April 22, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY

PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 21

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Today we have an announcement to make and the session will now be called to

order. We will not be calling for the admission of strangers because, on the

recommendation of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and also because we do not

have our personnel in place, our commissionaires, the public galleries will not

be open today. However, the proceedings are being recorded and they are being

televised, and, of course, they will be published by way of Hansard.

The issue for the House and the Speaker is an issue of safety, and given the

volatility that has been reported to me by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary

officials in that particular matter, the Speaker has taken the recommendation of

the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the senior officials and has ordered

that the public galleries not be opened for this afternoon's session.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today on a point of parliamentary privilege, first of all, and I would

like to make it quite clear, I am not challenging the Speaker's rule as to the

comments that you just made but stating the position of the Official Opposition

regarding the closure of the galleries today. I think it is only proper and fair

that the Official Opposition of this Province have an opportunity to outline

what they feel the circumstances are.

First of all, regarding the parliamentary privilege, we came here, the

Official Opposition, as well as the NDP, Mr. Speaker, for the second time this

week and could not gain access to this building. I raised this point of

privilege a few days ago. Your Honour undertook to do an investigation of the

matter and we are back here again, two days later. Without any interference from

any strikers or anyone, we came to enter this building this morning to do our

job, and, again, we were denied access to this building by someone inside this

building.

Now, the precincts of the building, as I understand it, take in the House of

Assembly and the area immediately outside of it. It does not include the

vestibule outside and it does not include the entrance way to the civil servants

entrance. Someone out there is in charge of security, Mr. Speaker, and on two

successive days have denied the Official Opposition to come in here to do our

jobs. I fail to understand why we had to call the Speaker, whom I am not even

sure has control over the area in question, and ask for admission to this

building. I called the Government House Leader again, when this happened this

morning, and he quite rightly was upset about this as well, the fact that we had

been barred.

My question, Mr. Speaker, is: What is the point of raising a point of

privilege, and being given undertakings that this is never to happen again, when

we come back and within forty-eight hours we run into this exact same situation

again?

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, regarding the issue of no one in the

galleries here today, the people's House, we came into this building to do our

job in the people's House without any interference whatsoever from strikers. I

point out - again, I am at a loss to understand. I thought that the Speaker, the

Sergeant-at-Arms and the Commissionaires run this place. The RNC may be under

the control of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General but it is not my

understanding that the Speaker of the people's House takes his direction from

the RNC of this Province. The government might dictate to the RNC what is or is

not a reason of safety in this House, but Your Honour just stated that you are

making your decision based upon advice of the RNC. My understanding is that the

RNC does not control the security of this building here. That has been based

upon the decisions of your staff, your Sergeant-at-Arms, and your

Commissionaires.

So, again, we disagree vehemently with the Chairs decision that the seats of

this House here today are vacant because someone might do something, and you

have taken your advice from a body, a police force, that supposedly has nothing

to do with the confines and the security of this building right here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to speak to that point of parliamentary privilege, and to say that I

support the comments and remarks of the Opposition House Leader. I am advised by

a telephone call a few moments ago that there are approximately thirty to forty

people outside the House who wish to gain entrance to participate, by observance

of the proceedings, and that there is no indication from anyone that anything

other than observing the matters of the House is what is desired.

When the point of privilege was raised by the Opposition House Leader the

other day, I pointed out the passage from Beauchesne indicating that the

RNC, or the police forces, have no role in the House of Assembly unless the

Speaker invites them in, and invites them in presumably once the Speaker has

determined that he cannot control order in the House or in the galleries or in

the precincts of the House without the presence of the RNC. There has been no

indication whatsoever, other than the RNC or someone in the RNC saying it might

be safer if we did not have anyone in the galleries. Well, it might always be

safer, Mr. Speaker, if we did not have anyone in the galleries, if we did not

have freedom of assembly, if we did not have freedom of speech, if we did not

have all of the freedoms, the freedom of collective bargaining and the right to

strike, and all those freedoms and rights that we have.

Mr. Speaker, I find it, to me, contrary to the normal expectations that you,

Your Honour, would rely merely on advice of that nature without rationale or

reason for it. If there had been some indication of a threat or bomb threat or

some other threat, or something that might be taken into account, but merely to

recommend that the people's House not be opened to the people seems to me to

be an advocation of the House's responsibility to make sure that we are in

control of our own proceedings and you, as Speaker, are the defender of that

liberty of Parliament that we hold so dear.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you reconsider and perhaps consult with the

House Leaders and recess the House so we could consider that, and consider as

well - I am advised that the individuals outside, when I said, where are the

Commissionaires, they said: We have no difficulty with Commissioners coming into

the House. We met them on the way over. We walked over and we were told that

they were told to go away for an hour.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to reconsider that and perhaps with a meeting of

the House Leaders and myself to decide whether there is a basis, based on what

specific information may have been provided by the RNC, to close the galleries

of the House and to consider the availability of the Commissionaires, which is

the security force of this House, under the direction of the Sergeant-at-Arms.

That is very extraordinary, I would submit, for the House to be closed merely

based on the recommendation of the RNC, without something more.

I would respectfully ask, Mr. Speaker, that you consider recessing the House

for a few moments, meeting with the House Leaders and myself from this caucus,

to consider whether there is an alternative to the ruling that you have made.

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

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

The Opposition House Leader contacted me, and I immediately contacted the

Speaker. I appreciate the commentary by the Opposition House Leader, saying that

I was obviously upset, correctly. As I said the other day, if one member is

denied access to this House then it is not only that member's privileges that

have been breached, it has been all of our privileges.

There is one thing that we are supposed to be guaranteed in this Legislature,

as members, and that is the right to assemble and the right to conduct the

business of the people, without threat, without intimidation, free from civil

arrest, within the precincts of the Legislature. I appreciate the point. I

concur with the point.

I will say this, Mr. Speaker, that the recommendation made by the Leader of

the New Democratic Party, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, possibly some

time this afternoon that himself, the Opposition House Leader and myself, as the

Government House Leader, meet with you so that we can review the situation and

you can advise us on what basis you made the decision.

I will say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I support your decision. I know that any

decision taken like that is not made lightly. Even in 1999, under similar

circumstances, the then Minister of Mines and Energy, now Leader of the

Opposition - I have it there - talked about how the Speaker decides on the

security and safety of the public galleries. I believe he may recall that.

To the point made by the Leader of the NDP, I think at some time this

afternoon, if it is okay with you, we can meet with the Speaker and move on.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Further to the point raised by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and

commented on by the Government House Leader, the whole point here is not for

delay. The point here is to resolve the issue of: Are we, or are we not, going

to allow people to come into the people's House?

We do not wait until later this afternoon to have that chat and have that

discussion. This is bigger than either one of us here. It is bigger than the

Speaker. The Speaker may decide what is or is not appropriate in this House, Mr.

Speaker, and we all respect that, but this issue of, can the people come to the

people's House, is bigger than all of us. That is the essence of democracy.

That is being denied here and it cannot be done frivolously. It must be done

with full thought and regard by all parties concerned, and anyone who can help

shed any valued opinion upon that decision.

To proceed and decide some time later in the afternoon whether people can or

cannot come into their House is kind of a frivolous exercise. The whole issue

is, if they are allowed in, they ought to be allowed in from minute one - not

two hours down the road. That is the whole point.

I agree wholeheartedly with the Government House Leader's comments that

there should be a recess, but not later; we should do it now. The Government

House Leader, myself as Opposition House Leader, the Leader of the NDP, and

yourself, should meet to converse about this idea and decide if there is any way

possible to have the people in the people's galleries.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand that under the circumstances there wasn't a full opportunity

for Your Honour to consult with the House Leaders. I know you were able to

advise what you had planned to do, but there was no opportunity to consult and

have the discussion based on the reason. It is, in fact, my recommendation that

we meet immediately, so that we can see if there is a way to ensure that

democracy may be served within the needs of security. We would like to have an

opportunity to do that, to meet with you, before such a decision might be

implemented.

I will say, too, that when I was speaking to the issue of the rule of

parliamentary privilege, it was again clear that when we, after notifying your

office that the members of the House were approaching the door, when we got to

the door there was nobody there. The doors were locked. Several people, members

of the House, knocked on the doors. Nobody answered. It required further calls

to your office to get someone to come to the door to even let members of the

House in. Clearly, whatever system was hoped to be put in place was not working.

That can be the source, obviously, of some discussion at a later time, maybe

later on this afternoon.

The issue of the opening of the galleries to the public, when there are

thirty or forty people outside waiting to get in without, apparently, any

intentions that are certainly known to me - if the RNC or Your Honour know some

things that we don't know, then perhaps it would be appropriate that the

Government House Leader, the Opposition House Leader and myself meet with you to

discuss these matters.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: One final point, Mr. Speaker.

I have faith in the reasons why you made the decision. The Opposition were

not the only members today who had extreme difficulty getting into this House,

and I want to make that very clear, extreme difficulty over the last two days. I

think we all have to recognize that, for obvious reasons, the environment we are

operating in has caused some situations.

I am certainly not going to challenge the Speaker's ruling. You have made a

decision and we support that decision. When you want to get together with the

House Leaders, I believe that is important, but that is up to you, Sir, in your

capacity as Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Given the extraordinary circumstances that we are operating

under - there is a parliamentary theme that the Speaker's rulings should not

be questioned, but given the circumstances of this day, there are other factors

that the Speaker has knowledge of. Therefore, if it is the will of the House,

the Speaker has no objection to recessing the House for five minutes or so, so I

can share some other information with the House Leaders.

I would ask that the House now recess for fives minutes, and ask the House

Leaders to meet me in my Chambers.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has consulted with the hon. House Leaders for the government, the

official Opposition and for the New Democratic Party. The Chair recognizes that

it is ultimately the decision of the Speaker and, having reviewed the matter

with the Clerk of the House and the Sergeant-at-Arms, and also having reviewed

all of the factors, including the fact that we do not have Commissionaires in

the building - they have been denied access - the Chair's ruling, on the fact

that the galleries remain closed today, stands. However, in saying so, this

should not be taken by any member, or members of the general public, to mean

that on another day, when circumstances are different - and the Chair has

undertaken that we will consult with the union leadership to see if we can make

some arrangements to have access to the building by Officers of the House and

the Legislature, members themselves, and do that over the next several days or

hours - the decision this afternoon to leave the galleries closed must not be

taken by any member, or any member of the public, to mean that this would be the

condition that would prevail.

The Chair is very cognizant of freedom of speech, very cognizant that the

public business should be done in the public forum, and that certainly is what

the objective of any Speaker would be; however, given today's circumstances, I

do believe, and I firmly believe, and the Chair will continue to adhere to the

principle, that the decision made today is the correct decision.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, to a point of order, if I may.

With regret, I have to indicate that I believe personally, and this caucus

believes personally, that the decision that you have just taken is one that is

in grave error and strikes to the very heart of democracy - absolutely to the

heart of democracy - and I believe members here, by their -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member know that decisions of the Chair cannot be challenged. They can

only be challenged by a substantive motion that would have to be moved and

seconded and notice given for it. Therefore, the Chair rules that the Chair has

made the decision.

There was an amendment passed in our Standing Order some years ago, I believe

it was in 1999, that decisions of the Chair are final and they are not to be

challenged in any manner at all.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again, I am not indicating that I am challenging the Chair. I

would like a few minutes in the people's House, in a democracy, to explain why

we are not going to sit here with that ruling. We will be leaving this

Legislature, and I would like to explain to Your Honour, as the Speaker, to the

members opposite, and to the people of the Province, why we see this as the

biggest breach of democracy in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I request the consent of the House to speak for a minute to that

issue, because it is that serious, Mr. Speaker, and I take it that I have

consent and agreement to speak to that issue?

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has every

opportunity to speak and tell people why, wherever, but I am not going to give

consent to challenge the Speaker's ruling. That is the fact of it.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The member, rising on a point of privilege.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

I think we have seen here today, and again with the action of the Government

House Leader, an absolute denial of democracy in the Province. You committed,

Mr. Speaker, to have an investigation done as to why the doors were locked

forty-eight hours ago, and committed that it would never happen again. Today,

when we were at the doors, with no obstruction whatsoever, indicating that we

wanted no police protection, did not need any, did not want any, did not desire

any, were not going to accept any, the doors being locked, we called the

security, got an officer of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, who says: I

have an order and a command to not open the doors. The question was: Would you

mind telling us who gave the order? He said: I will have to get back to you; I

cannot disclose that information.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are in here and again the right for peaceful assembly,

freedom of speech, as due the public unless they do something wrong, I would

suggest it is a grave error not to recess the House, call in the Commissioners,

make the arrangements that you, as the Speaker, are talking about trying to make

in the future. I am sure that the people of the Province and the picketers will

allow the Commissioners to cross the lines. If we are not going to have the

public galleries open today then we, as the Official Opposition, will not sit

here.

Mr. Speaker, every bit as serious as that, it has now come to our attention

that the same orders that were given to not open the doors for us, as elected

members, have now been given to not allow the members of the media to enter into

the gallery.

MR. E. BYRNE: Why is that?

MR. GRIMES: Why is that? The Government House Leader says: Why is that?

Now we are at the very essence, Mr. Speaker, of the whole issue. We cannot have

this occurring. We will not stay in this Legislature with that happening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I think there is consent for the hon. Government House Leader to speak.

MR. E. BYRNE: I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition giving me the

information - or giving me the opportunity. Again, this is new information to

the government side. I concur with the Leader of the Opposition -

MR. HARRIS: As do I.

MR. E. BYRNE: One second, I say to the Leader of the NDP.

I concur with the Leader of the Opposition. I ask the Speaker to recess the

House again until we can find out what the situation is with respect to the

information that has been brought forward to our attention.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I agree with the Government House Leader; this House should be recessed. I

would also say that we will not be in this House if the House is not open to the

public, because we do not believe that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary

should run this House, or access to this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair can only say that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before the Chair came to this House this afternoon, the Chair was asked a

question, and the question was whether or not the doors would be open for the

media. The Chair, in the presence of the Clerk and others, gave the direct order

that this House is not barred today to members of the press. The Chair was asked

a question, and the Chair has already communicated on that matter. When the

galleries were closed to the members of the public, there was no intention on

anybody's part at all to have the galleries closed to the members of the

media. The media are welcome. If they come to the door they will be admitted,

and that has been communicated to them by the Clerk of the House and myself,

prior to this session opening this afternoon.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I take it that by agreement, all three parties

have agreed to recess. I expect, Mr. Speaker, that you are also going to deal -

not only with the media. We will not be in this Legislature this afternoon if we

do not try to make arrangements to have the Commissionaires come in, open the

galleries, and have a free Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

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

We will take the recess and we will have the opportunity - we will reconvene

as soon as we discover the answers that we are all looking for.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: By agreement, the House will recess again.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would like to thank the Commissionaires who, on very short notice -

after being here at the building for more than an hour earlier today and were

not able to gain access. I would like to thank the Commissionaires for coming in

and also other House officials who were able to be here and had been here

earlier today and are now present. Therefore, the House can now function in the

manner that all of us would like to have occur on a regular basis.

I want to also note that when welcoming visitors to our galleries, that we

want to make it quite clear that visitors, according to our Standing Orders, are

not permitted to participate or demonstrate in any way, any approval or

disapproval.

It is a case where - I say to the Government House Leader, that the bells

have rang and the Commissionaires have - if members wish me to say the

expression, admit strangers, than we shall. All visitors who are in the

galleries are always, in parliamentary terms, strangers to the House, but they

are visitors in every other sense.

I want to make it quite clear that we ask visitors not to participate in any

manner on the proceedings in the House, and we thank you for your co-operation.

The Chair, of course, wishes that this session this afternoon proceed in a very

orderly and parliamentary manner.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not wish to be difficult, Mr. Speaker, but your admonition to the

galleries sort of fall on deaf ears or no ears because in the galleries the

people have not been admitted yet. We have a very extraordinary circumstance

here this afternoon. We agreed that we would recess to allow the Commissionaires

to come into the House, to allow the media to come in, to allow the galleries to

be filled if the public want to come in. I just came to this House, Mr. Speaker,

and the media are outside still waiting to get in, are not signed in. There are

people outside waiting to get signed in. Again, I am not trying to be difficult,

but if that is the intention here today, to allow the people in the people's

House, they have to be allowed the appropriate time in order to do that.

Thank you.

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

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

Whatever time is warranted or justified to allow people to sit in the

gallery, to participate, or to take in the proceedings, absolutely. That is why

we recessed, so we could provide that opportunity to get our own staff in so

that everyone else could come in. So, if we need some more time, that is fair

enough.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has been advised that while there still may be

people who are outside in the process of coming in, members are free to come and

exist in the galleries at any time. Therefore, we are not going to close the

doors, and say: Those who are in, are in. Not at all. Member are free to come

into the gallery. When the gallery is open, it is open. It is open for entry. It

is also open for people who wish to leave at any time. Because we began

proceedings now, does not mean that other members who are outside are not able

to gain entry. I understand that people are coming in and they will continue to

come in. I do not know if we need more time. I will take direction from the

House Leaders if we need more time, but we have had substantive time since some

people were first admitted about, I understand, twenty minutes ago.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the Speaker's remarks, but as I came into the House just a few

minutes ago, there were a substantial number of people outside the doors,

including members of the media. I see that the media gallery, the press gallery

has three people there but there are, at least, three or more that I saw outside

the doors who are waiting their turn. The signing-in procedure is proceeding. It

apparently takes a little time, so although the doors may have been opened

early, they obviously have not been open long enough for members of the media,

who are normally in the press gallery, to be here. I would suggest that perhaps

another few minutes be permitted so that the normal attendees of the press

gallery have an opportunity to be participating in the proceedings by observing

them.

MR. SPEAKER: If there is a feeling that members of the public have not

had sufficient time, I was advised by the House Officers and others that they

did, but if that is the case we can take an extra five minutes. The House will

recess until 3:55 p.m.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair does not have any Statements by Members by a notification. However,

the Chair will call Statements by Members.

Statements by Ministers

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

Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. members, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, are well aware

that the last twenty-two days in our Province have been more than difficult

given the largest public sector labour disruption ever in our history. Today, I

rise to inform my colleagues in the Legislature that the health care system can

no longer sustain a strike of this magnitude for anything other than a limited

period of time.

Government met with representatives of the health sector, and today we have

concluded it is necessary to respond to the urgent pressure which this sector is

experiencing. It is clear now, in the twenty-second day of this labour

disruption, that our ability to provide emergent and urgent care is

significantly reduced. The fatigue of our health sector managers, our inability

to continue to offer adequate care, and the concern over not being able to

attend to the needs of patients who are not classified as "emergency"

are troublesome. Our health system is being taxed to the limit, and that is a

situation government cannot tolerate.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association said yesterday, our health

system is fragile, our patients are suffering and are at risk. An indication of

the seriousness of the problem that the health system is confronting is evident

in the capacity to produce cardiac catheterization. Normally we see eight to ten

in-hospital patients per day awaiting cardiac catheterization. Three days ago we

had thirty-nine patients waiting; yesterday there were fifty people waiting. For

cardiac bypass surgeries, we normally perform sixteen per week. Now we are

performing only four. On top of this, we have seventy people waiting for cancer

surgery in the St. John's area, and many others around the Province. And,

there are an unknown number of mental health patients who are not accessing the

critical services they need to remain safe and healthy in our community. A very

real issue, also, is the people who are awaiting diagnostic procedures, a

percentage of whom will also require surgeries or oncology treatments.

Mr. Speaker, on top of the strains in the health sector, our education system

and general public services are diminishing. People are feeling the anxiety of

this extraordinary ordeal every day now. While we appreciate the work of our

managers, non-bargaining unit employees and those union members who have

provided essential services, we understand that there comes a time when

functioning at even a minimal level is not good enough for our Province. While

it may not be a matter of life and death, our broad public services are the

backbone of a well-functioning society - a state to which we must return.

I wish to make special mention of our managers who have put every ounce of

energy into maintaining essential public services. Without their help, we would

not have been able to provide public services even on a reduced level.

Union leaders have made their case to government on several occasions both

before and after March 31. Government has listened, comprehended and assessed

the requests. We too have made our position known time and time again. As late

as yesterday, government met with NAPE and CUPE in an effort to bring the strike

to a conclusion. We worked hard, Mr. Speaker, but our ability to come together

was not evident. The request from unions would have overburdened our fiscal plan

to such a degree that we would be feeling the effects for years to come.

Government made every effort to reach a settlement. We removed all

concessions for existing employees and we were prepared to be flexible on many

points. No existing employees, temporary or permanent, will have any less

benefits at the end of this process than they had prior to the strike. That

includes benefits for sick leave, severance and pensions.

Mr. Speaker, we bear a large part of the responsibility for protecting our

Province for the future. Having just brought down one of the most difficult

provincial budgets in our history, we feel our real fiscal burden squarely on

our shoulders. We sought an agreement which was fair and reasonable - but to no

avail.

There are no assurances, unfortunately, that the health system can go on

coping in the way that it has. Government must now show leadership and discharge

the responsibilities entrusted to it by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

This is why today we will give Notice of Motion to introduce a bill entitled,

"An Act to Provide for the Resumption and Continuation of Public

Services." With the pressure of the necessity for swift action from the

health and community services sector in particular, I ask hon. members to give

speedy consideration to the legislation.

While notice has been given, it does not necessarily mean that legislation

must proceed. Between now and next week, hopefully, a resolution can be reached.

Thank you.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the statement we just heard reflects a very sad day

for the government. I know, from their demeanor, I don't think any of them are

very proud of what they just heard read. Unfortunately, it is the latest in a

long line of broken promises to the people of the Province, generally, and to

the union movement of Newfoundland and Labrador, in particular.

Mr. Speaker, let me make this offer on behalf of the official Opposition, in

one last attempt - because we tried to point out through the last couple of

weeks how there could be an agreed to resolution instead of coming to this

point. Let me make one last offer to see if the government would consider

another course of action instead of the one that the President of Treasury Board

and Minister of Finance gave notice of in that statement.

Why would we not agree, today, immediately, under our own Standing Order 36,

Mr. Speaker, to suspend the normal proceedings of this Legislature to recognize

the circumstance that the President of Treasury Board just outlined, that we

have a looming crisis, if not a present crisis, particularly in health care, and

that we could use the existing law, that we don't need to give any notice of a

new law, a brand new act? We can use our existing law, the Public Service

Collective Bargaining Act, that the Premier, himself, said he would respect and

that he would use, and that he would never come to the Legislature and use the

power of the Legislature. Why don't we agree to do that today, Mr. Speaker.

We will certainly agree to stay, extend the time beyond normal adjournment at

five-thirty, and let everyone who wants to speak stay here now and have a

special debate about why we would or would not use the current law, use

section

30 of the current law, to declare that there is a looming crisis. The actual

phrase, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a strike of employees that is or would be

injurious to the health or safety of persons - is or would be. I believe the

minister just described that he believes it already is, or certainly would be,

so it certainly meets the criteria.

Section 32 then says that the remaining issues - there are only three - could

be referred to an adjudicator.

Section 35 says that, whatever the adjudicator

decides is binding on the parties.

That is what the Premier of the Province said to the NAPE convention, that he

would do if he ever became the leader.

The Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker, who was then the Leader of the

Opposition, in 1999, the last time that back-to-work legislation was introduced

in this Province, in questioning the Premier of the day - which was not me; I

was part of the government - he said: If we were the government today, we would

not be using back-to-work legislation. We would be sending it to binding

arbitration.

I have the quotes right here, from Hansard, from the record of the House. Mr.

Speaker, we make the offer in response to this statement. Rather than give the

notice, rather than wait for three or four more days to see if there is going to

be some miraculous resolution that did not occur last weekend, did not occur

yesterday, wait for the situation to deteriorate and then suggest that the

Opposition parties are prolonging it, delaying it, and causing a problem, let's

have the debate right now, under our own Standing Orders. We would certainly

have the House Leaders consult. We have a resolution drafted, that we would

present to Your Honour if it was agreed. You could consult to see if you want to

have that resolution or another one, and we could have the debate right now. The

strike could be over this afternoon, the people could be back to work before

midnight, and the issues could be dealt with in a process that the provincial

government said they would honour if they ever became the government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. GRIMES: That is all I wanted to say, Mr. Speaker.

I make the offer again, in all sincerity to the government, to resume that

debate later today and cancel and suspend the normal Orders of the Day, if they

are agreeable.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are now in the twenty-second day of a legal public sector

strike, as has been indicated by the minister, perhaps the largest public sector

dispute in our Province's history. While he has indicated his judgment and the

government's judgment that we do have a crisis, a looming crisis, that public

health and safety is at risk, or will be at risk, he is clearly putting the

language in the phrase of the existing legislation,

Section 30 of the Public

Service Collective Bargaining Act.

What is being proposed, instead, is that instead of using the existing

legislation, which would be in keeping with the legal strike that we have,

legislation is being proposed that will somehow make illegal that which is now

legal, and order people back to work under new legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I support the statement of the Leader of the Opposition. In

fact, I suggested to him that this would be an appropriate course of action

today, that we use

Section 30 of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act

which says that if "...a strike of employees is or would be injurious to

the health or safety of persons or a group or class of persons....".

The indication from the minister is that government believes that the health

or safety of a group or class of persons is potentially injurious and that we

would recognize that it is an emergency, that we would keep sitting until

everyone who wanted to have an opportunity -

MR. SPEAKER: The member's allotted time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: - everyone who wanted an opportunity to speak could speak. If

we accept what was being said, apparently by letter earlier today to the Premier

from the President of both NAPE and CUPE, that they are prepared to instruct

their members to return to work on Friday, April 23, 2004, that the strike would

be over, that everybody would be back to work tomorrow morning, that a proper

resolution to this dispute would have been met, that the existing law which is

designed to permit full and free collective bargaining to take place, it has

taken place and has resulted in a failure, and the failure of collective

bargaining should lead, as the Government House Leader said in March, 1999, at

the end of day, collective bargaining is not my way or the highway, which has

been the approach of government. That was the government that day. That should

not be the approach of any government, and the solution of sending the remaining

three items to binding arbitration is one that we believe is appropriate in the

circumstances where the government obviously feels that the collective

bargaining system has not worked and that the health and safety of people of the

Province is as risk. Therefore, we would consent now to proceed to such a

resolution and see it to its conclusion today; but, if the government chooses to

go another route and make illegal that which is now legal, and seeks to have

speedy resolution and speedy passage, that would not be appropriate and would

not be supported by me or the Member for Labrador West.

Oral Questions

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the Ministerial Statement by the

President of Treasury Board and I still have difficulty with one question that I

would like to ask and have clarified. The question is this: Has the government

determined that there is a crisis and emergency circumstance existing in the

Province or not?

He used a lot of language talking about difficulties and then said: I will

give notice and we will start a debate some time next week, which means it will

take then a full week or more to do something about it. I am confused. Could he

clarify, or could the Minister of Health and Community Services, in particular,

clarify: Is there a crisis emerging or not? What did that statement actually

say? Last week the pot was clearly simmering. Has the pot boiled over or not?

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

Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The statement says exactly what is written. I provided it to the Opposition

about three hours ago, so they had an opportunity up to now to read that and go

through it clearly.

It is clear what is stated there. There are numerous instances. I can give

them instances of cases. For example: outpatient surgeries before the strike,

700, seventy since; outpatient tests, normally 14,000 a week, 100 now; eighty

MRIs per week, only emergencies now; serious heart procedures before the strike,

100 a week, twenty-four now. Obviously, the system is coming under severe stress

and the ability to be able to cope with those essential - even with urgent and

emergency - is diminishing there, and we give notice today, as my statement

said. Obviously, if it was an emergency that we had to have it exactly today, we

would ask leave to do it immediately if the system had crashed. The answer is,

the system has not crashed today but we give notice because we do not want to be

in a position - because the Opposition has said openly -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: - they will not cooperate with that and we do not want to

be responsible for a system if we need to act - that we need to act with it.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Contrary to what the President of Treasury Board said, both myself and the

Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, just

offered full cooperation to the government to end this strike today, to suspend

even this Question Period if they want to and get to the debate that could end

this strike today. I take some exception, Mr. Speaker, to the false

representation made by the President of Treasury Board.

Mr. Speaker, the question again is this: If we have the circumstance that he

just restated of the crisis - because I believe he just said there was a crisis,

I think he did, but he is going to wait until next week. Why are we going to

wait? Will he acknowledge that the government, under existing law, has the

ability to order the workers back to work right now, this very minute, instead

of giving notice about a new bill, that they have the ability to do it this

instant? Why are we going to take a risk for the next three or four days with a

crisis -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: - that I believe he just confirmed existed?

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

Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is probably for the same reason in 1999 that my critic opposite stood -

the Leader of the Opposition as a member of the government - and legislated back

the nurses for the same reason that we are not doing it now. He knows the reason

why it was not done and why the reason we will not. He is trying now, in a

different situation - when he was put in it, he would not do it. So he wants us

to do now what he would not do when he was in the same situation, Mr. Speaker.

What do you call that?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call that a total abrogation of the new approach - is what I call that, Mr.

Speaker - that they got elected for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

[Noise from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker has to remind visitors in the gallery that regardless of whether

you agree or disagree with what has been said on the floor of the House, you are

not to show any approval or disapproval. The Speaker cannot accept any

commentary or any demonstrations whatsoever.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have had this kind of exchange before. The people of the Province, on the

twenty-second day of the biggest strike and the longest strike in our history,

do not want to talk about 1999. They want to talk about today, tonight,

tomorrow, next week, the future.

The question, Mr. Speaker, is this: If government's only agenda is being

driven by concern for the health and safety of people in the Province, why is

the minister and the Premier and the House Leader, why are they not taking us up

on the offer of starting the debate under the existing law, right now, this very

minute, so we can have this strike settled today? Is health and safety the only

concern or are there other agenda items that are important to this government?

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

Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are entrusted with the responsibility to make decisions and sign the

cheques on behalf of this Province. That is a responsibility that was given to

us and we are obligated to do because there is such a financial mess left there

and we do not have the fiscal ability to do it because the problem was created.

We made an effort, Mr. Speaker. We agreed on the sick leave issue. We even

said to the union leaders yesterday, I said to them specifically, when they told

me that we can get the sick leave numbers down to an acceptable level. We can do

that, give us six months. I said if you are so confident, we will give you

twelve days and we will retroactively give every new employee back their days in

the future, if we can do that. We said we were prepared to put a letter to them

on the Warren Report. That is not even in the current agreement now. That is an

add-on to government, it is not in the Warren Report. The Warren Report is not

in the current collective agreement. There is no obligation. That is a new item.

We were even prepared to give a letter to that effect. We were prepared to make

a movement on salaries. We were very reasonable and there was no movement, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: There was no movement whatsoever on the other side. We want

to get this settled. We made every honest effort to do it right to the very last

day, and we indicated that we were prepared to express movement on all three,

and it didn't happen. I am one of the most disappointed in this Province that

there is not a settlement now, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So we have it confirmed that there are issues other than health and safety

that are important to this government, so they are willing to risk the health

and safety of the people for another several days so that they can accomplish

some other agenda items. Make sure that everybody in the Province understands

that, Mr. Speaker. Our record will certainly show that that was the answer.

Mr. Speaker, before I get to the question of what is wrong with the current

law, the President of Treasury Board indicated that we have a responsibility.

They have a responsibility for the health and safety of the people and they have

a responsibility to uphold the current law. What is wrong with the current law

that guarantees that they can meet the health and safety requirements and the

responsibility for it, beginning in two minutes time if we can only agree to

start the right debate instead of reliving the past and talking about other

agenda items, like stripping contracts?

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

Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition does not hear very well. We are not agreeing to

binding arbitration because we are responsible to write the cheques. You were

responsible to write the cheques before and put us in a mess, almost a billion

dollar deficit. We have a responsibility to do something about it.

We made generous offers, in fact, on all three issues. We want to get this

settled. The union leaders would not move. If we settled sick leave and

salaries, they would them out on the Warren Report alone. They were not

accepting even that one item, basically. I asked: Why, for 3 per cent of your

membership, would you put everybody out? That was adamant in their discussion.

There was nowhere to go on it.

We were about seven minutes into that meeting and we realized there was

nowhere to go. We were so frustrated we came back and stayed another hour or

more, put forth different scenarios, and we couldn't get an agreement. I felt

they shouldn't put their entire membership at risk just for one item there. We

were prepared to move on all three, but we got no movement at all.

The only indication we got where we might have movement would be on wages; a

possibility. No offer, other than 8 per cent given to us -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: - and we made an honest effort to get an end to this. It

did not happen, and I met endless hours over the past number of times. I met at

five meetings last weekend over a period of four days; at least five. There was,

I think, fourteen proposals exchanged overall in the process -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: - and we made every honest effort, and we have

responsibilities to exercise on behalf of this Province. The very same person

had one, when he was Premier of this Province, and did not do what he is asking

us to do now. Ask him why.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is clear that the President of Treasury Board and the Premier do not

understand the lack of trust and belief in what they say today.

Mr. Speaker, just for information. This is important before I ask this next

question. I watched the evening news last night when the Premier said - I was in

the company of a mixed group of people, not necessarily politicians but a

general public. We offered a letter - signed by me, he said - about the school

board issues, about the Warren report. The people I watched the news with

laughed because they said he gave a letter to the Metis. That is the problem

that they do not seem to understand.

If, in fact, Mr. Speaker, they believe in their hearts and souls that the

fiscal circumstance of the Province is as bad and as dire as they continually

exaggerate it to be, what could they possibly fear from going to an arbitrator?

Why would they ever believe that an arbitrator would award something other than

what the government said it can hardly afford to do in the first place? Why is

it? Do they not believe their own press releases? Are they afraid that an

arbitrator does not believe the story and the myth that they -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

- the story and the myth that they have propagated far and wide in the

Province about the dire fiscal circumstance? What do they have to fear from an

arbitrator if it is as bad as he wants people to believe it is?

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

Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have no doubt about the fiscal state of our Province. What do I have to

fear? Maybe it is the same that the former Premier of this Province feared when

he forced the legislation with the nurses' strike and he would not do the same

very thing that he wants us to do.

Now, I would ask him: Why didn't you do it? The reason we are not doing it

is because we want to control the fiscal state of our Province. We want to have

a say in where we go in the future. We made every single, honest, effort to

settle these three issues. We agreed with two over the past while and last

weekend. We moved forward and we got an agreement on these others. We were

prepared to move on all three but there was no movement; no movement whatsoever

on two significant issues at all. It was not to be entertained. You could give

the other two and they were going out on this one. It did not make any

difference whether you got down to three, two or one. They were not going to

settle on that basis, in spite of an effort that we made.

The very former Premier of this Province gave a letter on the Warren Report,

that is not in the contract now. That is why there is a problem there and we

tried to address those concerns -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: - that were addressed in that former letter, basically

pertaining to it, why there are problems out in school boards with the Warren

Report. We want to make an honest effort to try and address these problems to

ensure that they are resolved there in a letter form; the very letter that was

created by that person, when he was the Premier of this Province, Mr. Speaker,

and it was not written into the collective agreement of this Province. That is

the responsibility of the person who was in power when that was done.

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

It is unfortunate that the President of Treasury Board cannot seem to see the

forest for the trees. He is so wrapped up in his own little arguments that he

does not want to listen to anybody else.

Mr. Speaker, the governments that I participated in, and the one I led,

answered all of their reasons in Hansard as to why we did what we did, when we

did it. That is the past. The new approach that people elected said: Elect us

and we won't do what they did. That is the whole issue here today.

Mr. Speaker, speaking of Hansard, I have a question for the Government House

Leader. In 1999, as the President of Treasury Board just mentioned, the last

time back-to-work legislation was used, the Government House Leader said: If we

were in your position today - he was the Opposition Leader then. He had the job

that I am now doing, in 1999. He is now the Government House Leader, Minister of

Natural Resources: If we were in your position today we would be announcing:

sending it to binding arbitration. I ask the Government House Leader, Mr.

Speaker: What happened to his position by going fifteen feet across the floor?

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

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

Five years, fifteen feet across the floor and a couple of billion dollars

more in debt, I say to the Leader of the Opposition. I will give him the answer

that he provided to this House - and let me assure every member in this House,

every member in the gallery and every member in the public, that there is not

one person on this side of the House who would not like to be in a position to

offer six and seven and eight and 9 per cent year-over-year to every member of

the general public; not one of us.

If anybody thinks for a moment, Mr. Speaker, that what was introduced here

today by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board was done

lightly, well then I will ask you to think again. But here is the answer, Mr.

Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition gave to me when we were on different

sides of the House. Here is what he said at that time, and he likes to refer to

Hansard: Every single one - meaning arbitration - done in the history of

Newfoundland and Labrador has given a settlement higher and much higher than

proposed by the employer. Every one.

Mr. Speaker, we looked seriously at binding arbitration, but given the state

of our fiscal finances, given the state of our ability to pay, it was too much

of a risk for us to take. That is the honest answer. That is the straightforward

answer. It is a tough one to give, where I am standing here right now, but I can

tell you, it is an honest one.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And it proves the whole point, they have no confidence that they can convince

an arbitrator of what was just said; because if they are so convinced that they

are right, why don't they go to an arbitrator and talk about the extra $2

billion? Which, by the way, is an exaggeration, Mr. Speaker. But if that is what

they want to believe and if that is the excuse they want to use for changing

their position, go to the arbitrator and convince the arbitrator, just like he

tried to convince the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with that answer.

Mr. Speaker, a different question to the Premier: Mr. Premier, won't you

finally admit to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that the government's

entire premise of the dire financial circumstance has from the very beginning

been exaggerated and overstated, especially by you as the Premier? And, how come

yesterday in this House when we referenced reports from the bond rating

agencies, Moody's and the Dominion Bond Rating Service, that your Government

House Leader did not know anything about it, none of your caucus knew anything

about it; they had never heard anything about the fact before -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

- when the reports that were given to this government, both of them, since

the government changed, had said that the bond rating for the Province is not in

jeopardy, it is stable. Would he like to answer that question?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition was Premier of the Province,

he commissioned a Royal Commission of respectable people in this Province, who

came back and gave him a report, and gave his government a report. That Royal

Commission, which was commissioned by his government, said that his government

had to get its fiscal house in order. It also said that the spending practices

of his government that had gone on in the past were unsustainable. Subsequently,

a report was commissioned that indicated that we were in dire fiscal and

financial straits. Our debt was ballooning. We are drowning in our debt. Our

debt was heading towards $14 billion to $15 billion. Our deficit was heading

towards $1 billion a year. We had no choice but to try and get it under control.

This is not just about a negotiation with the union. It is my job, as Premier

of the Province, it is our job as the government, to act on behalf of every

Newfoundlander and Labradorian, to make sure that their children and their

grandchildren have a future in our Province. That is what we are trying to do.

We are trying to negotiate an affordable agreement, something that we can live

with, something that we can afford. We are not passing the future of this

Province over to some arbitrator, believe me.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am really glad that the Premier made the last statement in particular,

because it reflects the very view that he put forward last night when he used

language that said: I run and control this Province.

Maybe he might learn, Mr. Speaker, that he has been given the privilege of

leading the government on behalf of the people of the Province. No one elected

him and gave him Newfoundland and Labrador to run and control as he sees fit.

They expected him, Mr. Speaker, to live up to his commitments, one of which was:

I would never bring legislation to the House of Assembly to end a strike.

Some words we might be able to believe; very few, obviously, from this

Premier. The question, however, Mr. Speaker, he did not answer. Maybe I should

ask it over again with a few different words. Can the Premier explain what he

meant on March 16, in a press conference, when he was with the Government House

Leader and he told the media, in referencing the strike that was coming up, the

negotiations that were not going so well: I have alarming correspondence from

the bond rating agencies that suggests our bond rating might be downgraded.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to quickly complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

It is the Premier who said it. Will he get up and explain his own words: By

correspondence - because we have to be this careful with this Premier, Mr.

Speaker - does he mean letters or does he mean something else? If he has the

letters, which most people think is correspondence, would he like to table them,

finally, so people can actually see what he was told by the bond rating agencies

that his caucus heard nothing about?

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

Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition knows quite well, they requested information

from my office under the Freedom of Information and we provided that. We had a

letter from the fiscal agents which we dealt with in a lot of areas, that we

were in the process of trying to get reduced borrowing. We have been very

successful in short-term (inaudible), I might add, to get an average rate of

1.99 per cent. In that response on borrowing capacity, the fiscal agents

indicated to us - I will read the sentence. They said: However, the only threat

could come from rating agencies who will want to see a commitment to balanced

budgets over the government's current mandate and that the action plan is

front-end loaded.

I might add, bond rating agencies do their regular updates and provide them

to governments, and it is made public. It is on the Web site. I think it was

provided by my office, or reference made to it, to a member of his office when

they requested that. The reason why, Mr. Speaker, there is some comfort level in

our credit rating is because we have taken action and laid out a plan to address

it. We had a $1 billion deficit going forward that would have put us,

eventually, over the brink. We would never let us get in the position. That is

why there is a comfort level now in this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: - because we have taken concrete action to do something

about it, something that the former Premier of this Province would not do.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, I take it they are not going to produce any correspondence from any bond

rating agencies; or else, Mr. Speaker, it is an admission that the Premier of

our Province does not know the difference between bond rating agencies and our

own fiscal advisors that we pay - that we pay - to advise us; people who advise

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the question, again, was this. I asked if they would table the

correspondence. Obviously, they are not going to because it does not suit their

purpose, just like the interim report from Mr. Gourley did not suit their

purpose.

Let me ask this different question to the Premier and see if he will, again,

answer to the people of the Province about his words, his own words that he is

usually so proud of. It did not come from the lips of the President of Treasury

Board. On January 5: I have to spend $1 billion to pay interest to the banks, 25

per cent of the Budget.

The same reports that they do not want to table said it is half that amount.

Would the Premier like to now explain to the people of the Province why he gave

that statement, when the reports that he has had and has not even shared with

his caucus show it to be absolutely, totally, dead wrong? He will not answer it.

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

Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The former Premier of this Province should know that one of the indicators of

government's flexibility - and it is every single year in the Auditor General's

report since I came into this House - less debt servicing costs as a percentage

of revenue. In the last one, it was 23.9 per cent roughly, over 25 per cent, and

scheduled to rise to 29 per cent. Debt servicing costs are made up of more than

one component. The Leader of the Opposition conveniently counts consolidated

fund service. There are other boards and agencies responsible to government that

borrow and have significant debt.

In this past year, there was over $61 million of interest paid out in these

areas that he never referenced in his statements, that he did not put out to the

public. I do not know why he is not including it. On top of that, Mr. Speaker,

there is also in excess of $300 million in costs that have to be accrued for

unfunded pension liabilities that pertain to it. That is money that is not there

now, it has to be met, and it is a liability that has to be paid out in the

future.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to now complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Auditor General - and they complied with standard

reporting measures under CICA, and it has indicated that 25 per cent of every

single dollar of revenue, basically, our debt servicing costs make that up. That

is a significant number and you cannot hide from the real truth on that. Anybody

who is not trying to play with three sets of numbers, as we have used in the

past - we had a cash basis, we had a consolidated cash basis, and we had an

accrual basis. He moved to accrual accounting, and he goes back and counts cash

in a consolidated fund service to mislead the public again, what they were doing

for several years before we got here.

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

There is time in your allocation for one short question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe with that, I would ask one very different question.

It seems, from the answers we are getting today, even though the Premier does

not want to speak with his own words, he wants someone else to try to explain

what he said because it is different than what the truth happens to be - the

question is this: If the government seems determined to bring in a brand new law

sometime next week, if there is a real crisis, even though they described the

crisis today, will the Premier now, at least, save some face and make the

commitment again that he made to the unions, that he was not going to do it at

all, but if he is going to do it, which he seems determined to do -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking the member now to quickly complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

What about guaranteeing the people of the Province, today, that he will not

create a black mark for himself and this government in history, by putting

concessions of actual articles of agreement into his new law, that he is

determined to bring? Will he give that commitment today or is he going to create

the darkest day in labour relations history the Province has ever seen?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, as I have stood on my

feet in the House time and time and time again, we have taken concessions on

sick leave for current employees of the table. They will not be put in

legislation. We have taken severance for current employees of the table. That

will not come back through legislation. We have taken pension indexing and

pension issues of the table. That will not come back through existing

legislation or proposed legislation. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition

that, and I can assure the membership of the union that that is the case.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

If the Premier's idea of collective bargaining is to put a wack of

concessions on the table and take most of them off, it is not surprising he was

unable to reach a collective agreement with the public sector workers.

Mr. Speaker, in the Ministerial Statement by the President of Treasury Board

he says: It is clear now that our ability to provide emergent and urgent care is

significantly reduced, and quotes the NLMA as saying, our patients are suffering

and at risk.

Does he not agree that those statements meet the condition that the strike

would be injurious to the health or safety of persons or groups or class of

persons, as specified in

section 30 of the Public Service Collective Bargaining

Act? Will he not agree to, in fact, use this act under existing law to get this

strike over with rather than destroying collective bargaining in the Province?

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

Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We looked at it and we drew a conclusion. Anybody can draw a conclusion. I

did not say in the statement that emergency cases cannot be dealt with. That is

not in that statement. Their ability to deal with emergent and urgent cases is

decreasing - or diminished, is the word. That is my statement. Do not twist the

words to read and apply to something that is in

an act that is exactly not

there, I want to say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. That is not what

I said. It is not what is in the statement -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - and it is not the

interpretation that you can apply -

that is trying to apply now and set a stage for binding arbitration or some

other area. That is where he is coming from. He is trying to do it by a backdoor

that is absolutely not there. He is reading something into it, Mr. Speaker, that

is not there.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi

Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister, having now admitted that he has no justification for the

legislation that he has proposed today: Will he then agree that what this

government is proposing to do - what the Minister of Energy and the Government

House Leader called it the last time in 1999 - that at the end of the day in

collective bargaining: It is not my way or the highway; which has been the

approach of government. Is that the approach of his government, that it is my

way, or the Premier's way, or the highway for public sector workers in this

Province? Is that what he is telling the people, that he has no justification

of employment on employees?

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

Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, the version and the best approach was to reach a negotiated settlement.

The Premier went to the hotel with me yesterday and sat across the table for

close to an hour-and-a-half. We moved and we wanted - we tried very hard to get

a settlement; very, very hard. We went to great extent - and I must say, there

are two people, two groups who usually sit at a bargaining table -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: We moved but we did not get any reciprocal movement

occurring whatsoever. You cannot get an agreement when two sides do not agree.

One is prepared to move and one is not. It's as simple as that! We made it

clear that we did not want to leave that room without a settlement; that we did

not get there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: We tried our upmost to do that. It is regrettable, and I

really feel bad for the people who are out there -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I feel bad for the people who want to go to work, that are

hard workers in government and other parts of the health system, and school

boards, everywhere in this Province who cannot go to work. I thought we put a

very fair and honest settlement. We were prepared to move, but they did not get

an opportunity to voice their opinion on that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

Notices of Motion

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

Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

"An Act To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation Of Public

Services." (Bill 18)

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Standing Order 36, and I believe this is the appropriate place to

ask leave. Again, as I mentioned earlier in response to the Ministerial

Statement and now that the Notice of Motion for the draconian back-to-work

legislation has been officially provided by the minister - and the Premier has

confirmed that, in fact, they will be stripping the contract in that legislation

when we get to see it. He stated that clearly again in this House today, the

blackest day for labour relations in the history of the Province, bar none.

I ask leave, as a member, under Standing Order 36(3), that the House consider

granting leave to suspend the normal orders for the rest of the day and have an

urgent and emergent debate pursuant to this order with respect to putting an end

to this strike under the existing law. The statements that I gave again in

answer to and response to the President of Treasury Board with his statement as

a minister, that we could suspend the orders by agreement. I have a resolution

here that I can present to the Chair which would be the basis of the resolution

for your consideration, if you deem it to be in order, and that by consent of

the House, we could have an emergency debate for the remainder of the day for as

long as we want to, by agreement, to end the strike today under the current law;

not wait any longer. Send the remaining three items to binding arbitration, Mr.

Speaker, and have all of the uncertainty in the Province today come to an end at

the end of this debate.

I present this resolution, Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 36, for your

consideration, and ask leave that we suspend the Orders of the Day to have the

emergency debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, speaking to the matter

raised by the Opposition Leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Opposition had every opportunity to put forward

the same motion. They did not. Mr. Speaker, today in Question Period, the Leader

of the Opposition, for twenty-seven minutes, asked the question both to myself

and to the President of Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance on the very

matter that he is asking. We have answered the questions.

When legislation is tabled - hopefully it won't have to be. Hopefully there

will be something between now and Sunday that would not require such legislation

to be tabled. If it is, and when it is, the opportunity to debate it fully will

be provided, Mr. Speaker. We will not be providing leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the request for leave, the Opposition House

Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, to the issue raised by the Leader of the

Opposition, and in comment to the Government House Leader's comments,

yesterday, that he referred to, we were told that there were things we could not

and ought not to talk about because the negotiations were ongoing. So, don't

refer to what we could or could not have done yesterday. We were politely told

by this same Government House Leader yesterday that we shouldn't talk about it

because they didn't, in any way, want to inserter with the ongoing

negotiations. That is exactly why we didn't do anything yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of responding to the President of Treasury Board's

Ministerial Statement here today, the Leader of the Opposition asked if we could

have such a debate. It wasn't done under this Standing Order 36. He asked in

response to the Ministerial Statement, could we do it under Standing Order 36.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP had his commentary, we went through

Question Period, we never had any response from the Government House Leader as

to whether or not that suggestion was acceptable. Because we did not get a

response as to what the government's position was, we could only assume that

the President of Treasury Board and the government were not prepared to take the

Leader of the Opposition up on his offer to have such an urgent debate. That

brings us to why we now have the Leader of the Opposition on his feet asking for

a proper official motion made pursuant to Standing Order 36.

What happened yesterday is irrelevant. The fact that they chose not to

respond earlier today is irrelevant. The Leader for the Opposition has made a

valid motion, as outlined under Standing Order 36, and I believe it says in

Standing Order 36.(4), "The Member then hands a written statement of the

matter proposed to be discussed to the Speaker..." - which has been done -

"...who, if he or she thinks it is in order and of urgent public

importance, reads it out and asks whether the Member has the leave of the

House."

All we are suggesting at this point, Mr. Speaker, is that Standing Order 36

be followed. I suggest that under subsection 4 that requires the Chair, Your

Honourable self, to read out the Standing Order and we move on from there. It is

not a case of the Government House Leader just simply standing up and saying we

disagree or we do not want to go there. It is not in his hands to say whether we

go there, I submit, Mr. Speaker. It is outlined in

section 36.(4) where we go

from here.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to speak to some of the technical objections of the Government

House Leader. Standing Order 36, matters of urgent public importance or

emergency debate, specifically deals with a motion, or leave to introduce a

motion. What we had from the Leader of the Opposition, in response to the

Ministerial Statement, was a suggestion. It was not a formal application under

Section 36 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: You just did now. As long as we are dealing with it now, and

we are not saying it was already dealt with because it was brought up before,

then I will speak to

Section 36.

The question the Speaker has to answer first of all is whether it is in order

in the sense that it is a matter of urgent public importance. I would submit

that it certainly is a matter of public importance, based on the fact that the

government has introduced legislation for next week - not for now to debate it,

not to debate it now but to debate it next week, some time next week. It is

urgent now. It is urgent based on the state of affairs of the Province and the

state that we have encountered ourselves in dealing with this matter in the

House of Assembly today, and the difficulties that we had. It is also urgent,

clearly, based on the statement of the Minister of Finance and President of

Treasury Board that matters have reached the state of urgency within the

Province and that they are of significant public importance.

Your Honour has to make that determination as part of whether it is in order.

The question also is whether there are other opportunities to debate the matter.

Well, Question Period is normally not consider one of those opportunities. If

that were the case, Mr. Speaker, any matter could be raised in Question Period

and would not be - it would never qualify under an emergency debate because

Question Period is always available every parliamentary day. Therefore, that

should not be taken into consideration.

I would submit that this is the type of motion that would qualify under

Standing Order 36 and, as a result, I urge Your Honour - he may have to recess

to make such a ruling - but if you agree that the matter is of urgent public

importance, which

Section 36.(4) of our Standing Orders requires you to

consider, then the question is whether or not such a matter has the support of a

sufficient number of members of this House. If objection is taken, which I

understand to have been taken by the Government House Leader, then the matter

should be put to the House as provided for in

section 36.(4).

I would urge you to consider that, and to do so.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the commentary and the request. I

have made them in the past, myself. The Leader of the New Democratic Party, the

Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, made a solid point just a moment ago, when he

said that Your Honour - you being in the Chair - has to determine whether there

is sufficient opportunity, other than right now, for this request. I believe

that is what you said. Now, if this request was not made - and I want this to be

clear to everybody in the precincts of the House, on the floor and in the

gallery, and anybody who may be listening - if such a request were not made,

here is what might happen today: Immediately when we move to Orders of the Day,

I would stand - and the Opposition House Leader understands this - and I would

move a motion on the Order Paper which calls for this House to debate or support

the general budgetary policy of the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: One second.

Everybody and anybody in this House, who has been here, who is now here,

understands that when we debate such a policy on finance matters you can debate

about anything. Yesterday, for example, the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace,

when we all learned of the news that negotiations had broken down, used his last

twenty minutes to talk about exactly what the Leader of the Opposition is asking

for today.

The fact of the matter is this, Mr. Speaker: I have indicated, on behalf of

the government, what our view is. I have indicated clearly that there is lots of

opportunity to discuss this immediately following it, right after this.

Mr. Speaker, I will leave it to you to judge whether the Standing Order is an

order or not, and then proceed according to the rules of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will hear a short commentary by the Opposition

House Leader before we call for a recess.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to the Government House Leader's commentary, Mr. Speaker, as I read

Standing Order 36, which is on the floor here by way of a point of order, the

only issue is: Do we or do we not have a matter of urgency? That is to be

decided by this Chair -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) leave.

MR. PARSONS: - if leave is given. This is not an issue of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Maybe the President of Treasury Board, who was -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, you allowed me a few short moments. Maybe if

the President of Treasury Board would be so courteous as to stop interrupting

me, and allow me to make my point, we might get further here than he did in

negotiations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

Back to my point. The point I am making here is: I appreciate the comments of

the Government House Leader as to what can and cannot be done in debating the

Budget motion. It is not the issue here today, as what we can and cannot talk

about in the point of order or whatever he is going to call as the order of

business for today. We are not dealing with what he might or might not call.

That is up to him as the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: You know what I am calling.

MR. PARSONS: I know what you are calling, but that is not the point. You

shall not and cannot give us direction that we are going to discuss this issue

of urgent importance in the context of the Budget. We want to discuss, and the

Leader of the Opposition has asked to discuss, this issue in the context of

Standing Order 36, which he has delivered to you in writing. Do not detract from

the subject matter we are dealing with. The request is simple. The formalities

have been compiled with, and it simply remains for Your Honour to decide: Is the

motion in order? Do we or do we not get leave? There is a process outlined, once

you read the motion, Mr. Speaker, to follow here. It is quite simple.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will recess the House and come back shortly with a

ruling.

The House is now recessed.

Recess

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The Chair has consulted and has reviewed the matter raised by the Leader of

the Opposition. The Chair refers members to Beauchesne , 6 th

Edition, page 113, item numbers 389 and 390. To quote both of them,

"The specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration',

for the discussion of which the adjournment of the House may be moved

under..." - that would be the federal Parliament - "... Standing Order

52, must be so pressing that the public interest will suffer if it is not given

immediate attention."; and 390, "Urgency' within this rule does

not apply to the matter itself but means urgency of debate', when the

ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the House do not permit the

subject to be brought on early enough and the public interest demands that

discussion take place immediately."

On this particular matter, the Chair, having considered the matter - the

urgency of debate - in other words, there would have to be no other opportunity

for the House to discuss this matter, and the failure of the House to address

the matter would result in irreparable harm. Such debates are very rare. In our

Parliament, I am aware of one such debate occurring without leave in the history

in our Parliament since Confederation, and that one, I think, occurred in 1978

or 1979. Therefore, the Chair rules that there are other opportunities - for

example, the Budget Debate which is before us now - therefore the Chair rules

that the request by the Leader of the Opposition for an emergency debate to not

be in order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just for clarification of your ruling - and I certainly appreciate your

commentary in reference to the Beauchesne references as to what urgency

means. Just for clarification, I guess, the fact that we could not enter this

House earlier today, the fact that we have been barred from this House twice

this week, the fact that we have the largest public sector strike in the history

of this Province, the fact that these proceedings today have been delayed

starting by three or four hours because of this issue - for example, strike; for

example, back to work; for example, people not working; for example, emergencies

in health care - the fact that the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury

Board stood here today and said that he is going to bring in back-to-work

legislation, does not fit under the issue of urgency, that is fine, we accept

that ruling. However, your commentary about the opportunity - and the Government

House Leader raised this earlier, about our opportunity to debate this elsewhere

- we cannot, with all due respect, debate this under the budgetary issues before

the House.

The rules of the House state that if you have already spoken, you do not

speak again. Many of the members here in the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, have

already spoken and used our time. There is not an another opportunity for us to

speak. Such a ruling, albeit proper, albeit we accept your definition of the

word urgency, it puts the Opposition in a position where we cannot get to debate

this issue under other issues. This, I would submit, was the proper place in

which for us to do it, and I do not know that the fact we cannot do it anywhere

else would make any difference to your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair gave consideration to that matter. The Chair

recognizes that there is a non-confidence motion before the House as well, and

members who have not spoken to the main motion of the Budget Debate can speak to

that motion. Members who have not spoken to the non-confidence motion can also

speak in this House. There may be other opportunities that might be provided.

Today, we also had a Notice of Motion given by the Minister of Finance and

President of Treasury which will, in time, I am sure, bring forward a debate.

Therefore, the Chair is satisfied that the requirements that are met in 390 of

Beauchesne are not met.

While the Chair appreciates the clarification request by the hon. the

Opposition House Leader, the Chair had considered all of these matters before

the ruling was made.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A new point of order. With regard to the Ministerial Statement given this

afternoon, notice of intent to enter or probably provide information or

legislation to this House, back-to-work legislation, we would like it quite

clear to the Government House Leader and to the people of the Province and to

government that, first of all, we would like to have zero delay in reviewing and

studying that piece of legislation. I know notice has been given today, but the

fact that notice has been given, I would assume government has, in fact, drafted

or is drafting the legislation in question.

We, as the Official Opposition, rather than have any unnecessary delay, would

like to have the bill as soon as possible; because under the rules of our

system, as I understand it, the next day, should the government decide to

proceed, would be on Monday, under our current calendar. We do not want to delay

things and wait until Monday to get the bill to have an opportunity to study it,

and then that takes more time, and then the Opposition is put in a position of

saying we never had time to study it, and we might be portrayed as having

delayed unnecessarily.

We would like to make that quite clear, that we do not wish to have it said

that we are holding anything up here. We want to debate urgent matters and get

on with them, but we cannot do what we do not have and we have not seen the

bill.

Secondly, we would like to make it clear for the record that the

parliamentary calendar, according to the Official Opposition here, is irrelevant

in this most urgent circumstance. If the Government House Leader decides at any

time - any time - between now and Monday, the full Opposition will be available

to resume sitting in this House immediately to discuss matters. We do not want

it said, and suggested, that we had some sort of calendar that we must comply

with or that the Opposition were not available to proceed immediately.

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the House Leader for the government would permit

the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi to address that matter first?

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

MR. HARRIS: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, if the government intends to

introduce legislation, making it available to all members of the House as early

as possible would be desirable. My understanding - I do not know what

discussions have been had - of the parliamentary calender is that the next

parliamentary day is actually Tuesday, Monday being a holiday. Perhaps Your

Honour could clarify that before discussion continues. I do not frankly know,

but I do know there was a notice sent around by the Clerk earlier this year with

a list of all the holidays on it, which Monday was one. Now, whether that refers

to the parliamentary calendar or the staff holidays or government holidays, I do

not know.

MR. SPEAKER: If I could clarify -

I am sorry, the hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I appreciate the opportunity just to conclude. Let me say to the Opposition

House Leader and to the Leader of the NDP - and I believe it is something they

already know - that as soon as we have legislation and as soon as we - whether

it be the piece that was given notice by the Minister of Finance and President

of Treasury Board today, or any other, it will be provided immediately upon us

getting it. I cannot give it to you today because it is not concluded. We do not

have it finalized. The decision was made late yesterday, reflected upon early

this morning on this very piece of legislation, so it is not drafted. I cannot

put into anybody's hands, in this House or in the public, a piece of

legislation that is not yet drafted. I believe members know, and I believe the

Leader of the NDP, the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi knows, and I believe the

Opposition House Leader also knows, based upon our conversations everyday, that

when it comes to legislation, and in particular, the one that was given notice

today, that as soon as that is completed - as the Leader of the Opposition would

know and those opposite who were in Cabinet - that Cabinet approval must be

given to that. Government caucus must be informed. That is the process that we

go through. As soon as all that is done, at the first opportunity it will be

provided to all members, immediately.

With respect to the parliamentary calendar; my understanding is that while

there is a holiday on Monday, it does not apply to the calendar. I refer the

Leader of the NDP, who has asked the question, a situation that he and I found

ourselves in, in 1994, when on - I believe it was St. Patrick's Day, that we

came back when that was a holiday generally for everybody. We were back in the

Legislature debating a piece of legislation called the Electrical Power Control

Act. So, when we adjourn today, it is my understanding that we will be back here

on Monday.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the members for their presentations. It was raised

on a point of order, but I do believe that it was more of an opportunity to try

to seek some clarification from the Government House Leader and presentations on

whether we would open on Monday or not - and the Chair is certainly

knowledgeable of the fact that in 1994 we did open on a Monday, I think it was

St. Patrick's Day, and the Chair (inaudible) to the House and if the House

decides we are going to meet on Monday, than we shall.

Orders of the Day

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

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

It is an unusual occurrence because of the fool up today with Commissionaires

not getting in and then we all agreed we would recess until we could them in so

that the galleries could be opened up, but it almost time - I would normally

call Motion 1, which has been previously agreed upon by everybody, which is to

debate the general budgetary policy of the government. But it now being about

eight minutes before closure, I am going to move adjournment for the day, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion to adjourn has been put. It is my understanding

that the House will sit again on Monday, at 1:30 of the clock. This House is now

adjourned until Monday at 1:30 of the clock.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30

p.m.