this Province using any degree of common sense who is satisfied for that to happen.

I cannot understand why the Leader of the Opposition, who had months,

went through an election, knows full well what the demands are from all of the unions,

knows full well that it will cost money, cannot stand either in the House of Assembly or

somewhere public and say, as a leader, as an individual who wants to be premier: Here is

what I would do. Here is how much money I would allow to be paid, and here is where I

would find the money. He cannot answer the question because he knows whatever answer he

gives he would not be able to fulfil that obligation. Because the people of the Province

cannot stand to be paying higher taxes and the people of the Province will not stand to

put the Province farther in debt.

It is only common sense. All that was played here this morning was

politics, rhetoric, looking good in front of the audience. When I was here in 1985 to 1989

I never, ever asked a question I didn't have an answer for. Not one time did I stand in

the House of Assembly as an Opposition member and ask a question that I did not have an

answer for, but I saw it here today. The Leader of the Opposition asks questions every

single day in the House of Assembly and he does not have an answer. That is not good

leadership.

I am glad, from one individual, on behalf of the people in this

Province, that he is sitting on the Opposition and he is not sitting in the premier's

chair. God help the future of Newfoundland and Labrador if he was.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

I listened to the hon. minister. He has this knack of going back in

history. He remembers conveniently only certain parts of it. The history of Newfoundland

politics includes sizeable and lengthy times of Liberal management, and includes sizeable

and lengthy times of Progressive Conservative management. In the minister's eyes, all was

good and rosy when the Liberals were in power. He paints a picture of the good times, and

the good times are equivalent to Liberal times. We -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and

Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate that when any

hon. member stands in this House they give the facts of what another hon. member said. I

never, ever said that the Liberal times in the past were all good times. The best we could

do, as members today, who have a responsibility as the government of this Province, is

learn from the mistakes of the past and not repeat them in the future.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.

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

As usual, there is no point of order. The minister painted a picture.

He said that when the Progressive Conservative Party came to power in 1971-1972 this much

money was owed in debt, roughly $800 million.

We know that over 40 per cent of the current debt of this Province was

incurred since 1989. The Liberal Administration has been in power for ten years now. It is

about time to get on with it. How far back do you want to go? The minister gets up and he

lives in the past. As a consequence he makes no statements, but they are Newfoundland

history. If he wants to look at Newfoundland history, I suggest that he reread

chapter

fifteen of Harold Horwood's book when he talks about the life and times of Joey Smallwood.

I say it up front, I have a great admiration for certain things Joey

Smallwood did.

Chapter fifteen talks about "The King of Cost-Plus." It talks

about how Liberals operated in the 1950s and the 1960s. If that is what he wants to talk

about, talk about how the Liberals managed in those days. Read that chapter, read about

Cabinet ministers that bought property for $20,000 and then sold it for $860 thousand. If

he wants to go back and give a history lesson, he should start off by going back and

reading the history of what happened during the Liberal Administration.

I do believe it is time for us to move on, to move forward, to forget

about happened in Frank Moores' days. It is time for us to forget about what happened in

Joey Smallwood's days. This book here talks about things that are not happy about the

administration of Newfoundland and Labrador: the days when paving contracts were given on

the basis of so much tonnage just passed out. If you read through this particular book and

you read the things that happened, they are not happy times. It is a sad thing that in

Newfoundland and Labrador it was when the Progressive Conservatives came in that we had

the first Public Tender Act brought in to this Province. It had to be amended a number of

times because when the PCs came in they said: We have to try to do things right.

So when the Minister of Fisheries gets up, if he wants to talk about

what happened in Frank Moores' days, and if he wants to talk about what happened in Brian

Peckford's days, let's go right on back and see how far back we can go. I certainly would

recommend that before he gets up and gives this party over here any lecture, he start off

by reading

chapter fifteen of Harold Horwood's book. I say that with respect. Because I

happen to believe that Joey Smallwood never benefited personally from any of the things

that happened in his government, but we know where the John C. Doyles are. We know what

happened in the 1960s. I say to the minister that if he is going to lecture us on this

side about the Frank Moores days and the days in the 1970s, let's get right back and let's

talk about the real history of Newfoundland and Labrador. Let's go and deal with the past.

We on this side, want to talk about what is the future of Newfoundland

and Labrador. We want to say to the government that you still are the government, you have

been there for ten years now, you can be held accountable for what happened in that ten

year period. That is what we are talking about over on this side.

We believe you should be held accountable for the Liberal policies, and

what they have done to health care in this Province. The commitments that were made by

Clyde Wells to put every dollar back into education that was saved through educational

reform, it did not happen.

Mr. Chairman, the commitments that were made were very real. They were

believed by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the very same way that during the

recent election the Premier of this Province was believed by the nurses of this Province.

They believed him when he said that he understood their cause, and when he gave them a

commitment that there would be more nurses, that he would be sensitive to it, that he

would enter into negotiations in a very fair and reasonable manner, that he would not

blindside them after the election.

Mr. Chairman, what we are saying on this side of the house to the

Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is: Let's get on with the things of today. Let's put

behind us the John C. Doyles and the Frank Moores and the days when things happened in

this Province that nobody would be very happy to talk about.

The minister continues to get up. He was up yesterday, chastising this

group on this side of the House for things that happened in seventeen years. We are proud

of some of it, we are not proud of some more of it, and I am sure that minister is proud

of some of the things that happened in the sixties and the fifties, as we all are, but we

are not proud of all of it. We are not proud of all of it, and it is reasonable for us to

say that. Likewise, we on this side say to the minister: Let's not dwell in the past.

Let's prepare for the future. Let's get this Province ready to go forward.

Going forward means being reasonable and fair to nurses, being

reasonable and fair to your employees, being reasonable and fair to your public service

pensioners, being reasonable and fair to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador so we

can, through the parliamentary system, make sure we give them the very, very best

opportunities that we have; to make sure that our Province grows, to make sure that our

Province prospers, and to make sure that prosperity that we all hope will come to this

Province is shared by all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, if there is one thing I do not need from

the member on the opposite side, it is a lesson in how to run or manage a business.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. EFFORD: I do not need any advice from the member of the

opposite side. I can tell you another thing; if I were receiving two pensions and a

salary, I would not be saying the tripe that he is saying over there this morning. I would

not be talking about the disadvantaged people in this Province, like he gets up and

professes to be.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Two pensions and a salary.

I am not dwelling on the past, but the one thing that I hope every

member in this House of Assembly has the good common sense to do is to learn from the

mistakes of the past. That is the reason why I referenced the past. I am not talking about

the Joey Smallwood days. I am talking about when the Tory government took over, when $800

million dollars was the debt load, and when it ended seventeen years later it was tenfold.

That is how much of a difference.

All I am saying is that we made those mistakes in the past. They were

made, but let's not repeat them in the future. That is the reason why the Leader of the

Opposition was asked the question this morning. The Premier said that if you give

everybody everything they are asking for in raises then it is going to cost, over the next

five years, $600 million dollars.

Now, if you give out that much money in increase in pay to all of the

people that government is responsible for paying, and you pay out $600 million, where are

you going to get it? Why did you not answer that question, or talk about that this

morning? You want to be fair? Well, what they are asking for is going to cost $600

million.

Simply stand and do not talk about the past. Look at where you are

going to get the money. If you were in government today and you were making that decision,

as you are demanding on this government, to give them everything they are asking for,

where would you get the money?

The member also said that this government has increased the debt, and

that is absolutely false. In fact, this government has decreased the debt of this

Province, and in a few minutes I will give you the exact numbers by how much the debt of

this Province has been decreased by this government when we have been fair in giving out

wages to the people of this Province, in providing services to the people of the Province

from all sectors. We have not gone out and further decreased the debt of the government

because we are responsible to the people, to the taxpayers of this Province.

The easiest thing to do is to be nice to everybody and say yes, you can

give everybody everything they ask for, but at the end of the day somebody must pay the

piper. That was the reason I referenced seventeen years of Progressive Conservative

government, because they never looked, at the end of the day, at: What is going to happen

if we borrow too much, and who is going to pay for it?

I remember the last days of Brian Peckford, when he decided that he was

going to retire. What was it he said? I don't have the stomach -

AN HON. MEMBER: Intestinal fortitude.

MR. EFFORD: I don't have the intestinal fortitude -

AN HON. MEMBER: The courage.

MR. EFFORD: - or the courage to run again. That is not false; he

did say that. Brian Peckford said: I don't have the courage to make the hard decisions

that are necessary to be made. His minister, who is sitting next here, remembers that. He

gave it up because he knew the debt the Province had.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: That is not a condemnation of the individual, that is

not a criticism. He was honest. He said it.

MR. TULK: He never had the courage to kick out the ministers that

he needed to kick out.

MR. EFFORD: That is right. He needed to make some tough decisions

to bring the debt of the Province under control for the best interest of the people of the

Province, so he left.

This government came in power, and we have made the decisions that he

did not have the courage to make.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right. He did not have the courage to fire

his ministers.

MR. EFFORD: He did not have the courage to fire his ministers, the

ones who were incompetent in running their department. He did not have the courage to make

the decisions to go out and borrow more money, he did not have the courage to make the

decision to cut back, so he left.

This government came in 1989 and since 1989 we have made some tough

decisions, but in making those decisions we have also provided services for the people who

require them. Now the time has come to re-look, to see where we are going, to see how we

can reorganize the health system, to see how we can give the necessary dollars to provide

and improve the health care system. It is not going to be easy.

As I said a couple of minutes ago, when you are spending over $1

billion on health care, with a population of a little over 500,000 people, how much money

is enough? That is the question we should be asking. How much money is enough to provide

services for people?

You leave health care and you talk about education. Put in more

teachers, build more schools. Everybody wants a community school. Hire on, give them more

services, more programs. If you say yes to it all, it costs money. The $785 million that

is going into health care will be increased to $1 billion.

Now in two departments alone we have gone well over $2 billion. What is

the total budget for the Province? A little over $3 billion. What about all the other

services? Well, we will say yes to them. We will double the budget for every department in

government, because that is what they are saying. When you double the budget for every

department in government, instead of spending $3.4 billion, you are going to spend $6.8

billion.

Where do you get the money? Give me the answer to that. You provide

that answer to me and, I guarantee you, we will spend it. That is the easiest thing in the

world to do, to spend money. It is the easiest thing to do. No problem, spending money,

all you have to do is find it. The difficulty is finding the money.

Let's double the taxes. Let's triple the taxes of everybody in the

Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Voodoo economics. The Tories are (inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Voodoo economics, excellent, just think about it.

Where would you get the money to pay - if you tripled the taxes of

everybody in this Province? Well, one of the answers to that is -

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, on a point of order.

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

I just want to make sure that I understand what the Minister of

Fisheries is saying. I am pretty sure I heard him say: Let's double and triple taxes. I am

pretty sure that is what he said. Does he want that on record?

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: What I said was, to provide every service that is being

demanded on government today, to double the budget of the Province from $3.4 billion to

$6.8 billion, as they are saying they would do, you would have to triple or quadruple the

taxes. It is simple enough. The Opposition House Leader knows that.

I tell you one thing, the people of this Province are lucky he is the

MHA for St. John's East Extern and not on the government side. God bless us! That is one

bright light.

MR. J. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Order, please!

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

MR. J. BYRNE: I believe when you are referring to members in the

House you are supposed to refer to them by their district. The member -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: No, he did not. He did not. That will tell you how

much you know.

MR. SULLIVAN: John, that changed three years ago. You're three

years behind, John.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, boy, get with it!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. EFFORD: You can see, Mr. Chairman, he is not making much of an

impression on me. I don't even know what district he is from.

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

MR. EFFORD: My time is up?

CHAIR: No, go ahead, you have a couple of minutes.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, I was waiting on some numbers to come in

from Treasury Board on the debt of the Province so I will just conclude and let the hon.

member get up. When I get the numbers I will rise again and present the debt of the

Province, and how much we have decreased the debt of the Province since we became

government in 1989.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

How do you decrease the debt of a Province when you have deficit

budgets every year - only two since history? How do you decrease the deficit when we keep

- a deficit budget increases debt. Each time you get a deficit in a budget, you increase

the debt.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I did. I have often heard about restructuring

debt. I will leave finance for my finance critic but I will make a few comments. The

previous Liberal Administration in the 1960s, in one specific year, they spent 40 per cent

more than they took in in revenues. Their expenses were 40 per cent more than the revenues

of the whole budget.

There is something happening. That rock slide out in the minister's

district must have hit him in the head. That rock slide must have hit you in the head.

There is something wrong with your figures. He is not accurate.

While he is at it, I ask the minister: He was so efficient in getting

all those trucks out to Witless Bay Line, to get him out of a ditch, can you now arrange

for some excavators to go out and haul the truckloads of sand out of the ditch and get it

there so we can get the proper flow again on the Witless Bay Line?

I want to touch on health. I was just reading here, hot off the wire,

March 26, 1999, (inaudible) edition, firsthand, facts right directly to me: Ontario

government's daily handout for health care concluded with $130 million payment to

hospitals, for hospitals alone to hire 3,300 more nurses. Premier Harris made a commitment

to hire 12,000 nurses. The task force recommended 10,000. The task force on nurses

recommended 10,000 and he said we will hire 12,000.

He said, there are 6,456 nursing positions so far that the Ontario

Nurses' Association acknowledges that government has put into place. If you use that same

percentage of increase in this Province, we would need 350 more nurses; if you judge the

same per capita as they increased in Ontario.

We have a geography that is different than Ontario. We cannot get the

same economies in our numbers. If we applied the same increase that what you would you

call the cold, callous Mike Harris provided to nurses, over what the Premier talked about,

it is more than double. He has provided more than double the increase that the Premier

talked about, or the number that was tossed around, 175.

Mr. Chairman, it is simply not good enough. We are looking here at what

other governments are doing. Let's look at the Government of Quebec. They put $1 billion

extra funds into health care and a 4.5 per cent increase in addition to that. They have

started to realize that there is a problem in Quebec health care, a shortage of doctors,

and they are starting to address problems. Over ten or fifteen years ago, Quebec said:

Rural parts of Quebec are under-serviced. We have to do something. If you go out and

practice in rural Quebec, we will give you 120 percent of the fee-for-service. What did

this government do? This government said, because we do not have doctors in rural

Newfoundland, we will give urban doctors 50 per cent of the fee and try to force them out

in rural Newfoundland. Did it solve the problem? I said from day one, three years ago, no,

it will not solve the problem. It did not solve the problem, and we still have the problem

today.

What did they have to do? They had to address the disparities between

doctors in Newfoundland and Labrador and the rest of Atlantic Canada, and they closed that

gap somewhat. They closed the gap, most of the gap got closed, and now they have to do

something else. They have to close the gap and disparity between nurses in this Province

and the rest of the country.

As I left this Legislature yesterday, I stood in the lobby as the

Premier and the Minister of Health and the President of Treasury Board were confronted by

nurses. Very genuine they were. I must say, it was very civilized. They stood there and I

listened. I listened to the nurses pleading. They said: If you wanted to hire hundreds of

more nurses in this Province, you would not get them. It is a job to get them.

We have created a nursing shortage by sending nurses all over the

world, not say over Canada. There is a shortage, internationally, of nurses today, a

shortage of nurses in the world, a shortage of nurses in the United States. We are

creating a major problem.

The Minister of Mines and Energy said here yesterday - and I heard him

say it - that Sister Elizabeth Davis said there was more than one permanent job out of the

last 270. I heard the Minister of Mines and Energy say that. I asked him if more than one

nurse out of the last 270 who graduated got a permanent job. If that is not right, tell us

what is right. He could not tell us. He would not stand in his place, this government

would not stand in their place, and tell us how many nurses, out of the last 270, got

work.

There was one. The nursing union - the paper I read today, I think,

indicated -

AN HON. MEMBER: It was more than one (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: How many? Tell us.

AN HON. MEMBER: The nurses say there is only one.

MR. SULLIVAN: The nurses said only one of 262 nursing graduates

obtained permanent work; one of 262. I asked the Minister of Mines and Energy, who said

that Sister Elizabeth Davis told him it is wrong. I said: Give me the correct number. He

could not give it. Just give me the correct number. Will someone give it to me and tell

me, who are they? Where are the ones that got hired?

Can you imagine, to fund and finance 270 graduates in nursing and one

get a permanent job? That is criminal.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I am the Member for Ferryland.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, I will stop shouting. I am sorry about that. I

have some medication here.

AN HON. MEMBER: There are lots of nurses in the lobby.

MR. SULLIVAN: It is the nurses in the lobby, he said, who are

giving him the headache - not curing it, I tell you!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, he did not say it. Well, I will say it. I am

sorry. I did not mean to say you said it. I said it in the sense that they are giving you

the headache, not curing it, because you should have settled with them. They have every

right to be out there and it is unfair. It is really unfair. We have not paid homage to

the lip service that the Premier said during the election.

When Mike Harris in Ontario has put already - this is what the Nursing

Association says - he has put 6,456 nurses in the positions in that Province. The task

force said that we need 10,000; he said, we will provide 12,000. They got 6,456. That is

the Mike Harris whose booming economy - give us a cheque for $180 million, unexpected

cheque, that allowed him to balance the budget in this Province. That is the Mike Harris

of growing, prosperous, economic activity in Ontario that is keeping this Province alive

on equalization.

Thank God for Mike Harris. Thank God for your roads program, John

Crosby. Thank God for all this money that is flowing that saved their necks here in the

last election. I just hope the Ontario economy keeps strong. I just hope our economy gets

stronger so we do not have to get $1.18 billion or whatever in equalization. I would like

to see the day when we do not have get any equalization, because that is a signal then

that we have prosperity in our Province.

It is shameful, to be honest with you, it is really shameful to see the

resources coming out of our Province today and we have to depend on $1.1 billion a year in

equalization. Is there something wrong? The resource of the sea was an abundant resource.

It still is, in many species out there. The minerals that have come out of the earth in

the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the billion tons of ore in Labrador. We are

going to start seeing it now pelletized in Sept-Iles. Voisey's Bay sits in the ground

there still. I agree with it. I agree with you on Voisey's Bay. Leave it there. I would

sooner starve, to be honest with you, than let it go. I would sooner starve than allow

resources -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: That is right. It would really do good for my

fitness, to go on a starvation diet for the next two or three months. It would help me.

The same in Labrador West, though. It is not the same stand they took

in Labrador West, I can tell you. It is not the same stand.

We have not paid lip service. I would like to go on and on. I have a

brief commitment that I have to get to. I am sure hon. members will not mind me getting

back again and having a few words.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: No, the member who was going to get defeated, I

think, in St. John's East. They are fighting to get up here now, they are so eager to jump

up and tell the truth. I can't keep them under control, they are so eager to speak.

I certainly will sit down and give an opportunity to other members.

Stay tuned, I will be right back.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.

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

I am pleased to stand in my place today and say another few words about

the Interim Supply. Yesterday, when I stood, I spoke about the first leadership speech

given in this House of Assembly by the Minister of Mines and Energy. Today we had the

Minister of Fisheries on his feet making his first speech on the upcoming leadership of

the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I am really, really curious as to when the Minister of Tourism and the

Minister of Finance are going to jump into the fray and give their first leadership

speeches.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, you are. You want to bet? How much money do you

have? How much money can you afford to lose? I say to the Minister of Tourism, how much

money do you have to lose?

I can tell you one thing; the Minister of Mines and Energy, the

Minister of Fisheries, the Minister of Finance - and I would be really surprised if the

Minister of Tourism does not jump in, and maybe the Minister of Health will go at it also.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: In about a year-and-a-half, somewhere around that

time. Mark it down, that is when it is coming.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, yes, guaranteed. The Minister of Fisheries is

shaking his head over there.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: That is what is going to happen. See if I will be

right, now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) best presentation of anybody over

there.

MR. J. BYRNE: Who? Where does he belong to? The Member for

Bellevue.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: I know. I am taking it all in. You need not worry.

Mr. Chairman, it is not very often that members on that side of the

House will get up and say anything. They will, every now and then, speak from their

chairs.

I have to say that the Member from Bellevue was just saying what a good

job I am doing in this House of Assembly. Not often will they give us these kinds of

compliments, but I am here to accept them. There is no problem there. Every now and then I

give compliments to that side of the House.

I just saw the Minister of Mines and Energy walk in. I have to say that

he will rip you apart in the House of Assembly when he feels he should; but when he tells

you something, you can usually count on it, if he commits to you. But when himself and the

Minister of Fisheries or the Minister of Finance go at it - and probably the Minister of

Tourism, and the Minister of Health - they have a real battle on their hands to knock the

Minister of Mines and Energy off, I can guarantee you that. They will have a real battle

on their hands.

The Minister of Tourism is trying to lead us to believe that he is not

going to run. I do not believe the man, to be honest with you.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are the best person over there to do the

research. I want you to go upstairs and (inaudible) chronic care and acute care. The

Leader of the Opposition has it all mixed up (inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Bellevue wants me to

talk about health. He just asked me to speak about health in the Province of Newfoundland

and Labrador. It is strange that he would ask me to do that in the House of Assembly today

where we saw the galleries full with nurses, we saw the lobby out there blocked with

nurses, the steps out there this morning blocked with nurses. He wants me to talk about

health. I will talk about health.

I have been in the health care system as a patient over the past number

of years. I am consistently going back for follow-ups and what have you. Let me tell you

that health care over the past five to six years has deteriorated. Not from the quality of

care we get from the nurses, from the x-ray technicians, from the lab technicians, from

the people who receive you in the clinics, out-patient clinics, not from the quality of

care that way, but from the numbers of people who are there to serve you. I brought up in

the House of Assembly about four or five years ago the fact of just a general cleanliness

throughout the hospitals. Walk through the corridors of the hospitals and look at the

carpets and see the stains that are not being cleaned up properly. That is just one thing.

Look at the people who are coming in to clean the rooms; there are not as many as there

used to be, and it is not as often.

I was in hospital last year for a full week. The sheets in the beds

were not changed for a full week. Because I was a patient who could walk around and what

have you, I had to make my own bed while I was in hospital last year. I remember being in

hospital a few years before that and they came in daily and changed the sheets on your

bed, but not any more. They are talking about health care improving in the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador? The former Minister of Health, the now Minister of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs, stood in his place on the other side of the House many times being

questioned by the Member for Ferryland about health care in the Province. The standard

line was: Health care in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is improving.

Where is he now? He is not the Minister of Health any more. Now we have

the present Minister of Health who will try and twist the facts when she has been asked

questions. When the Member for Ferryland asks questions she will twist the facts and come

back with something completely irrelevant, not close to the facts at all. They are talking

about health care improving in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for a fact? The

$40 million they put in the Budget from the regional boards goes for the debt retirement

of the boards. Not one dollar of that $40 million is going to go to the front line

services in the Province. If we all want to get down to it, let's cut right to the chase.

The Premier during the elec