The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to report to hon. members that government's $130 million hospital redevelopment program for St. John's is on schedule and on budget.
There are currently 200 people employed on the five sites which make up the redevelopment program. They are the Janeway Child Health Centre, the Health Sciences Centre, St. Clare's Mercy Hospital, the Waterford Hospital, and the Memorial University Utilities Annex.
Today I would like to provide my hon. colleagues with an update on all five projects which comprise the hospital redevelopment program, beginning with the Janeway Child Health Centre.
Since September 1998, when the first contract for site and foundations was awarded to Pyramid Construction, a total of eleven contracts have been awarded for the new Janeway children's hospital.
The only significant contract remaining to be awarded is for site completion and landscaping. Work has progressed throughout the past mild winter and the Janeway is scheduled for completion in June 2000. The project budget, including HST, is $71.5 million.
Seven contracts, representing approximately 95 per cent of the work, have been awarded for renovations and building upgrading at the Health Sciences Centre. Total budget for this project is $20 million and it is scheduled for completion in the summer of 2000. It is expected that two or three small contracts will be awarded later this year for the balance of the work.
The renovation and building systems upgrading work at St. Clare's Mercy Hospital is the most challenging part of the total project. The total budget for work on St. Clare's is $23 million. To date, six major and several small contracts have been awarded, representing approximately 70 per cent of the project. Five contract packages, including a parking facility, remain to be tendered over the next several months. Work at St. Clare's is scheduled for completion in the summer of 2000 as well.
Memorial University has awarded one contract for expansion and upgrading of the Utilities Annex to meet the future needs of the new Janeway Hospital and the expanded Health Sciences Complex. A second contract has been awarded for replacement of the existing emergency generators, which were subsequently determined to be unreliable for their intended purposes. Total project budget is $6.9 million and contract administration is being handled by Memorial University, with a scheduled completion date in January 2000.
Finally, I am pleased to report to hon. members that a $2 million renovation project to construct a new outpatient dialysis unit at the Waterford Hospital has been completed.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I find it very unusual that the minister would stand in his place, and as the former Minister of Health would know that this project is far from on schedule and far from on budget. Back when the announcement was made I attended the announcement at Memorial University. It was scheduled for the fall of 1998, the spring of 1999, then the fall of 1999, and now it is 2000. It is certainly not on target.
As for on budget, initially at the first AGM of the new Health Care Corporation in St. John's at the Holiday Inn we were told it would cost $100 million, of which we would borrow and we would finance that over twenty years. There would be savings of $100 million to go into the system to improve front-line services, and put it back into health care. Minister, that has not happened.
The latest admission by the Health Care Corporation and by this government is that it is now $130 million, by your admission. You are not including the five-year plan for the Health Care Corporation that is including over the next two years. They need $20 million worth of equipment to go into that new facility, plus furniture and other related things to put into that. That is up to $150 million. The Auditor General herself has said that there are no identified savings by reorganizing in the City of St. John's.
They have not even listed - and I have asked in this House and the Minister has not provided. Where are the identified savings we are going to get by reorganizing? I supported from day one the concept of reorganizing; if it is going to put money back into the system, spend less money on facilities, less on bricks and mortar, and more on the front-line workers, I will support it. That has not happened, Mr. Speaker!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SULLIVAN: Far from it!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
[There was a disturbance in the gallery]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I have to remind visitors to the gallery that they are not permitted to take part in the debate, in any way, shape or form, that is going on here on the floor of the House of Assembly. Showing approval or disapproval by applauding or by any other disruptions of any nature is not permitted. It has been a long-standing traditional parliamentary rule. I have to warn you at this time that if such outbreaks occur again, I will have no choice but to order the galleries cleared.
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.
MR. SPEAKER: No leave.
MR. SULLIVAN: No leave to hear the real truth? (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to take his seat.
The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I commend the government for spending money on the buildings but there are other things in health care as well that need (inaudible) and are seriously lacking in this Province.
In particular, in the area of the Province that I represent, Labrador West, we have a lineup, a backlog of patients waiting to see physiotherapists, and they cannot get in. They are waiting months on end. We have people who are sent out to hospitals in St. John's for almost every need they have, only to find that when they are released from hospital, and they are a stretcher case, then they have to pay their own way back; or, if the airlines will not take them, which is the case most times, they have to wait until somebody else in Labrador West has an unfortunate incident and the air ambulance has to go in for them. They will take them back one at a time. There are lots of other needs in this Province for health care.
When we look at the people who are providing health care, I noticed in the Budget all of the money that was allocated for recruiting new doctors. I think that the health care system...
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. COLLINS: While doctors are important, there are certainly other people, such as the nurses and others, who provide health care as well.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands.
MR. McLEAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to take this opportunity to provide members with a status report on government's White Paper entitled: Challenging Responses to Changing Times: New Proposals for Occupation Regulation.
Government has been very active with respect to this White Paper. The Department of Government Services and Lands, in conjunction with the Departments of Health and Community Services; Justice; Human Resources and Employment; and Forest Resources and Agrifoods, reviewed this report and the immense response to it. Recommendations were subsequently brought forward to Cabinet and accepted.
Proposed legislation will standardize procedures for the regulation of occupations and improve consumer protection. The intent is to present an omnibus bill which will amend twenty-seven pieces of legislation. This legislation is now being drafted and will be introduced within three years. During this process, extensive consultation will take place with affected groups.
Key changes being proposed include a process to determine which new occupations should be regulated, a standard disciplinary process for all regulated occupations, and lay representation on self-regulatory boards.
As well, an inter-governmental committee with representatives from the Departments of Government Services and Lands; Health and Community Services; and Justice, has been established to determine which new occupations should and will be regulated.
Mr. Speaker, we look forward to working with all groups involved and the introduction of this new legislation.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for forwarding me a copy of his statement before the House opened. I would just like to say, while our party certainly agrees with the principle of proposed legislation that will standardize procedures for the regulation of occupations and improve consumer protection, we are very concerned that it is going to take three years to have it brought to the House. It is being drafted at the present time, and it is going to be three years.
While we agree with the principle, we are very concerned that we are looking at changing and amending twenty-seven pieces of legislation. In being able to stand here today and fully support the efforts, we cannot until we see what the legislation is going to be.
Mr. Speaker, we are also concerned that as part of this plan there is going to be extensive consultation take place with affected groups. We, on this side of the House, hope that the extensive consultation does not mean lip service.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is very nice to have advance notice of legislation, but three years' notice seems to be a little long. The recommendations apparently have already been accepted. Somebody has started drafting it. I know lawyers can be slow, but surely three years is an awfully long period of time.
Can we not have this legislation, even in draft form, before the House and sent to a legislative committee to review this matter so the matter can be dealt with more efficiently?
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
After a week-long blackout, the Premier took off the gloves yesterday and called a press conference with respect to the nurses' strike. The health care system, I would like to remind him, belongs to all of us - Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. You are their government, and you owe the people an explanation in this House.
What issues stood in the way of a resolution, and how did you seek to address those issues to prevent something that I believe none of us wanted - namely, a nurses' strike?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me be begin by saying that I certainly did not take off the gloves yesterday, and I am not taking off the gloves today. I am spending my time doing everything I can to ensure we come to a negotiated settlement of the outstanding issues.
I think it is important that the House remind itself today that government has concluded negotiations successfully with over thirty bargaining units, representing over 30,000 women and men across a wide variety of sectors that work for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and report through government as their employer.
Mr. Speaker, the record of government has been quite outstanding, if I may say, in the area of collective bargaining, with every contract to this point in time - every one - being negotiated successfully at the bargaining table.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, members opposite are making comments and I would ask, if questions are asked, that perhaps they would wait for the answer before they comment.
We have been at the table in a very intense way in recent days with the nurses' union. Unfortunately, and I agree with the Leader of the Opposition, nobody in this Province wants to see a strike in the health care sector. Government does not, and I do not believe the nurses' union do as well. In particular, I do not believe that nurses do; but that is what happened yesterday.
I can only say to the Leader of the Opposition, much as I said yesterday, that on the major issues which have been identified, in particular the question of permanents, we put a substantial new position on the table on the issue of casuals - we put a substantial new position on the table - and on the issue of compensation we put a new position on the table.
I believe that momentum was building rapidly, in the wee hours of yesterday morning, for those of us who were there. There were representatives from government there, long-standing negotiators, conciliators, representatives for the hospital associations across the Province - notably Mr. John Peddle's people, negotiators. We believed that we were close to an agreement. That agreement did not materialize. What we had instead was a strike which began.
As we speak, both the negotiators for the employer, for government and for the hospital association, and negotiators for the nurses' union are again gathered. For the moment, I think that dialogue is occurring through conciliation. I can say no more than both sides expect - and I had a briefing minutes before coming in here - that a little later on this afternoon we may well see a recommencement of negotiations. That will be known if and when it happens.
Speaking for myself, and speaking for the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Health, we will remain available this afternoon, this evening, through the night if necessary, to try and come to a negotiated settlement of this strike.
Mr. Speaker, let me acknowledge the presence of all those who are in the gallery, notably and specifically nurses. Let me say that notwithstanding the circumstance we find ourselves in, government does want to acknowledge - and I conclude with this, Mr. Speaker - the professional way in which nurses have conducted themselves and allowed the health care system, in these circumstances, to nevertheless provide care to those who need it most in our Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Premier, you said yesterday that you were surprised to learn, that you heard on the radio, that nurses had gone on strike; that an offer was made from government and that they had not contacted you back.
Isn't it a fact that statement is absolutely false? Isn't it a fact that the representatives from the union, on behalf of the bargaining team, contacted government's conciliator and informed them that your offer was not in the best interest of nurses in this Province? If that is a fact, why did you make that statement yesterday?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, what the Leader of the Opposition is saying is not correct. At the time that the -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
PREMIER TOBIN: Well, you are asking for the facts; I will be glad to give the facts. If we are all here to try and serve a process that will lead to a negotiated settlement, we can adopt one attitude. If we are here to serve other purposes, we can adopt a different kind of attitude.
I would say to the Leader of the Opposition that if he wants information that I can give without violating the confidentiality of the negotiating table, I will give it; but I ask that when questions are asked - this matter is too serious for the normal rule of partisanship which too often captures this place to apply.
At the time that the strike was called, we were given no notice the strike was called, beyond the fact that we heard an announcement on CBC Radio.
I have heard today the president of the nurses' union indicate that the nurses' union had notified the conciliator, because of time constraints, could not notify the negotiating team on this side. I have to take that as being correct, if that is what the president of the nurses' union says, but I can tell the Leader of the Opposition - I would ask him to accept - that the first notice we had on this side - and I note that Mr. John Peddle, who is not, by the way, with us but somewhere separately, in touch with his team or his team members - has said exactly the same thing; that he had heard on radio a report, assumed it was a false report because he too was awaiting a response to what we thought would look to be a settlement in the making.
Those are the facts and I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to accept that factual response.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Premier, isn't it true that in the late night, early morning of negotiations, government put a complex proposal forward that gave little time to the bargaining team; because, had they gone beyond the eight o'clock time frame, the bargaining team would have had to wait another thirty days to give another seven days notice to be in a legal strike position?
The question, Premier, is this: Had that proposal been made the day before, so there would have been enough time before the strike clock was ticking, that there might have been a tentative agreement for the membership to vote upon?
MR. SULLIVAN: That is your plan.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Ferryland is sitting beside the Leader of the Opposition saying, "That is their plan." and showing, I think, a high degree of irresponsibility in making that comment, especially since the Leader of the Opposition is asking a question which deserves a response.
For the Opposition House Leader to believe that anybody would plan for an action that would lead to a strike, I think, shows a terrible lack of understanding of the potential consequences for citizens of our Province who rely upon the integrity of our health care system.
AN HON. MEMBER: Answer the question, Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: I am answering the question.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the comment by the Leader of the Opposition, a specific comment, as a matter of fact the matter - and I cannot say more than that - which we thought was going to lead to a solution was a proposal put by the nurses' union.
What government did during the course of the night - well, you have to know. I have to say to you, I was there. I was up all night; I was part of that effort. What the government did was cost the proposal which the nurses' union put, put some dollar signs behind it, broke it down, had Treasury Board officials come in and work through the night, and had the Treasury Board officials go and be available to brief the nurses' union so they could see in detail and come to an understanding of the impact of those measures. That, in fact, is what we were dealing with. That is the matter that we were working towards.
I think there was goodwill and a good effort by all parties on both sides to try and find a solution. I hope there remains goodwill today by all parties on both sides to try and find a solution.
I have to believe that all members of this House on both sides want and hope that the solution for the health care system -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
PREMIER TOBIN: I would ask the member not to heckle, but to listen. It is too important. I would hope that members on both sides want -
MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: A specific question deserves a specific answer. Question Period is not a time for government to grandstand, to be speech making. After Question Period, I say to the Premier, you can do that.
Standing Orders dictate that when a specific question is put to a specific member or minister in this Legislature, it is meant to be answered specifically, Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
To that point of order, questions can be directed to members of the government and the government decides who will answer, but there are occasions when ministers can refuse to answer questions without even giving reasons. Questions do not have to be answered by any particular minister or any government member.
The hon. the Premier.
I ask if he would conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I certainly will do that.
There was a proposal which we think - and we still think - can form the basic of bringing this negotiation to a successful resolution put by the nurses' union.
Obviously, if you put a proposal on the table, consider a proposal and look at it as the basis of a solution, both sides have to have an appreciation of the value in an negotiation - the cost of that measure.
Part of what was done into the wee hours of the morning - that is true - was to have the matter in question costed, to have Treasury Board officials work both with government negotiators and be available to answer questions and determine the cost of a program with the nurses' union negotiators. That took place.
It is not unusual, never in a negotiation, that the last hours of a negotiation conclude the agreement. In fact, not only is it not unusual, it is normal for that to happen. That is not unusual at all.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Just to the Premier: Sir, if you want an agreement, which everybody wants, I would suggest that you stop taking out propaganda ads in The Telegram.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: I would suggest that you not infuriate the negotiations, and let government negotiators and conciliators do their job without talking about how disappointed you are in the professional staff of this Province.
You indicated clearly yesterday - it is an important statement. Listen very carefully to what the Premier had to say yesterday -
AN HON. MEMBER: You are grandstanding (inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. E. BYRNE: Just for the point of view of the people in the gallery, every time the Opposition asks a question when there are people in the gallery, government's response is grandstanding. It has happened over the last three years and I will suspect it will continue to happen.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: The question is - listen very carefully to what the Premier said yesterday. He indicated that what the Province puts on the table one day may not be there the next. So the offer that was made, which you believed - to use your words - will form the basis of a tentative agreement, that may not be there tomorrow.
Is that helpful for collective bargaining? Is that the type of approach that is going to see an end to this strike that, again, nobody in this Legislature wants?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is the nature of collective bargaining indeed.
I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that I think all parties, be it the employer or employee side of the table, will welcome any comments which are designed to create an environment to bring about a resolution of this dispute. I think that anybody would welcome that.
I think that both sides will be able to see clearly - and I say this to the Leader of the Opposition quite seriously - when what is happening here is somebody trading on a difficult circumstance to try and score political points, which is what the Leader of the Opposition is beginning to do.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to negotiate here in the House, because the Leader of the Opposition is not empowered to negotiate on behalf of the nurses' union.
The job of government is to represent the best interests of all of the public of Newfoundland and Labrador and to manage the dollars of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, given all of the competing demands for those dollars.
We have to be fair to nurses, fair to the needs of the health care system, and fair to the 30,000 other public servants who have already settled. This is a difficult and complex task. It requires balance, judgement, and a commitment to fairness. It will not get done by exchanging or engaging in partisan commentary, one side of the House or the other.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: I am amused at the Premier's chastisement of my questions today. This is the House of Assembly. This is where issues are supposed to be debated.
Yesterday, in a carefully controlled news conference, neither the Premier nor the Minister of Health had the - I guess, should have been here to talk about what was taking place but chose to do it carefully, in a carefully crafted message, not to answer the questions in the House.
All we are asking Premier - this is the House of Assembly - are issues of public importance. Certainly you would agree that this is an important public matter that must be, should be, and has to be debated in this Legislature.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: There are three outstanding issues, issues that affect people who rely on the health care system; the need to increase pay scales so we can retain and recruit nurses who will otherwise be going to other provinces.
Could you inform us on what you put on the table with respect to retention and recruitment that you thought formed the basis of a tentative agreement?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want the House - and I hope the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, as the questions in the House are examined later - to pay close attention to what is happening. The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that we have to respect the collective bargaining process and negotiate there at the collective bargaining table.
What I did yesterday was give an update on the state of negotiations, give an update on the issues which we believe were addressed, but I respected the confidentiality of the collective bargaining table.
You now have the Leader of the Opposition asking me in the House to specifically lay out what offer the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has on the table.
I want the Leader of the Opposition to take a moment, to pause and reflect, and tell me whether he seriously wants me to stand and begin to do that.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: It is always necessary, I say to the Premier, to pause and reflect sometimes. As I do, I understand this: that the issues of recruitment and retention, the issues of burnout in all of our health care professionals - nurses, physicians, lab and x-ray and others - the issues of health care itself and the maintenance of a system for all people in the Province. Had you taken the time to pause and reflect and listen to the last three years of issues that were brought to your attention, we would not be in this position today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: If you want to pause and reflect, let's pause and reflect back upon the three weeks during the election and what you promised and what you are now fulfilling.
All we are asking, Premier, is for some more detailed information that can put some hope, restore some confidence into the health care system. When will you provide it?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is obviously that the Leader of the Opposition - and I think, to give him credit - wisely has reflected and understands what he asked a moment ago of government: (a) he should not have asked it; and (b) in any case government should not answer it.
There is a negotiation now occurring between negotiators from both sides in which these very issues are being discussed. It is not for the government to come into the House, in a partisan exchange, and start exchanging with the Leader of the Opposition offers that may or may not have been put to nurses, or discussing the responses of nurses made in confidence at the negotiating table. I am not going to do it because that will not get us closer to getting a settlement.
What I can say, and will repeat, is that government has successfully, at the negotiating table, concluded agreements with thirty bargaining units, covering over 30,000 public servants. That is a significant record of success at the bargaining table and we want to successfully conclude, as well, an agreement with nurses. We are back at the table this afternoon, we are bargaining in good faith, we are addressing all of the issues, and we will do everything that we possibly can to get an agreement that is fair to everybody involved and everybody affected by this strike.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are to the Premier. The Budget announced this week made no mention of hiring extra nurses despite you, Premier, stating in the last week of the election campaign that you are convinced there is a dire need to hire more nurses across the Province.
In fact, Premier, you stated, and I will quote it: I have been convinced that the staffing issue needs to be addressed and it is one that I intend to intervene on personally. You cannot have stressed out people working double shift, being called back on short notice, burnt out, running and operating within the system.
I ask you, Premier, why didn't your government in this Budget for 1999-2000 provide those nurses you are convinced are so urgently needed?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, again the Opposition is either demonstrating it does not understand the collective bargaining process, or is trying to participate in it in a way that will lead to breakdown.
The issue of how many casuals would be converted is being negotiated at the collective bargaining table; the issue of how many brand new nurses would be hired into the system is being negotiated at the collective bargaining table. Indeed, these issues, and the issue of compensation, are at the heart of the dialogue that is now ongoing, and are at the heart of any agreement we are able to reach.
What the Member for Ferryland is now saying is that we should have unilaterally announced on Budget Day - not after consultation with the nurses, not after negotiation -, we should have unilaterally said: Here is the number of casuals, here is the number of permanents, take it or leave it. We have not done that, we have been negotiating those numbers at the collective bargaining table.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can see why negotiations are not going anywhere. You are not a very good listener, I say to the Premier. I never made reference to casuals at all, I say to the Premier.
The government thinks it is doing nurses a favour by hiring more nurses. That is shameful, Premier, that is very shameful. It is the sick people of this Province and it is the families who are looking after those sick people in the Province that want more nurses. It is not a collective bargaining issue, I would say, to put more nurses in the system that you said are urgently needed! It is wrong, Premier!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question.
MR. SULLIVAN: I say to the Premier, it is wrong for you to hold the number of nurses as a bargaining tool. To renege on your commitment that you made, and you made many in the election campaign, and you felt it was so important and ignored them on Budget Day, I ask you now: Why don't you live up to your commitment that you made when you were so convinced that those nurses are needed?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Ferryland is now telling not government but telling nurses, who made this one of their most important issues, and who have repeatedly in the last few days, and who every day they met me during the election campaign, said this is not just about money, this is also about patient care. That means that it is also about the number of permanents -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
PREMIER TOBIN: No, I am telling the truth. You fellows are (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House Leader on a point of order.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the Premier is not telling the truth, I can tell you.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member cannot say that.
I ask the hon. member to withdraw.
MR. SULLIVAN: I withdraw that remark, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Get to your point of order quickly, please.
MR. SULLIVAN: The Premier indicated something that I did not say and I never made reference to it. Casualization and permanence is an issue at the negotiating table. I haven't addressed the casualization in my question, and therefore he has used an issue that I never referred to in this House.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let us talk then about the matter of permanence. The matter of permanence is a matter raised at the bargaining table and put there by the nurses' union, as it quite rightly should be put there by the nurses' union. It is a matter that nurses all across this Province have raised. Nurses have been very careful to say this is not just about salary, it is also about workload stress. They have raised the matter.
For the member who is the health critic to stand up and say that it is inappropriate for government to raise this at the table, or to address it, or to respond to it at the table, shows a poor understanding of the collective bargaining process.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier is stating that only negotiations can add more nurses to the nursing rolls of this Province? You have a responsibility as Premier, and your Minister of Health has a responsibility, to see that there are sufficient workers in our system today to give people the care they require and need. You do not need negotiations to do that, Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: The former premier didn't need them to hire social workers to do investigations. You didn't need collective agreements for that. You have a responsibility to hire more nurses. You promised them in the election campaign and you did not do it. The Budget is the place to announce that, not around the collective bargaining table. If you want to deal with casualization -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question.
MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the Premier this question. Do you believe it is essential to hire nurses in order to maintain the integrity of our health care system?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this performance by the member, which in my mind has nothing to do with trying to help to find a solution to the current strike, has everything to do with trying to score some political points. I have enough faith, full faith, in the intelligence of nurses. They can see this for what it is. They understand what it is.
With respect -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question about the numbers of nurses that can be converted from casuals to permanents, or hired as permanent, the fact is that over the last six or seven months in fact about 160 nurses have been converted from casual back to permanent in this Province, and it has been done outside of the collective bargaining process. The fact is there are matters being discussed at the table affecting both conversions of casuals and the creation of new permanent positions. Those matters I believe can form the basis of a collective agreement.
They have been raised by nurses, we are responding to those issues, and I think that is as it should be.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier does not understand my question. Casualization or permanent is not my question. He can iron that out at the negotiating table. My question to you is this. Do you feel it is necessary to hire more nurses, whatever they are, in order to maintain our health care system? You refused to answer.
Premier, you said during the election campaign, just five days before the election campaign, to the people of this Province you now have the money. You came back from Ottawa, almost cheque in hand, to improve the Province's health care system. That is what you said. I asked you a simple question. If you believe it is important to hire more nurses - and not try to twist it into a negotiating issue -, if it is important to hire more nurses, Premier, why didn't you do it in the Budget there? Why are you trying to make it an issue in collective bargaining that it isn't?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I do believe it is important to hire new nurses, to have new permanent positions. I also believe it is important to convert additional positions from casual back to permanent. I personally became convinced of the importance of doing that having gone through many conversations with nurses during the election campaign who convinced me there is a real, substantial workload issue that government has got to begin to address.
When the member opposite says why didn't you just announce that in a budget, when both of these matters are matters that are before us at the bargaining table, put there by the nurses' union, I do not think government should stand up and unilaterally say: Here is the number of casuals and here is the number of permanents. I think we have an obligation to negotiate. We are negotiating in good faith. I say to the member opposite we are not going to unilaterally come to that determination without consulting properly at the negotiating table.
I believe there is still a good prospect for a negotiated settlement, but, Mr. Speaker, it will not be arrived at with this kind of hysteria being shown by the Member for Ferryland in the House of Assembly today.
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am really appalled by the Premier's statements in the election campaign and the total disregard - trying to make an issue.
I have a question for the Minister of Health. Premier, it deals with casual nurses, and it is my first time to ask this question dealing with casuals. You are trying to divert it and give people an impression of something that is not. Your smooth public relations are not going to work, I tell you, on the people of the Province. It is not going to work!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: I ask the minister this. The Minister of Health, was a nurse herself, who practised I think on the front lines. I know at least twelve or fifteen years ago she practised on the front lines, and should know some of the problems here, that the hospital's budget for casual nurses, usually on a two-week pay period, often runs out during the first week. Then they have to call nurses back, permanent nurses on overtime, and paying extra money. It does not take much to realize that this is neither cost-efficient, I say to the minister, nor is it in the best interest of patient care.
I ask you this. Why, in the best interest of patient care, didn't you, as the former head of the nurses' union, as the Minister of Health today, impress on the Premier and other people that there should have been more nurses hired and announced in this Budget?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I don't think I need to impress those issues on the Premier because I think the nurses of the Province have done a very fine job doing that when the Premier and I, and a number of other people, went around the Province during the election. As well, those people that will have a memory to recall will remember that in our first Health Forum casualization was one of the key issues that was raised around the table. We have been putting measures in place long before this process came into play. We identified clearly that there are too many casuals in the system. That is clearly why we have put forward an enhanced offer to address casualization and how we can correct that.
Mr. Speaker, I have to also say that at this point in time I have to agree with the Premier. It is very critical that we respect the process. If you look at the three main areas -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, if I might have the opportunity to finish?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to conclude her answer.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think it is important to note that the three main issues that have been put forward - because nurses have put that information forward to their leadership - are based on these three items: conversion of casuals to permanents, the creation of new nursing positions and compensation, Mr. Speaker. For me, personally, I respect the process. I ask the members opposite to do the same.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Question Period has ended.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to present a petition on behalf of hundreds of nurses at Branch No. 1, the Salvation Army Grace General Hospital. They are calling upon us to voice their concerns. I will give the gist of it here.
The lack of respect that government is showing in contemplating taking an approach to collective bargaining within the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union, we find it reprehensible to think that our elected officials would consider legislating a 7 per cent settlement. Such actions would be an abuse of the democratic process; make a mockery of collective bargaining, a process that is already questionable; be an insult to nurses who have carefully followed the existing law through our negotiations and strike vote; effectively takes away their right to strike without providing an alternative dispute settling mechanism; and be against the law, or at least against the spirit and intent of the law. Please, respect the law if you wish nurses to. If the law means nothing to government, how can it mean anything to nurses?
Mr. Speaker, this is a result of the fundamental understanding -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, hundreds of names, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy.
It is part of a fundamental problem that is in our Province today, a failure to recognize the importance of nurses as health care professionals and treating them with the respect they deserve. It has not happened, I can tell you. We cannot get on that trip. He talks about what other bargaining units have received and how people settled. Look, the gun is to the people's heads when they settle. You asked how many of them are happy with a settlement out there, as if they came running to him and said: Give us 7 per cent. There are items discussed at a bargaining table. Salary is one such item that is ironed out at the bargaining table. Casualization versus permanent are union issues that need to be discussed.
I say to the Premier and to government, it is your responsibility to determine how many nurses in this Province are needed to provide safe health care, to care for people in our system. If you think that has to be done at the bargaining table - we can only hire nurses then. Only hire nurses when we have collective bargaining? Is that what the Premier is telling us? I can tell you that when laying off teachers you did not consult; 182 less. When there is hiring done in government, who do you consult?
It is a fundamental issue. Nurses are needed. The Premier was quick to admit in an election campaign he now has the money to improve the Province's health care system. He said, the Minister of Health is a nurse, the deputy minister is a nurse, and every night he goes home to a nurse. He tells the nurses they can trust him to handle their concerns over cutbacks to health care. That is what the Premier said. He is convinced we need more nurses.
In the document that outlines this Province's spending for next year, the Minister of Finance stands and does not make one mention of hiring something that the Premier thinks is so important.
He tries to use this on the bargaining table, to say: Look, we gave you so many nurses. You did not give them nurses. You gave the sick people of the Province more nurses. Every single person -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: I have more calls on my desk from sick people than I can even get to in a week, almost. People cannot get the service they need. You have to bring a family to hospital today, and not because of the quality of service that nurses and other health professionals are providing, but because there are not enough of them to provide that particular service.
Then we hear statements in the House about how we are on budget and on target, two years behind, and millions of millions of dollars we are going to reinvest back into health care. It is getting siphoned off into mortar and bricks, hiring people, and shutting down hospital beds, hiring people like bed utilization co-ordinators.
The names of people being hired today - you would not need a bed utilization co-ordinator. You would not need a cardiac co-ordinator. You would not need anybody like that if you had enough people on the front lines and the investment was in the front lines and not into a bureaucracy and an Administration that is running rampant in this Province, that is gobbling up dollars inefficiently.
The Auditor General refers to it. Maclean's magazine tells us that 40 per cent of the dollars spent in health care today are inefficiently used. That is $30 billion in this country. It is hundreds of millions in this Province, and there is nothing done to fix the problem, the underlying cause.
That is why nurses are out on strike. They only have the attention of this government when there is an election. The reason we had a health care forum was in the middle of a federal election. When the news was bad in this Province they changed the minister and called a forum to ease down the public.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SULLIVAN: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member does not have leave.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak today to this petition, to support this petition, and have an opportunity to address -
AN HON. MEMBER: Do you have the petition?
MR. HARRIS: No, I am looking for it. Can I have the petition?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: I heard the remarks at the beginning.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, these petitioners are concerned about the lack of respect -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
These petitioners raise a number of very important points about the process that is going on between government and the nurses' union this very day and in the past number of weeks. What they are concerned about is the lack of respect that government is contemplating taking in its approach to bargaining with the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union.
I stood many times during Question Period today to ask the Premier to acknowledge that he has made a serious blunder in the last twenty-four hours by trying to undermine the bargaining team for the nurses' union by suggesting that they are not conducting the bargaining properly. In fact he, himself, has undermined the possibility of a resolution by hardening the position of the nurses, by preventing the very proposal that he tabled from being seriously considered because he has already said that it is a strike issue for the bargaining team and not even an opportunity, fairly, to discuss it.
The comments of the Minister of Health this morning, on the radio, indicating more or less that all bets are off; once you go on strike there is a whole different ball game. We may not have the same position when we go back to the bargaining table this morning as we had yesterday.
What is that if it is not an attempt to provoke and prolong a strike and prepare, perhaps, to bully them back with legislation that they will especially design to impose a contract or compose an agreement instead of using the emergency powers under the public sector collective bargaining act?
Mr. Speaker, what is going on here - and we have been accused on this side of grandstanding - appears to be an attempt not to negotiate but in fact to provoke and prolong a strike to give them an excuse to order them back to work.
What they are doing by sending out these signals, by indicating that they are going to legislate a 7 per cent wage increase, what are they doing but effectively removing the right to strike and not bargaining in good faith; because they ought not to take a position that there is no other offer to settle a strike on wages other than the 7 per cent that was accepted a year ago by other bargaining units.
Mr. Speaker, I heard the Premier here today saying he has reached an agreement with everybody else. Well, ask the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association about the agreement that they got with this government, when the government used its powers - abused its powers, I say - to impose and change an arbitration award that is binding on the RNC but not binding on this government.
This government in both actions, both the action of the RNC and their treatment of the nurses in these negotiations, have demonstrated that they are not prepared to bargain in good faith.
Nobody likes a bully, and I think what is happening here is that this government is using its powers and threatening, as the Minister of Health did this morning, that we are back to square one. We could have a different position tomorrow. This might not be here now.
How can the nurses, the thousands of nurses out here across the Province, have an opportunity to communicate with their leadership and even consider a proposal if it might not be there in ten minutes or the next time they get together, according to the Minister of Health? What kind of tactic is this government using in dealing with the people who are providing health care in our Province? I think the government has to take a different approach.
Yesterday, in the House of Assembly, the President of Treasury Board refused to answer any questions, refused to talk about the process. The Premier and the Minister of Health have spoiled that now, because they obviously have a different approach.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond for a few minutes to the points raised in this petition and to respond to the comments made by members opposite.
It is worth bearing in mind, it is worth repeating, that government has negotiated with thirty bargaining units, settling contracts with 30,000 individuals who work for the public service of Newfoundland and Labrador in one capacity or another, and every single contract in question has been settled at the bargaining table. That is what we want to see here. We want to see this matter settled at the bargaining table and that is why we have not taken any action -
[There is a disturbance in the gallery.]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair will recess briefly until the galleries are cleared.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in response to the matters raised in the petition by the Member for Ferryland, the Member for Ferryland, in commenting on the thirty units, representing more than 30,000 people who have settled, scoffed at the settlements. He said: Ask the people involved whether they are happy.
Of course, nobody is happy to get 7 per cent if they think they can get more, but -
MR. SULLIVAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I did not scoff at any settlement. The Premier is inaccurate in that statement.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the record of the House will show, and the tape will show, that the member said: Ask them if they are happy.
Mr. Speaker, the member -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
PREMIER TOBIN: Of course everybody would like more than they have settled for. The question for the member opposite is this. Is it the position of the Official Opposition, and is this the position of the Leader of the NDP, that the 30,000 public servants who settled in a collective bargaining progress and ratified 7 per cent should live with 7 per cent for the remainder of the contract, but that government should give more than 7 per cent, for example, to nurses?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!
PREMIER TOBIN: By leave.
Is that the position? Mr. Speaker, it is obviously the position of the Leader of the NDP and the Member for Ferryland that NAPE should live with 7 per cent and not be given more than 7 per cent, but that other units which bargained later should get more than 7 per cent. That appears to be the position of members opposite. That those who signed early are saddled with 7 per cent; those who signed later should get more.
I want to ask both the Leader of the NDP and the Member for Ferryland, how much more? Can he give us advice? Because I want to tell the members opposite something. Every 1 per cent more in salary for the public service is $17 million annually. If we are going to give, let's say, 10 per cent to one bargaining unit, and we are going to offer it to all bargaining units, that is $51 million. If we are going to give another 7 per cent over and above the 7 per cent for a total of 14 per cent, let's say to the nurses, that is $119 million annually for the entire public service.
I think it is fair of government to ask the Leader of the NDP and the Member for Ferryland: Is that what is being advocated? Raising everybody's salaries? If so, by how much? Or saddling those who settled earlier, in good faith, with their contracts, meanwhile giving a special bonus to those who have come later? Which is it? I will tell you, many people will be waiting for an answer today, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi on a petition.
MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is quite clear that not only does the Premier not have any respect for the collective bargaining process, he does not understand it. How much should they get? Let's put it to binding arbitration and let an arbitrator decide how much they deserve to get, based on all of the circumstances that are at risk, the same as the RNC did through an arbitration award.
AN HON. MEMBER: What about NAPE?
MR. HARRIS: What about NAPE? I will tell you something, Mr. Speaker. If NAPE knew the true financial position of the Province, which was not disclosed to them a year ago, they would never have settled for 7 per cent last June like they did.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. HARRIS: It is bargaining in bad faith by this government to seek to impose that on every bargaining unit of the Province. It is bargaining in bad faith. Put it to bargaining arbitration, let an arbitrator decide what the different circumstances are.
Mr. Speaker, if you look at the nurses in this Province, they have increased the requirements. The new nurses now have to have a bachelor's degree in nursing, not a three-year diploma like they did before. They have increased the standards, they have increased the workload. Several years ago, the ratio of nurses to patients was twelve nurses for thirty-six patients. That is now down to eight nurses. Those patients are sicker because the more well patients have been discharged. They have a tougher job, they have different circumstances, their workload has changed. All of that has to be taken into consideration in determining a proper wage.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: The circumstances of each bargaining unit is different and that is why you have separate bargaining units, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HARRIS: If they were all the same, you would have only one bargaining unit and you could negotiate with them all!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I asked a question. We sought the leave of the House to allow the Leader of the NDP to answer the question. He has now given somewhat of an answer. I would like to finish I think the minute or two I have left.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
PREMIER TOBIN: I ask for leave to defer. Mr. Speaker, let the record show -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
Does the hon. member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: No leave.
PREMIER TOBIN: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier on a point of order.
PREMIER TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker. I thought I had leave from members opposite.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
PREMIER TOBIN: I didn't?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
No leave.
I just want to remind members who present petitions in the House that we have ruled on a number of occasions that petitions ought to be in a particular form. There is a standard form for petitions. To ensure that petitions are not rejected by the House we have asked that members, when they intend to present petitions to the House, clear their petition with the Table officers before presenting it in the House.
I understand that practice was carried out for a while, but members are now ignoring that practice. I ask them in the future that when they present petitions to the House they should clear these petitions with the Table officers, and if they are not in the right form to make sure that they are in the correct form.
The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand today to present a petition. The petition reads:
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland in Legislative session convened.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, it's a real petition. It reads:
The petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland. Whereas Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista has not been upgraded since it was paved approximately twenty-five years ago; whereas this section of Route 235 is in such a terrible condition that vehicles are being damaged, including the school buses serving schools in the area, and school children are finding their daily trips over this road very difficult; wherefore your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to upgrade and pave the five kilometres of Route 235 from Birchy Cove to Bonavista.
This is another petition, I might add, on the same section of roadway, on Route 235, leading from the communities of Upper, Middle and Lower Amherst Cove, Newmans Cove, Birchy Cove, down to Bonavista. It is a section of road that students travel over every day to the schools in Bonavista. It is probably one of the worst sections of road on the Bonavista Peninsula.
Just a couple of weeks ago I had the Deputy Minister and the Assistant Deputy Minister of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation down to travel over this section of roadway to see first-hand what the people there are complaining about and what they are concerned about.
Following that trip over the road we went back to Newmans Cove and held a public meeting and allowed the residents of the area, as well as some students that were present, to voice their concerns and their frustrations to the decision makers. At that particular meeting, as well as the residents and parents, I might add, from Newmans Cove, Birchy Cove, and the three Amherst Coves, were the Principal of Matthew Elementary in Bonavista, and some of the bus owner operators that made the trip, left their workplace, to come and attend this meeting because it was such a concern to the students that they either carry or teach on a daily basis.
What those people are looking for is not unrealistic. They are not saying they want the roads paved all the way if it does not need to be paved. There is a section of this roadway which has deteriorated into a condition that is much worse that another section of the same roadway. What the residents are saying is: Look, government, if you can do half of this area, the 2.5 kilometres that has deteriorated to a condition that it needs immediate repair, if you can do that now then that will help satisfy our needs.
You drive through the communities of Upper Amherst Cove, Middle Amherst Cove, Birchy Cove, and you will find that the road is probably in worse condition that this section of roadway. It is worse but it is not as busy an area, I say to the members opposite.
I say to members opposite, the parents and the residents have put all of that aside. They have come out and said that, if we are going to get some road work done, this is the section of road work that we need to have done first. In fact, this section of road was put forward as a priority at least three years ago. Then in 1997, when there was some road work being done in the area, they thought they were going to get it done at that time; because the whole area, as you know, came under the eyes of the world when there were so many people travelling to and from Bonavista. The way that most tourists go down on the Peninsula, they go down Route 230 and come up Route 235, or vice versa.
This piece of roadway that we are talking about is a well-travelled route, it is a well-travelled route by people having to go to Bonavista in order to access government services. It is travelled by people who have to go to Bonavista in order to visit the health care institution there, or the Golden Heights Manor to see a doctor; but, most important of all, it is a route that has to be travelled on a daily basis by students attending the high school and the elementary school in Bonavista itself.
In years gone by, we closed schools in those areas and parents did not object. As much as they did not like the idea, they did not object because they knew that their children were going to be given a better education and be exposed to newer opportunities by going to the bigger school in the bigger centre, which was Bonavista.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The mon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: The least we can do now, Mr. Speaker, is to provide those students with a decent road to travel over on their route to and from their school in Bonavista. That is all they are asking.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: They are not asking for anything that other people do not have. They are just making a plea to have this particular roadway upgraded and paved.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Order 2, Mr. Speaker.
I move the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole on Bill 2.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am glad to rise today to make two comments on Interim Supply. Actually, I am going to pick up today where I left off yesterday on the private member's motion, just to make a few comments, because there were a few things I left out.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: I was nice yesterday, I tell the Premier. Ask the minister.
I would like to finish off with a few comments I did not get the chance to finish on the private member's motion, especially - pardon?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: I say to the minister, in light of the latest news reports by the IFAW, and the confrontations they had just a couple of days ago, the attempt by the IFAW is still to discredit the sealing industry in this Province and in Atlantic Canada. With the private member's motion put forward yesterday, there is not a better time in this Province to put forward a unified front to take on this whole issue of the sealing industry and what is happening right now, because it is time to act now. It will be no good even a month from now, not even two months from now, especially when they go on the attack or make a scene like they did yesterday with the IFAW and so on. It is time to counterattack with that. Every time they speak, we should counterattack in some form. It depends on the form we use, but it always should be used.
I believe that motion yesterday should be acted upon quickly and that we should get to Ottawa, hopefully with the Premier's support and the support of the minister. I know the minister will be there. I am not sure about the Premier, if he will be there to support this particular initiative so that we have a unified front in this Province of people who bring the message to Ottawa in as far as the sealing industry goes.
There has never been a more important time in this Province, especially in rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, where we could use some kind of economic revival and renewal. That is another issue of this Province where people are starting to ask questions of rural renewal, what benefits and so on.
When we talk about strategic plans, I have been with the REDB boards; I have sat and talked with them. They have some great ideas, some good people working on those boards, and now we have to see the real results, the results of the strategies.
As a former coach, having been involved with teams over the years, anybody can tell you that the best play in the world, or the best plan in the world, is no good unless you can execute that plan.
We are getting into a time in this Province where something is going to have to happen pretty soon. Yes, it is okay to stand every now and then and talk about the Voisey's Bays of the world, the Lower Churchills, and how great Hibernia is doing. Nobody is fooled in this Province, either, when they get reports from the Bank of Montreal, the Royal Bank and so on, talking about the great economic growth that is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador. They are talking about dollars and cents that are being floated through their bonds. That is what they are talking about. They are talking about the money that is flowing through their banks, when they talk about economic growth in this Province. What the people of the Province want to see is the real numbers.
When we think about some 11,000 people indirectly employed today - as we speak today and over the next few days, as a matter of fact -coming off those lines, those statistics will not hold water anymore because the true numbers will have to come out; the true numbers of the people in this Province, some 11,000 people who are now employed either directly or indirectly through the FRAM projects. The right word for it is make-work projects.
What the people in this Province are really looking for is what is going to happen long term. What happens in May and June when you have people in their late forties, early fifties, with families here, with their homes here? Where are they going to turn for the future? That is what everybody is concerned about in this Province.
We talk about rural renewal. I am sure that over the next few days before this House adjourns for its Easter break, we will get some chance to ask the minister - the acting minister, probably, at this stage, or maybe the minister later on - about the plans after that, and where we go from there.
People in this Province are tired of the rhetoric, of hearing all about Hibernia, seeing the big rig flashed every day on the screen. I am going to tell you that the people in Ming's Bight and Fleur de Lys are not seeing any results of what is happening with that rig, in that part of the Province.
It is good to talk about it, yes. Those are the economic circumstances for this Province that are going to help us down the road, but they need to see real jobs and they need to see real jobs now.
Our health care system - what can you say when we talk about what is happening with the mood and morale and so on? Without getting into the detail of what is happening with the negotiations, which everybody wants to avoid today - it seems we want to avoid the details - we can still talk about it in general. The health care system in this Province is in chaos. There are problems that have been coming for a long time; it is not just this strike. The downplay in the health care system is not because of the strike. The strike is there because of the failing health care system in the first place. That is our problem.
When we talk about education reform in this Province, no matter where you go, no matter who you talk to, they say they voted for education reform and they voted for a better system. With what we see now in the school system, with the decreased number of teachers - you can spin it anyway you want, but the ratio that they used in this Province was archaic. The whole formula that they used for allocation of teachers in this Province should not be there. It should be revamped so it really carries the true picture of how many teachers we really need in this Province to make sure that good education is provided to our young people. That is what we should be looking at.
I fear, especially as a former phys. ed teacher, that what we are going to see next year is that phys. ed programs, music programs, all those extras, especially at rural Newfoundland schools, are moved out of the schools.
The real buzz word of the education reform, which is a better school system for everybody, is going to be questionable. We are going to really find out if the resources are better, if the teacher ratio is better. That is what we are afraid to find out. A lot of people in this Province are coming to realize that what they voted for and what they are actually going to get are two different stories. That is why we should be very careful. People will not accept the education reform if it does not lend to that.
Like the nurses on the front line, the teachers in this Province are the front line. We can talk about bigger schools, bigger gymnasiums, better computers, but the teacher ratio, especially in the smaller schools around our rural Newfoundland areas, are going to need the resource of the teacher, the front-line worker who is going to have to be able do the work. Especially with technology and so on these days, we still need the professionals who are going to do that one-on-one when it comes to special needs and in other parts of the school system which need so much attention these days.
Our fiscal position - some notes I have here on municipalities. There is a small gain back for some communities this year on MOGs, but there are so many. The last numbers I heard from the latest minister was that there were some 100-110 communities near bankruptcy in this Province. Where are they going when they cannot get decent water and sewer and roads built? They are looking at infrastructure, basic necessities. They are not looking for four-lane highways. They are not looking for extravagant measures. They are looking for the basic necessities of living in this Province: health care, road system, and a decent educational system. That is what they want. That is what they have been looking for, for a long, long time. It is government's responsibility.
The joke of the Budget, if you speak to any of the seniors on the pension, if you make $12,000 or less you are going to come out with a $200 exemption. That is a lot to stick in somebody's pocket. I think the calculation done by the House Leader was some $3.86 per person a week. Is that what it is?
MR. GRIMES: Do you want to cancel it?
MR. SHELLEY: No, I want it increased.
MR. GRIMES: You don't want to cancel it?
MR. SHELLEY: No. Make sure you get that straight now because I find that the Minister of Mines and Energy tries to twist things. He never finishes a sentence. He always cuts it off right there, puts in the big exclamation mark, and that is the end of it. That is how the Minister of Mines always likes to put it. He never likes to finish it. Yes, I like it, $3.86 a week. It should be able to get you a litre of milk. What I am saying is that it should be something significant, not something token.
That is like the wage increase. Do I like the wage increase? Absolutely. It should be more, something significant, at least fifty cents; maybe all the savings from Trans City that we threw away. Maybe we can do all that list - down through the list - of the waste in the last eight or nine years. That is what we should talk about. Maybe that is what we should do, start the big list. Trans City, how much of that - what was the price?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: Sprung? Sprung is starting to look good compared to what you fellows have been doing. Sprung is starting to look good.
MR. SULLIVAN: Paul, by the time it is paid off it will have cost us over $30 million (inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: Over $30 million in mistakes.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SHELLEY: By leave, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Does the hon member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to talk on Interim Supply.
First of all, as I address the House, I am certainly honoured to have taken my place in this House to represent the District of Harbour Main-Whitbourne. I do fully realize that I have a responsibility entrusted to me by my constituents. I certainly appreciate their vote of confidence in me, and I hope that I will have the ability to represent them and to bring forth their concerns to this House as I complete my term.
The District of Harbour Main-Whitbourne certainly is a large district comprised of many different communities from North Arm in Holyrood down to North River, and on into Brigus Junction and Whitbourne.
Certainly during my election campaign, which was the first one, I had my eyes opened as to the concerns of my district. Once again, I bring to this House many, many concerns that I hope will be addressed as we go about our business. I take this time to compliment the people who got behind me, in particular my workers. They deserve my greatest appreciation because certainly they were the ones that put together a good campaign - and it was a good campaign. I would like to also take this opportunity to compliment my Liberal and NDP opponents who certainly fought a good campaign. They certainly deserve my thanks.
AN HON. MEMBER: Is the Minister of Fisheries down in your district?
MR. HEDDERSON: Yes, as a matter of fact, he is my neighbour.
When I look at what I have brought to the House myself, being involved in education this past forty years, if you include the time that I spent in the system, I have been very proud, I must say, of what the Province has done for me with regard to education. The opportunities that this education system gave me were certainly beyond belief. I was able to stay in the Province, and I could be whatever I wanted to be. Again, my appreciation to the system for that.
When I entered the House, I brought forth a voice to the House that I hope will bring forth the many concerns of education. Being an educator for the last twenty-two years certainly would help me in articulating what it is that needs to be done to make sure that our graduates, as they enter the twenty-first century, are able to compete on not only the job markets here in Newfoundland and Labrador but certainly the job markets in the rest of Canada and indeed on the national scene.
The educational restructuring that is currently ongoing will be our main focus, as it has been the main focus, I suppose, over the last ten years or so, as an attempt has been made by the Province to move forward with regard to that particular agenda.
Again, the Williams report, which I suppose brought in the educational reform or at least gave the blueprint of what needs to be done to address the various needs of the students of this particular Province, certainly set the tone of what is required.
I have to say that initially the tone that was set was indeed a very positive one, as we looked at neighbourhood schools, as we looked at a good teacher-pupil ratio, as we looked at addressing the needs of a changing society as we move forward.
As we get into restructuring today, which is many years later, we find that this is certainly not what it was intended to be. There are any number of parents in this Province and any number of students in this Province who are not happy with the way educational restructuring has come about.
The consultation that was supposed to be so open with regard to the educational restructuring, has not panned out as many people had wanted it to pan out. Many of the parents, many of the investors in education today, are saying basically that what they had voted for in the referendum was certainly not what they bargained for, and certainly not what they have gotten.
We have throughout this Province very real needs with regard to the education system, and these real needs need to be addressed as we certainly move forward.
I personally have experienced the tremendous upheaval that can happen when a school is closed down. Being a part of that process, I can really appreciate what it feels like to see a school that is a primer school, a school that had graduates stretching back to 1973, a school that had all the hallmarks of what it meant to be a very positive school, to find that the educational restructuring would close such a school community would certainly be one of the most difficult times of any educator's life.
The school closings that are happening now would certainly remind me of the difficulties that many parents and students are experiencing these days as the restructuring takes place.
Again, we all know that restructuring perhaps has to happen, but it does not have to happen in the manner in which it has occurred. There is certainly too much pain, too much sacrifice, for the students and the parents as they go through this particular time.
Many people hold up the aspect of closing schools as perhaps the most difficult of this particular restructuring, but I say to those people that it is not necessarily the closing down of schools that is creating a crisis now in our education system; it is the inability to action a lot of the positive programming that should be actioned at this particular time in order to bring forth the promise of the Williams report of the 1990s. Again, I say that the education system in Newfoundland is in need of adjustment. It is in need of some very positive initiatives.
When I look at the Budget as it came down, I am very disappointed that once again the education needs of this Province are certainly not being addressed. With adding just simply fifteen teaching positions at a very difficult time in this restructuring, that does not - and I say does not - certainly address the particular need.
The student-teacher ratio, without a doubt, is misleading. It includes non-teaching positions. It fails to account for the rural spread of this Province, and it fails to factor in many of the nest schools. This teacher-pupil ratio certainly does not add to the positive moving forward of this particular restructuring.
Again, in looking at the situation, I have to say that the rights of the parents and the rights of the students certainly need to be put front and centre. The consultation processes that have been going on throughout the Province have not always been what they should have been. Many decisions have been made without the support and without the proper consultation with the parents.
Again, we hope - or at least I hope - to be given another opportunity to speak on this matter.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.
MR. HUNTER: Mr. Chairman, from travelling in the district during the election, I got to meet some of the farmers in the area and they are doing an excellent job in their field of work. They let me know that there are a lot of problems in their industry. From looking at their operations, I could see the problems that were there and the support they are not getting in respect to crop specialists.
A couple of years ago the crop specialist in Central Newfoundland, his job was taken away. Now they are depending on crop specialists from the East Coast coming out and looking at the problems they have. I don't think that is acceptable. I think these farmers in Central Newfoundland should have a fair chance and access to a crop specialist on a readily available basis the same as anywhere else on the Island. I don't think they should have that burden on them to get people to come out from the East Coast when there are four crop specialists in this area of the Island and not one in Central Newfoundland.
In the silviculture program, I noticed in the Budget $12 million to be spent in that program and only $4.5 million being allocated by the provincial government. I don't think that is adequate to address the problems in silviculture in this Province today. I think that silviculture is one way we could replace a lot of the jobs that are being lost through technology and other ways that paper companies and independent companies are taking away jobs through the introduction of mechanical harvesters.
I think that we as a government must introduce new technologies in the field to retrain these loggers and for logging operations to get more involved in the silviculture programs. There are a lot of ways these loggers can be trained, especially when it comes to firefighting techniques and forest technology that has been introduced over the last few years. We could retrain loggers to address some of these problems and to work in that field.
Loggers and small family operators in the sawmill industry need more access to the hardwood timber on Crown lands. They are fast running out of the resource. They are finding they are in a bad predicament, where they do not have enough of the resource to harvest and put into their sawmills to keep the jobs going that are there now. They are quite worried that this summer could be a summer they would have to lay off a lot of people. A lot of these people will be moving to other provinces. We have to make sure that does not happen this summer.
I'm getting a lot of calls from people in the district concerning the road situation in the Green Bay South area. The road between Robert's Arm and South Brook is in deplorable condition. I think something has to be done in the near future to address that problem. Also, the gravel road between Pilley's Island and the ferry going to Long Island needs to be addressed. It is not acceptable to have that section of gravel road in this day and age. That road should be paved, and I think this government's responsibility is there to make sure that road is taken care of and that paving will take place this summer.
There are a lot of issues in the environment in Central Newfoundland that concern me. We have an incinerator in our area that is certainly run down and not efficient. It is located really near our water supply. There is a lot of concern out there that contaminates, chemicals, are going into our water supply. I think it is the Department of Environment's responsibility to go in there and do studies on our water supply and our environment in the New Bay Road area, to assure the people of that area that if things are not safe then something will be done in the near future. I think that government has that responsibility to make sure that happens.
I got a call only today from a concerned citizen in Grand Falls-Windsor. He was very concerned about an oil spill that happened over the weekend. He called council and council came out and looked at the situation. They said there was nothing they could do but call Environment. A member from the Department of Environment came out there and said: I'm not qualified to make a decision on what should be done in this respect. You will have to call back Monday.
Now, these people were concerned. They were not sure if it was oil or some other type of chemical contaminates that could endanger their lives. These people went through a terrible weekend just thinking that this smell coming in through their sewers and basements could hurt them and hurt their health. They were very concerned about it. I think Central Newfoundland has been neglected when it comes to specialist and people in the fields who could address problems concerning our environment and concerning our industries in that area. We need more input from government into Central Newfoundland, particularly the Grand Falls-Windsor area.
A lot of seniors in the Grand Falls-Windsor area are calling me, concerned that fees have been going up throughout the Central Newfoundland area. They realize the taxes did not go up but they certainly know that costs are going up. Where they are on fixed incomes and they do not have access to extra dollars, and their age does not permit them to make extra dollars, they are concerned that they are not going to be able to maintain the standard of life they now have. They are worried that in the near future they are going to have to move away into less adequate accommodations because they cannot afford to pay the necessary taxes, fees, and the increased cost of living. Two hundred dollars a year is certainly not going to address their problems.
I think that in the municipal infrastructure programs there must be more money given to the smaller communities so that they do not have to put this extra burden on the people and the residents of these communities.
I hope in the near future that someone does listen to all these problems that are in our smaller communities. They have to be addressed. I will be lobbying for these people, and I hope that government does do something in the near future to help the seniors and the desperate people in our communities.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Premier Tobin said Saturday: I have been convinced, putting aside the other issues for the negotiators, that the staffing issues need to be addressed. It is one that I intend to intervene on personally. He further said: You cannot have stressed out people working double shifts, being called back on short notice, burnt out, running and operating within the system. If I were confronted by a bunch of demonstrators who were making a point that I thought wasn't legitimate, or wasn't valid, I would argue the point. I would debate the point. I can't argue when the nurses say the health care system is underfunded.
That Saturday I refer to is Saturday, February 7, 1999, two days before the general election when our Premier misled the nurses of this Province by telling them he would intervene on their behalf. He said: I will personally intervene to ensure that staffing needs are addressed. You cannot have stressed out people working double shifts, et cetera.
Here we have a premier who, two days before the election, said he would personally intervene and now today in this House of Assembly, in the people's House, is accusing us of trying to get him to intervene.
I have had calls, faxes and letters from nurses. These nurses are stressed out with the situation they find themselves in. I will quote from some of them here now.
This is not from a nurse. On February 7, this is, once again, from the Premier. It says: Brian Tobin says he is convinced there is a dire need to hire more nurses across the Province. He won't commit to the number yet, but it will be higher than the 125 positions that came in a contract offer last December.
Here he is saying there is a need to hire more nurses and today he is saying that must take place at the negotiating table. Which Premier are we dealing with? It is always a premier of convenience. Whatever is convenient for the Premier to say at the time to schmooze the people to buy them off, that is the Premier that we see.
Here is a quote: On Premier Tobin's frenzied final day, Tobin meets the ever present clutch of nurses and tells them that the Minister of Health is a nurse - that's news - the Deputy Minister is a nurse, and every night he goes home to a nurse. He tells the nurses they can trust him to handle their concerns over cutbacks to health care.
May I never need to put my trust in somebody like that. Premier Tobin says he now has the money to improve the Province's health care system. I did not see it in the Budget. I did not see the money for the nurses in the Budget. Here is a quote: He says the new multi-billion dollar agreement signed in Ottawa yesterday will help ease the stress on health care. Tobin also told a small group of nurses at the rally he will see them at the bargaining table.
He did not commit to anything right there but the innuendo was loud and clear. I will now paraphrase and quote some of the nurses from letters, e-mails and phone calls that some have made to me, going back a couple of months: I am a registered nurse. I have been employed with the provincial government for eighteen years. I am fortunate to have been employed in a permanent position. But this is not the case for the many casual nurses in our Province. They continue to work up to full-time hours with none of the benefits.
Mr. Chairman, the nurses do not get the benefits of the pension and so on like that, but the residuals of that are felt throughout our entire economy, because when these professional people go to the bank for a mortgage, they cannot prove they are working permanently, even though many of them have been working longer hours and more full-time hours than the nurses who are actually permanent.
Some of the nurses have been working five years casual. They go to the bank manager. They cannot prove they have a permanent job and therefore cannot get a mortgage. Therefore, the economy there is suffering because they cannot get a mortgage; a house is not sold. If a house is not sold then the furnishing, the carpets, the drapery and the new furniture that goes into that house is not sold. A car is not sold and it trickles right down into the economy; and we are wondering why people are leaving this Province.
The average age of the nurses is forty-seven, and there are no new nurses being hired. They are all going to the mainland or to the United States where they are being offered much more lucrative packages.
These lucrative packages would exist even if we did make more permanent positions, but at least we could offer these people permanent positions in their Province, in their home, and the attraction to leave home would not be as great.
I have an e-mail here that came in on Monday, March 22. It is an e-mail that was also, I guess, copied to the Minister of Health. It says: We are incensed that you have not responded to our issues. We stress the word "our" because, as you have constantly reminded us, you are still one of us; you are a nurse. In your former role as the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union, need we remind you that you were crying out for exactly the same issues. We are also confident that you are fully aware of the looming nursing shortage and, as such, you should be concerned about the problems of recruitment and retention. Back in the early seventies, many of our hospitals were staffed by nurses who were recruited from England and from the Philippines. The crisis was so bad at that time, it was so critical, that our government had to recruit nurses and not only pay them their salaries but also their transportation here, and in many cases their accommodation as well.
I go on with the e-mail to the Minister of Health: In your current position, you freely voiced your opinion on physicians' concerns. Now, more importantly, you should be standing by us and supporting our fight to improve health care in this Province.
With people who are not associated with the changes and the trends and patterns of health care, many more people are accessing health care. The technology is helping people live longer but then, conversely, as they live longer they need more medical services.
Positive good health care - and I am not saying that the casual nurses cannot do as good a job, but when they are on a maternity floor one night and a cardiac floor the next night, it not as easy for them to give the same care because they are moving about. They cannot guarantee that a critically ill patient will receive the appropriate level of care with the expertise required if they continue to hire casual nurses. That is one of the problems.
From there I will move to education. We will remember, in August and September of 1997, there was a referendum here in the Province and the people were promised optimum programming, neighbourhood schools, lower pupil-teacher ratios, and all kinds of programs. In my District of St. John's West, the people believed. They believed that they would get optimum programming; so 83 per cent of them voted for reform.
In my district there is a dire need for another school building and I did not see in the Budget - although I did see that there would be some school buildings, the needs of the people of St. John's West have not been addressed. The people of St. John's West are being bused out of their community into other schools. There are over 800 of them going now. If the proposal goes ahead, as the Avalon East School Board has proposed that it would, then over 1,000 people will be moving from the neighbourhood of St. John's West into the centre of the city. This is a far cry from neighbourhood schools. One of the schools that they will be going to presently has an enrolment - it is a good school, it is I J Samson and it has wonderful programs at the moment. If the Avalon East School Board proposal goes ahead the way it is planned, 140 or 160 more children will come into that school. The capacity rating for that school is 500, and there will be 160 people in the school more than there should be, which will mean that the rooms that are presently being utilized for these good programs - the labs and the music rooms and so on - will have to be taken for classrooms.
This is a far cry for what was promised. This is an insult to the people who voted and, like I said, voted 83 per cent in the referendum. It is an insult to them when they voted for optimum programming and lower class sizes. The class sizes will be up to between thirty-one and thirty-five people instead of - I think the Throne Speech touted that we would have 14.7 people in a classroom.
What I am saying is that the people of my district and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have not received what they have been promised before the election, as far as the nurses are concerned, and as far as the seniors are concerned.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have been listening intently to the representations made here in Interim Supply, and some very good points have been made. A number of the speakers today, as well, have addressed some of the issues with respect to probably the most critical issue in the Province today, which is the fact that we do have a withdrawal of services by our nurses. The last speaker from St. John's West made some comments with respect to that, as have other speakers. Earlier today, of course, the issue dominated Question Period and so on.
There are a couple of things, and I think it is important that the record should show the contributions that have been made here today. I would like to take a couple of minutes to try to get them in the record of Hansard so we can read it all tomorrow. I think, while there was some heckling going back and forth earlier on, there were some very important points made.
I intend to certainly tell nurses in Central Newfoundland and Exploits district, not only to represent my own views - they know what they are; that I am a member of the Cabinet and a member of this government. I support what the government is doing, and we are trying to negotiate a settlement for nurses at the bargaining table, as we have done for 30,000 other public servants who have signed collective agreements through a process that the government has respected and they have respected.
Mr. Chairman, one of the things that has occurred in that - I am a little puzzled by one of the representations made by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, because he inferred and suggested there was something wrong with the bargaining process that occurred with the RNC.
What we have to understand about the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association is that they bargained under a special piece of legislation that was put in place by the party that is now the Official Opposition; not put in place by this Administration, but put in place by the party that is now the Official Opposition.
They debated the issue, obviously, at the time, and discussed it with the Constabulary Association and others, and felt that the best possible scenario by which Constabulary officers should bargain in Newfoundland and Labrador was with a special law - not the general Public Service Act, not normal broad-based labour legislation that applies to unions out in the private sector, but with their own special piece of legislation. What was enshrined in that piece of legislation, and is still there today, is that they will have access to arbitration. The law which the Progressive Conservative government of the day put in place, the law which we followed this time to a tee, and did not offend the process in any way but did what we were entitled to under the law, just like the RNCA did what they were entitled to under the law, the law that was decided to be in the best interest of the RNC, their members and the people of the Province states that there will be an arbitration process which is binding on the Constabulary but not binding on the government.
The members opposite, who are the Official Opposition, debated that issue, consulted with the public, consulted with the RNC, consulted and got legal advice, consulted with the justice community, and they determined that that was the appropriate mechanism for the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association.
What happened this time, Mr. Chairman, just like what happened three or four times in the seventeen years that the Official Opposition was the government, an arbitration process was triggered.
MR. H. HODDER: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley on a point of order.
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, a point of order. The hon. minister is right, that there was a process put in place, it was used. Part of the commitment made by the Liberal government in 1991 is that they would extend to the RNC binding arbitration. It forms part of the negotiated package.
I say to the hon. member that if he is going to tell the story, he might as well tell the truth. He should not twist the truth, he should not deviate from the truth, he should tell the absolute truth and do it consistently all the time. Tell the whole story, I say to the minister.
CHAIR: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate that intervention because it gets to the next point I was about to make.
The president of the RNCA again this week has made that point, that this Administration in a round of bargaining did append a letter to the agreement saying we would undertake to bring the notion of binding arbitration to the Legislature. He also indicated that they had a similar letter appended to the collective agreement in 1986 when the Progressive Conservative government bargained with them, and that they did nothing about it in the last three years that they were in office. It was repeated again in 1991 because it was the same letter that the previous administration again had appended to the agreement of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association.
The fact of the matter is that they gave them a letter that said they would think about changing it and they did not do it. We gave a letter through a previous administration that said we would look at it, and we did not do it. I can tell you one thing that is a little bit odd in this, and I know that it is an important point, that while all the negotiating was going on leading up to the triggering of the arbitration, which they are entitled to by their own collective bargaining act, nobody in the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association approached anybody in this House about: Are you planning to bring in the legislation that you promised back in 1982?
The first time any of us heard about it was a letter from the legal council for the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association that mysteriously appeared in my office in Bishop's Falls during the election. I had not heard of it in the seven years from 1992 to 1999. I guess it was not that great an issue. It is convenient in a way that it is an issue now.
I addressed members of the RNC outside this Legislature a few weeks ago, I stopped and chatted with them, when they indicated to me that they had support for their position from a union that I used to lead, the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association. I said: Would you like to produce the letter that says you have the support of the NLTA? Because, I asked, on what issue do you have their support? They said: On getting our 14.5 per cent. I said: You please show me the document that says that the current president of the NLTA will agree that the Constabulary should get 14.5 per cent and we as teachers will not ask for another penny, and I will try to convince the members of this particular caucus to give you 14.5 per cent.
No such letter has ever appeared. No such letter, I predict, will ever appear, because it makes for good speeches but it does not solve anything. What this government did was trigger its legal right under the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary collective bargaining legislation act that says, and has always said - members opposite always used it when they were the government for seventeen years -, it said: It is binding on the Constabulary, it is not binding on the government. We did just like the members opposite did on three, if not four, occasions. We altered the award because it was not within the fiscal capability of the government to pay the increased compensation.
Because the point was made again today, and we need to be reminded that every single per cent - unless they believe, which is the other point I want to get to, and if I run out in this short intervention I might even try to get up and make the point a little later - every single percentage point is $17 million. The constabulary arbitration suggested 14.5 per cent, so another 7.5 per cent. Now you are at more than $100 million annually. Unless the position of the members opposite - which I am going to try to clarify - is that they will present and will defend the position that the constabulary should get 14.5 per cent and all the rest that signed shouldn't get any more than 7 per cent.
I contend that that is what I heard in this Legislature today from the Member for Ferryland. I definitely heard it from the Member for Ferryland. Not about the Constabulary, because he is after forgetting about them, conveniently. He is not concerned about them anymore. He doesn't talk about them anymore because there is bigger fish to fry now. We have nurses on strike.
He clearly stated, when asked, that he believes nurses deserve more than 7 per cent. Absolutely, that is the position. We can only assume, because he speaks for health care issues on behalf of the Official Opposition, that that is the official position of the Official Opposition. It must be, because their designated, publicly stated critic for the issue has said in the Legislature, on the record, that nurses deserve more than 7 per cent.
The question that was then asked was: Does he believe that everybody else should get just the 7 per cent? Because we said our position is clear. We really firmly believe that if we are going to give more than 7 per cent to any one group we should give it to all of them. That is the position of the Liberal Government in Newfoundland and Labrador today. So unless that is different from or different than - I forget now, I was instructed in that in Grade VIII or Grade IX English; you are supposed to use from and than in different circumstances in an english sentence. I was never an english teacher, never very good at it. Not even very good at mathematics that I used to teach, but I can understand this mathematics.
The official critic for health care matters for the Official Opposition has stated the position of the Progressive Conservative Official Opposition in Newfoundland and Labrador, in the Legislature, on the record, that nurses should get more than 7 per cent. Mr. Chairman -
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. GRIMES: By leave, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple of hours' leave.
CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!
CHAIR: By leave.
MR. GRIMES: I know they are enjoying this. I will get to the conclusion, Mr. Chairman, by leave. I understand they have graciously granted leave.
The whole point is this. He also then stated when asked: Do you believe everybody else should get more than 7 per cent?, he said: I did not say that. Which means that he believes they should not get more than 7 per cent. So the Official Opposition position is: Nurses should get more than 7 per cent. Everybody else should stay at 7 per cent. I would like Hansard to clearly show that as the official position of the Official Opposition on this issue so we can send it to NAPE, send it to the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, and all of the other bargaining units: CUPE, NAPE and others. The 30,000 people who have already signed for 7 per cent will be pleased to know that the official position of the Opposition is that nurses should get more and they should stay at 7 per cent.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: Order, please!
Before recognizing the next speaker, it being Thursday and 4:00 p.m. I have to announce the questions for the Late Show.
The first question for the Late Show this afternoon is: I am dissatisfied with the answers provided by the President of Treasury Board, re RNC negotiations. That is from the Member for Waterford Valley.
The second question is: I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Premier re my question on school reorganization in St. John's West. That is from the Member for St. John's West.
The third question is: I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Premier re my question on the hiring of nurses. That is from the Member for Ferryland.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have to stand today and respond to the vicious attack - I say, the vicious attack - by the Minister of Mines and Energy on the hon. Member for Ferryland.
AN HON. MEMBER: Shame.
MR. MANNING: Shame. Especially when he is not here to defend himself. He was not here to defend himself from the vicious attack by the hon. Minister of Mines and Energy. It is a shame. He was trying to put words in the mouth of the hon. Member for Ferryland. He is very well able to speak for himself and has spoken well for health care in this Province over the past three or four years. He has brought forward the major concerns that are in health care in this Province, and he has done a very good job. It is a shame for the Minister of Mines and Energy to get up and have a vicious attack.
There is great concern here in this Province today as it relates to the health care situation, and we see it here today in the gallery and out in the lobby of the Confederation Building. Many people, nurses coming forward with many concerns that they have. I have been on the phone over the past couple of day myself with nurses throughout my District of Placentia & St. Mary's, who brought their concerns to me. They are not only the concerns of the nurses; they are the concerns of every man, woman and child in this Province.
I just got off the phone with a gentleman who was supposed to have emergency surgery tomorrow morning, and it has been delayed until Monday morning.
We are at a point in this Province right now where we are trying to figure out what is more of an emergency than something else. I think we have reached an all-time low when it comes to health care and there are major, major concerns out there throughout the whole Province.
I stand here today and listen to the Leader of the Opposition put forward the questions to the Premier and to the Minister of Health as they relate to the health care, and we are getting an aside answer, no real truth coming forward from the hon. members on the other side. I think it is a shame we have so much concern in the Province being raised by not only the nurses but indeed many other people throughout the health care sector.
I would just like to say that the nurses are not only here representing themselves; they are representing everybody throughout the Province. I think it is time that health care became an major issue of this government; not lip service, but a general major issue that this government will address over the next few days.
I think that everybody in the House is very concerned about the fact that the nurses are on the street. I think it is to everybody's advantage that we get back to the bargaining table and straighten out this mess before people's lives are lost and something very dangerous happens.
I would also like to touch on a few things that were brought forward, that have come up since the Budget on Monday, and some concerns that have been raised with me as the member. One certainly has to do with the $200 so-called gift, the seniors' benefit that this government brought forward and tried to say to the people of the Province that this is a wonderful idea.
Very few people will qualify for even this paltry $200 that the government has put forward. Very few people will qualify for that. As a matter of fact, for the full benefit under $12,000, it comes out to $3.86 a week. That, I say to the hon. members opposite, is what seniors will be putting into their pocket. That is only for those who are under $12,000 limit.
What about the many other people who are going to be on a graduated scale, who are going to end up with nothing? There are many seniors out in our districts who are finding it very hard. They are on a fixed incomes. With rising prices, rising costs of living, these seniors are on a fixed income. To have $3.86 a week given to them, I do not think it is very fair and it is definitely not for the seniors' benefit, even though that is what it is called. It is for the government to try to buy some time with something that is very important, the seniors in this Province.
One thing that certainly concerned me also is the fact that we touched on, from a business point of view, the payroll tax was brought up to $150,000. While it gives some businesses an opportunity to not have to pay the payroll tax, there are many businesses our there now that have enforced this, and I think this is a deterrent to employment in many of our industries. I think it is something that the government should look at. Certainly it is a step in the right direction, to phase this tax out, but I think it is something that we should consider very much.
Mr. Chairman, I would also like touch on the fact that the minimum wage was raised from $5.25 to $5.50 an hour. When I had the opportunity to sit in this House from 1993 to 1996, I brought in a private member's bill and asked for the minimum wage to be taken at that time from $4.75 up to $6.00 an hour. The government at that time agreed to bring forward and raise the minimum wage to $5.00 an hour. It is up to $5.25, and now it is going to be raised to $5.50.
The problem that I see with raising the minimum wage to $5.50 at this present time is that it is not going to be raised until October. Most of the people, especially students who are going to find employment during the summer months, are going to be people who are going to be out working on job creation, whether it is sponsored by the federal government or by the provincial government, such as the SWASP program and other programs that are put place each and every year for the students of the Province.
Mr. Chairman, those students are going to be out there working for $5.25 an hour. If government would bring in this as of April 1, and increase the minimum wage to $5.50 an hour, we would have students who would be able to avail of this new salary. Over the next few months, those students are not going to be able to have this salary because it is not going to be in place until October 1. I think, for most businesses now, it is an opportunity to put the minimum wage to $5.50 an hour. I think it certainly should be done for the summer months, so that our students can avail of this opportunity. That is certainly something, I think, that we should bring forward and make sure that the government is cognizant of the fact that the students out there are finding it very difficult to cope. This would be an opportunity to put some more dollars into their pockets.
I would also like to touch on, if I could, the fact that in regards to education, only fifteen more teaching positions are being provided, not the 236 figure that the government arrived at by comparing it to the magnitude of the threatened cut. I think it is kind of a mishmash with numbers when we say we are going to give this many and then we take away so many others and we end up with a number that is really not relevant and really not factual in regard to exactly what is going to be put in the classroom.
Mr. Chairman, this Province voted for reform last year. I say that the people of Placentia & St. Mary's did not, but the rest of the people in the Province did. They voted for reform because they believed that the money that would be saved by the restructuring of education in the Province, the money that would be saved by the closing of schools, the money that would be saved by the amalgamation of schools throughout the Province, that this money would be directly put back into education in the Province, and indeed, I guess, into the classrooms. That is mostly where parents and students and teachers, I am sure, who voted for reform thought that the money saved would be going.
I think it is very important that we take education seriously, and that the money saved through the reform in education is put back into the classrooms so we can improve in our curriculum and indeed improve on the pupil-teacher ratio that we are finding our Province in now.
There is no doubt about it, that the number of children going to school in the Province today is much less than a few years ago because of out-migration. I will talk about out-migration in a minute. We have a problem, and reform in education is certainly welcome in many parts of the Province that see buses passing by schools and buses passing through communities. I think it is an issue that we have to address. I think it is very important that the money that we save because of addressing these issues goes back into the classroom to provide a better education for these people.
I also want to touch on the fact that there is nothing in the Budget that touched out-migration, which is a very major problem that we are facing in this Province today. We lost 7,000 people in 1996, who left this Province; 9,000 people left in 1997, and 11,000 people left in 1998. That is almost 30,000 people less in this Province today than were here in 1996, when this government came to power and promised a better tomorrow.
I have to ask: Was the better tomorrow that was promised in 1996 delivered? I fear not, I say to the hon. members opposite. I think that you have led many people down the garden path, and that we have a situation over the next few weeks where we are going to have many people that are going to be forced to leave the Province again because of the situation with the out-migration in the communities and the fact that our fishery, in many cases, is not coming back on schedule.
Mr. Chairman, I say that these are only some of the issues that are facing the people in Placentia & St. Mary's. There are many other issues. I would just like to touch for a moment on one that has come to mind, and that is the one in regards to the fact that in Placentia many people (inaudible) -
CHAIR (Smith): Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to follow on a few comments, to try and make sure that the record in Hansard again accurately and properly states the position of the Opposition parties with respect to the issue that is before collective bargaining today. I am delighted to see the Leader of the New Democratic Party and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi back in his seat so that I can make the comments, because he might like to respond and react to them afterwards.
I think we have fairly well established, without any challenge from anybody opposite by the way, no challenge from anybody opposite, that the official position of the Official Opposition is that the nurses should get more than 7 per cent. They are not sure how much more, I guess they don't really care, but they should get more than 7 per cent, but all those groups that have signed for 7 per cent should keep 7 per cent. That is the official position of the Official Opposition.
That is too bad for NAPE, CUPE, the NLTA, and all that group that signed before, for signing for 7 per cent. They went through a process and they signed so they are finished. The nurses, though, deserve more. They do not see any fairness argument that if the nurses get more than 7 per cent others should get more than 7 per cent. That is the position of the Official Opposition. I am glad to see that no one has challenged that.
The position of the New Democratic Party, which now has a great increased caucus of two, seems to be a little more difficult to ascertain but I will try my best and see if it is challenged in anyway. The position as articulated by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the third party in the House, is that first of all there was something wrong with what happened to the RNCA negotiation, even though it followed all the legal processes that are in law.
One other point I might add is that the RNCA act of today was enacted in 1992 after the letter was appended in 1991. The government at the time that appended that letter did consider the issue and decided not to change it. Which is why I found it a bit strange that I had not heard of it for the intervening seven years that I was a member of the Cabinet in Newfoundland and Labrador. It was never, ever raised as an issue. It seems to be a critical issue now. I have told the members that I met on the steps that I do not know what the final disposition will be but I would not be at all against the notion of giving them the right to strike with some essential services.
I know our constable here in the Legislature would obviously have to be declared essential, because we would not want to be attacked here in the Legislature, unless then there was some uprising in the community where he was needed elsewhere that we might have to release him from his duties and let him go attend to other matters in the community. It is a serious issue and I do not know how that will be resolved, but I know my colleague the Minister of Justice will bring a recommendation to Cabinet at some point in the near future. We will look to see if it is supported in the Legislature.
The position of the third party in the Legislature, the caucus of two for the New Democratic Party, as stated by their leader, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, is that the government should, in fact, go to arbitration with the nurses who are now in a legal process that gives them the right to strike. The member has indicated that he feels the fairest way now to resolve this is not at the bargaining table at all, where we are still trying to do it. He is already trying to suggest that instead of that the government is going to bring in some kind of back-to-work legislation and so on. I am not sure where he stands on that. If there is a real crisis in a matter of a few days or so within the health care system I wonder if he might reconsider. If he were ever to form the government, might he ever consider, like NDP governments have done elsewhere in Canada, using back-to-work legislation in a critical area like health care.
His view is that it should go to arbitration. When asked though: Do you think they should get more than 7 per cent, he did not directly answer the question. He believes it should be left to some other party to determine, and he does not really care if it is 7 per cent, less than 7 per cent, or more than 7 per cent. Because he is trying to play all sides of the issue. He will not state categorically, like the Official Opposition has, that he firmly believes they deserve more than 7 per cent. So I'm sure that all of his union buddies and all of his buddies in the nurses' union are very disappointed to hear that the labour representative in the Legislature has not come out like the Official Opposition critic has. At least he has declared himself on the issue and said nurses deserve more than 7 per cent.
So the official Leader of the New Democratic Party has not suggested at all that they deserve more than 7 per cent. He has suggested it should be left to some kind of an arbitration process. Then he was asked: What if the arbitration process were to be triggered? What if the government took his suggestion seriously, and what if it led to an award of more than 7 per cent? How would he then suggest it should be dealt with, in light of the fact that all of the other unions that supposedly support he as a member and his party - the labour movement and the NDP being traditionally very closely linked -, how would he deal with NAPE, CUPE and the Teachers' Association and the others who then have 7 per cent if the award comes in at more than 7 per cent?
Would he then propose that everyone else should get more than 7 per cent, because that would be fair in the view of the particular government of the day, or should the others keep their 7 per cent because they have gone through a legal process and they have signed collective agreements which are binding for thirty-nine months and they have lived with a process?
His only commentary was a remark that had they known the true state of the finances of the Province they never would have signed for 7 per cent. I don't really know what that means. I guess he is trying to suggest to them that they are all really stupid and that they all got hoodwinked in some way, and that their negotiators are inept, and that their negotiators did not work in the best interest of their members. He is suggesting maybe that if he was their negotiator, if he had negotiated for NAPE and CUPE and the teachers, he would have known better, he would have been smarter, he would never have signed for 7 per cent. Because that is the kind of thing he was suggesting.
So I am having a bit more difficulty nailing down the position. It seems like he wants to play all sides of the argument. He respects the process and he wants to respect the process. He is suggesting we might change the process with back-to-work legislation. He voted for 7 per cent himself, so I guess he did not know any better. I guess he is as stunned as the rest of them. He absolutely has to be as stunned as the rest of them, because he sat in this Legislature day in and day out when he was not too busy making money down in his law practise. He had access to every document ever tabled in this Legislature and he stood in this Legislature and voted for 7 per cent. Then today he suggests that had they known better, had they known about the finances - I guess he did not know, and he is here every day. He has been elected here for years. He was here and did not know.
I can tell him one thing. Had I known what he is suggesting I would not be voting for 7 per cent either, because I'm one of the most self-centred, greedy people in Newfoundland and Labrador. Let the record show it, that if somebody can afford more than 7 per cent for politicians because they deserve it like everybody else, I would like to have it. Put it on the record! I don't mind saying that to everybody. If I thought we could afford to give more than 7 per cent to nurses and teachers and the Constabulary I would be supporting that too, but we know the difference.
We have the great privilege now of having a former, former, former premier back in the Legislature who did things a little bit differently. Because he was part of a government for almost seventeen years. Part of it he was in Opposition when he was there, ten years for sure when he went over and got led astray and joined an Opposition party, and somehow formed a government when the people got disenchanted and unenlightened for a period of ten or twelve years. Knowing that he is still a Liberal in his heart, he must have hung his head with shame in the Cabinet meetings when they voted for increases for which they had no idea where they were getting the money. They had not the slightest idea of where the money was coming from. They said: Give them whatever they want, keep them happy. Give them big raises, give the pensioners money even though there is nothing in the plans. Bankrupt the works.
They must have known they were in their last days and on their last legs. They had to know it, because they took the treasury and dealt with it with complete reckless abandon to the point, Mr. Chairman -
MR. J. BYRNE: Point of order.
CHAIR: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: I was watching the clock when he stood on his feet, Mr. Chairman, and his ten minutes is up.
CHAIR: There is no point of order.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As the Member for Lewisporte informed us the other day when he was the acting, acting, acting -
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. GRIMES: By leave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have to say here today that the Minister for Mines and Energy has no shame, to stand in this House of Assembly while the Premier is still in his chair and give the first leadership speech, when the next one right there, the Minister of Tourism, and the Minister of Fisheries, (inaudible) giving the first leadership speech -
PREMIER TOBIN: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Chair, the difference between this side of the House and that side is that that side is full of former leaders and this side is full of future leaders.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: No point of order as usual, Mr. Chairman.
I would suggest the Premier learn how to count. I can only see one former premier here on this side of the House and one former leader. We had a 40 per cent increase in our population on this side of the House. What kind of percentage increase did you guys, have, I say to the minister?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Mines and Energy was on his feet for fifteen or twenty minutes, since 4:00 p.m., saying nothing. His interpretation of what the Opposition House Leader said today in the House of Assembly, his opinion, was wrong, as usual, as always. He is trying to put something on the record of Hansard for this House of Assembly so he can send it out to his constituents which is wrong and misleading, I say to you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: With respect to my position, do you want to hear my position?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: On what? What do you want to hear? I can tell you one thing. You talk about health care in this Province today. The Premier during the election came back from Ottawa with $40 million in his back pocket. Three days before the election everything is honky-dory in this Province, everything is going to be taken care of in the Province. The cheque bounced big time. Three or four days after the election the federal Budget comes down. The Premier, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Health go right ballistic, right out of their minds. Everything is wrong. The Prime Minister hoodwinked me. Saying that the Budget was wrong and unfair to the people of the Province.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: My position here? Where would you like to know? I am standing in the House of Assembly at this point in time, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, wherever.
The Premier comes back with $40 million in his back pocket. Everything is going to be done. The people of the Province listened to him.
MR. SULLIVAN: We got $4.4 million exactly in the Canada Health and Social Transfer.
MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Ferryland, as usual, always correct in his figures. The Minister of Finance cannot hold a candle to him when it comes to figures and facts.
The Premier comes back and what happens? He kind of chastises the Prime Minister of the country. At the Winter Games in Newfoundland and Labrador, which were really quite a success - I was quite proud to watch the opening ceremonies on television by the way, it was quite a job -, the Prime Minister got the Premier in the back seat of a car out there in Corner Brook somewhere and rapped him across the knuckles. The next day -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: The Budget? A great Budget. The Minister of Finance the next day: Great Budget. The Minister of Health the next day: Great Budget. I did not want to hurt my knuckles, I say, and it would not have sounded as loud. Anyway, great Budget they said, and everything is going to be fine. They expect the people of the Province to believe the like of that.
The thing is, Mr. Chairman, the people of the Province are becoming quite aware of the tactics of the Premier of this Province. Thank God he is only going to be here for another year or year-and-a-half and then we will get -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
CHAIR: Order, please!
I will remind the hon. members it is now 4:30 p.m.
MR. J. BYRNE: - the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister of Mines and Energy, and the Minister of Tourism battling it out. I know who has my vote. The man that gave me the school.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!
CHAIR: Order, please!
It is now 4:30 p.m. and we should be proceeding with the Late Show.
PREMIER TOBIN: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: The hon. the Premier on a point of order.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the member who has just spoken had said something, has started an awful, terrible rumour. He has suggested I'm only going to be around in my job for another year or a year-and-a-half. This government has just been re-elected for a full five-year term.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER TOBIN: I want to serve notice - of course not to members on this side of the House, because they are not even curious about it - but certainly to members on that side of the House that I intend to serve my full term.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: There is no point of order.
Please, I would ask the hon. member to take his seat.
For the purposes of the motion the Chair recognizes the hon. Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.
Debate on the Adjournment
[Late Show]
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Port au Port.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: It being 4:30 on Thursday afternoon we now move to the adjournment debate.
The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to rise to follow up on some questions I asked last Friday to the President of Treasury Board on negotiations with the RNC. This afternoon after we placed our questions up there the hon. the minister got up and made some pre-candidate leadership speech and he has been bashing the RNC. The record could show that the Member for Exploits spent the last forty-five minutes bashing the RNC in this Legislature. That is what the record should show. That is what the members of the RNC should know. Because as the minister knows and as the President of Treasury Board knows, the arbitration award that has been presented clearly shows -
MR. GRIMES: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy on a point of order.
MR. GRIMES: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
I really regret and would like Hansard to show that - and I would not want to be misunderstood on this issue. I understood that the hon. member, in getting ready to ask his question about the status of negotiations with the RNCA, has used the word bashing in terms of my commentary. He is partially correct. I was trying to bash the Opposition. I have every sympathy for the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association and its members and respect their work -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: - and we will deal with the issue. The bashing that was described was aimed at the members opposite. I am sure they have taken it in the manner it was intended.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.
No point of order.
The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Let the record show that the arbitration award written by Dr. Scott talks about changes in the bargaining climate. In the written text it talks about the misapplication of the process of negotiations. It says the government confuses its role: the role of legislator, the role of employer, and the role of fiscal manager.
Mr. Speaker, this particular arbitration award clearly shows that the government did not enter into collective bargaining in a fair and reasonable manner, because the government came to the bargaining in bad faith. It says that they went into bargaining with the idea: We do not have to bargain seriously because we have the ace card, we can select what we want, we do not have to select what we do not want, because the legislation says we can do that.
What Dr. Scott says clearly in the text here is that the government in bargaining with the RNCA entered into it insincerely and misapplied the collective bargaining process granted to the RNCA under legislation. That is what this record says. It says there is a very poor atmosphere, and it appears to be because government is dependent on its legislative authority to select what it wants and is therefore causing the RNC to come into bargaining, to get expertise in.
The RNCA spent $75,000 of their memberships' money trying to bargain with this government. What did they get for it? They were told: No, we will take what we want, we will disregard what we do not like, because that is the way that we do things.
That is the issue here. That was the core of the questions I asked last Friday. Of course, as the members of this House readily know, these questions were not answered by the minister. She fluffed them off and did not give any commentary whatsoever that was meaningful or helpful in the collective bargaining process.
We say to the government that it is time for the government to become very much aware of when you have commentaries which denounce it in an independent arbitrator's report which says that this government did not treat the RNCA fairly in the bargaining process. That is what this says here very clearly. It says in fact that the bargaining relationship was not positive. That is why we have today out there a group of RNCA officers who are saying they have not been treated properly.
I say to the minister it is time for the minister to try to reach a settlement with the RNCA. Read the text, I ask the minister, of what Dr. Scott is saying. Before that, go back to what the former arbitrator, Mr. Michael Fisher, had to say back in 1991. If you read that you have to come to the conclusion that the RNCA want to participate fairly in collective bargaining. They want it to be meaningful, a process put in place.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. H. HODDER: They are saying that the power should not rest with the government. Government cannot be judge and jury at the same time.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In response to the Member for Waterford Valley, I would like to tell him and hon. members of this House that government did not overturn the full award for the RNCA. Government modified the award and the standby rates only. In fact, the salary settlement and standby rates imposed were consistent with other contracts. I would like to remind the member opposite that on April 15, 1986 the PC government provided a letter committing to binding arbitration but it was never implemented.
I would like to say to the member opposite that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act could be reviewed for a possible alternate dispute resolution mechanism and government is willing to consider this.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to re-ask the Premier the question I asked him on Friday re school reform.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?
MS S. OSBORNE: That is the "if" one, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Twillingate & Fogo brought that up. Because I have here a news release that came from the Premier's office Monday, February 8. This is with no disrespect to the member. I am quoting the news release:
Tobin said: I believe education reform is the most important thing our government has done in this Province. I won't see the benefits of education reform lost because of division within the community. He added: Our members are elected to reflect the views of their constituents. If - Mr. Speaker, I F - those views are in conflict with some of the recommendations of the Avalon East School Board then we will act accordingly to ensure that there is, at the end of the day -
MR. GRIMES: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I have to confess to not knowing all the rules but maybe you might use this instance to instruct me further on the rules of the Legislature.
My recollection is, that question was asked about a week-and-a-half ago. I am trying to check and see, for clarification, whether the giving of the notice for the Late Show is in this current week, meaning the Monday to the Thursday, or does the week go back seven days on the calendar? Just for clarification, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
To the point of order, my understanding of the rule is that Thursday is the day for the Late Show and hon. members, after that, during the rest of the week, would be able to give notice of any question during the time intervening between Thursday and Thursday of the following week. The question would be in order.
There is no point of order.
MR. GRIMES: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am always eager to learn. I appreciate the clarification.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is funny, when we are getting to the point, how we are interrupted so rudely, isn't it?
MR. GRIMES: Get to the point. You have been up for two-and-a-half minutes.
MS S. OSBORNE: The point is -
MR. GRIMES: You're starting to sound like Harvey Hodder.
MS S. OSBORNE: That is a compliment. Thank you.
I will go back to continue my quoting from the press release of February 8 - that was the day before the election - when the "if" was used: If those views are in conflict with some of the recommendations of the Avalon East School Board, then we will act accordingly to ensure that there is, at the end of the day, a community consensus. That is a commitment I give today without hesitation. That is the end of the quote.
My question on Friday was based around that news release. What I asked was not for intervention now but, at the end of the day - that is, when the time is up and the Avalon East School Board have given in -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS S. OSBORNE: The Premier said "if" - to the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo - not me. Now, if I could be allowed to continue.
The question that I asked the Premier was: If - the same if - those views are in conflict with some of the recommendations, if the views of the people of St. John's West - the views of the people, as referred to in the news release - are in conflict with some of those recommendations - the recommendations of the Avalon East School Board - for reorganization in St. John's West; if the views of the people in St. John's West are in conflict with the recommendations, will you intervene, without hesitation, to see that the people in the District of St. John's West are satisfied?
That was my question; not intervene now. I want to make it perfectly clear to the Premier, I do not want him to intervene now. I want him, at the end of the day, as he promised: without hesitation, if, at the end of the day, the views are in conflict with the views of the people - this is what was said in the news release - then will you intervene, without hesitation, as you promised on February 8, one day before the provincial election in this Province?
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Well, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the hon. member has answered her own question by quoting from the press release, because I stand by what I said in the press release.
MR. J. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to inform the Premier and the Minister of Health, if she is still here, that it is okay to go outside now; there are only six nurses left.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Today in my questions, I was not satisfied with the response. I asked the Premier of the Province if he feels that - he stated during the campaign that more nurses would be hired. I just asked a simple question. If more nurses need to be hired, and we knew it on February 4 and prior to that, why wasn't there a statement in the Budget that said we should hire more nurses?
I understand what the Premier said this morning, quite clearly. I admit that casualization versus permanent is an issue for the negotiating table. It is an issue of concern, and it is a union-based issue, but I feel that the hiring of nurses in this Province to take care of the people who are sick is an issue that can be dealt with and should be dealt with by government on an annual basis and in this Budget. It is not a collective bargaining issue as such, I would say that.
If we needed more nurses - according to the Premier's logic, if we get an agreement for the next three or four years with nurses, we cannot discuss hiring nurses for the next three or four years. To me, that is not logic. The question was not answered appropriately in that regard. I feel there is a responsibility by government to address the problem.
I am sure the Premier knows quite well, as well as everybody else - and certainly being personally connected to people in the health care system - when you go to hospitals today, you almost have to bring your family. There are not enough nurses in hospitals. Almost every patient today in hospital is an acute care patient and they need extra attention. We cannot go on the ratio of nurses that we had before. There is no comparison to the level.
What is going on in hospitals is atrocious, and not only the nursing aspect. All they have time to do is to drop in, pass out medication, back again to another room, back to their desk. They are run off their feet, basically.
A lot of going to the hospital today do not want to ask for a nurse because they have so much sympathy for how hard they are working and how much they are overworked. That is one question I asked that was not correctly answered. He did give a commitment to the people of the Province during the election, and he said: We have the money. I have asked: Why did we not hear it on Monday of this week?
I am really disappointed, to be honest with you, that I did not hear - when the Premier admitted that we so urgently need these new nurses, he is convinced that we do, and he stated that publicly seven weeks ago - why we did not have it announced Monday in this Budget. I think it should have occurred, and it should have been nurses.
If they wanted to discuss further at the negotiating table, new nurses and so on, there is nothing wrong with it. I am saying that the need was there seven weeks ago. In fact, I think the need was there seven years ago, to be honest with you. It was there seven years ago. We have not have it and we should have. It would have been a leap in good faith to the people, the nurses around the bargaining table, to say: Look, here are a few hundred more nurses out there now.
It would have enhanced, I think, discussions around the negotiating table. I think it would have gained some favour with the public out there that are not, I can tell you, supporting the government stand, from what I hear, at all. It would have been a very positive gesture that has to be fulfilled. To hold it back and say: Well, we will negotiate and give you so many more nurses...
You do not give nurses more nurses. You give sick people more nurses, people to take care of the needs of the people, and that is not being done. I was not satisfied with the answer to my question on that.
I asked the Premier a simply question: Is it necessary to have nurses hired to improve health care? Yes, or not? Is it necessary to have nurses hired? He did not answer it first. He did come back after and admit, a little later: Yes, it is important to hire nurses to improve health care.
I said: If it is necessary, that nurses are an important part of the health care system, why didn't you do it in the Budget? That is my simple question. I was not, as he said, making any remarks to grandstand because there were nurses in the gallery. I passionately believe in these issues, and I raise them almost every day. I have been here and raised them. I believe in them. I have listened to too many stories about people and their hardships, and what is happening there.
A person called me yesterday evening who has been, I can tell you, on morphine for almost seven weeks. She has a disk out of place in her back, had a CAT scan - had to go in an ambulance to the hospital to get a CAT scan - had to go in an ambulance to get an MRI, she was so sick. I said: Go to the emergency department. The surgeon said she needed surgery. I said: Go there. You cannot go on morphine for seven weeks.
Those types of things are happening out there. I have hundreds. I am swamped with calls on it. There are days when I get twenty calls alone on health care, not counting my regular forty or fifty constituent calls - impossible - around the clock trying to keep pace just getting back to people who have problems.
I am sure the rest of you must be getting some of them. I am sure I am not the only one hearing those stories out there.
All I am asking is: Why couldn't you have shown good faith and stood - and I really expected the Minister of Finance to read out that we are going to be hiring another couple of hundred, or whatever the figure was -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SULLIVAN: - nurses in the Province, not because nurses want them around the bargaining table but because the people need them and the health of our Province depends upon it. That is not too much to ask.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has just asked a question about the number of nurses.
AN HON. MEMBER: The former Leader.
PREMIER TOBIN: Oh, I am sorry! The former Leader of the Opposition, the Government House Leader, has asked a question about the number of nurses, or the provision for the number of nurses, contained in the Budget, and the Opposition House Leader has asked: Why did government not make a specific provision in the Budget setting out the number of nurses - new hires or for that matter casuals, I suppose, either one - that would be converted to permanent positions, that government wants to see in the system.
The Opposition House Leader has asked: Why did we not do that? The simple reason we did not do that is that these items have been raised by nurses themselves as matters that they want to discuss at -
MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).
PREMIER TOBIN: I say to the Opposition House Leader, he should take the time to check. I assure him he will find out that this is correct, that they have raised these items as important items, critical items, for this round of negotiations.
The Opposition House Leader will recall that all during the election campaign nurses repeatedly said, and on occasion angrily said, when asked a question: Is this about money? No, this is not just about money. This is also about the quality of health care, and the quality of health care is affected by the number of nurses available to work within the system. We want to address the number of nurses because the number of nurses affects workload, affects stress levels and ultimately affects the question of patient care.
Mr. Speaker, nobody on this side, nobody in the House, wants to be in a situation where there is a strike in the health care system; and, in particular, where there is a strike by nurses. The easiest thing in the world for this government to do, for all the members on this side to do, is simply to say yes to whatever the wage demand is. Then, I assume, that NAPE will come in and CUPE will come in and say: Wait a minute, you gave more to nurses than you gave to us. That is not fair because you told us that was all there was, no more could be had. We had to make a decision to go on strike or not. We ultimately looked at you and believed you. We negotiated the best deal we could and we settled.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
PREMIER TOBIN: May I finish?
Mr. Speaker, on this side, we could stand up and say: Well, we are going to do something more for nurses; because that would be a popular and pleasant thing to do. We would not have nurses in the gallery and we would not have nurses on the picket line.
Mr. Speaker, there is a reason Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest per capita debt in Canada. There is a reason. Out of a budget of $3.5 billion, $500 million a year goes to pay just the interest on the debt. It does not pay down the debt one dollar. It does not pay down the debt ten cents. More than $500 million a year goes just to pay the interest on Newfoundland and Labrador's credit card. After health care and after education the single biggest expenditure for the people of this Province, on our collective credit card, is paying the interest on the credit card. It does not reduce the obligations on the credit card a single dollar. It only makes the interest payment.
Mr. Speaker, all of us in this House - and I understand the nature of an adversarial relationship. I have been in Opposition. I was on occasion, once or twice, scrappy in Opposition myself. We all understand the role we have to play. It's the Opposition's role to hold us accountable, it's the Opposition's role to ask questions, it's the Opposition's role to probe, it's the Opposition's role to challenge.
It is also the role of the Opposition, and in particular a member, as was the case with the Member for Ferryland, who aspired to be premier of the Province. The Member for Ferryland held himself out, as he should, had a right to, to be the premier of this Province, to pull together a Cabinet, to pull together a team, and to govern Newfoundland and Labrador. It is also our role and responsibility to look seriously at the circumstances of this Province and ask ourselves what we can afford to do.
Because every decision we make today in this House obligates future generations of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. There is a reason that this generation has $8 billion of debt to manage, because past generations of legislatures left it to us. There is a reason that the taxpayers in 1999 spend more than $500 million a year paying the interest on the debt because previous generations built it up.
Whether we intend to be here, any one of us, for a long time, or whether we acknowledge, as all of us should acknowledge, that we are temporary custodians of the public trust, all of us on both sides, if we recognize that and if we have a conscience, we have to make decisions not that are easy on ourselves right now - and the easy decision now is to say yes to everybody -, we have to make decisions that give our children, and our children's children, an opportunity to have a better society. That is what we are doing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LUSH: Point of order.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
MR. LUSH: I probably could introduce this item on a point of privilege but I am not going to do that. I am just going to make a point of order.
I refrained from doing it at the point when the galleries were filled. I should remind hon. members that the rules of Parliament are designed so that we can carry on our business in an expeditious and civil manner, and with dignity and propriety.
I've told hon. members before that our routine proceedings demonstrate to us that in the first section of these routine proceedings - Statements by Ministers, Oral Questions, Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees, Notices of Motions, Answers to Questions for which Notice has been Given, and Petitions - none of these items are open for debate. That is for a real reason. A debate only takes place when there is a motion.
I bring to hon. member's attention Petitions. Petitions fall in that line. The reason why Petitions are not open for debate is to introduce some civility to the House, to stop from playing to the galleries. A petition is suppose to have language that is moderate, it is supposed to be introduced, it is supposed to be addressed to the House of Assembly, and it is supposed to be a prayer, not to have provocative language.
The petition introduced today by the Opposition House Leader broke every rule in the book, and I believe hon. members should ensure that this does not happen again. As I said, it could be a point of privilege. My privileges were breached. All privileges of members here were breached.
The letter starts off with: Dear Member. It does not start off with: To the House of Assembly. It starts off with: Dear Member. I assume it is addressed to any member, a form letter that went to anybody. It condemns the government. Just listen now to some of the words: being an abuse of the democratic process, make a mockery of collective bargaining, be an insult to nurses. All very provocative words to use in a very sensitive time when the galleries were full.
Bringing in a item, a letter, under false pretences. It was not a petition, Mr. Speaker, and I would submit it broke every rule in the book.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LUSH: As I have said, I could make it a point of privilege, but I am not going to. My submission is this: That the petition was out of order and that the member was out of order in presenting it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
To that point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will do a part of that in a minute too. I do apologize for not discussing it beforehand. I apologize for that. I received a petition that was passed to me immediately.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: I will do it anytime. I received a covering letter that said: Please present the following petitions to the House of Assembly, and I passed in that letter with it. I probably should have done it beforehand but I received a letter, and had I a chance to look at it, to be honest with you, I would have. There is no excuse.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Could you let me finish? They asked me to present it.
We agree here in this House before that if petitions sometimes - people fill them out all over the Province and they are not properly worded. We figured, and we said in this House - it was my understanding, and you can correct me if I am wrong - that we should not prevent the people from being heard just because they did not word the petition in the proper order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SULLIVAN: That was stated here in this House, and it was the understanding - wait until I am finished.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I gave the member an opportunity to make the point and I would like to have the opportunity to respond.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: If I misinterpreted what the House said before -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
It is now 5:00 p.m. Can we stop the clock at 5:00 p.m.?
MR. SULLIVAN: We ask that the clock be stopped until we finish and have an opportunity to respond to the statement.
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.
MR. SULLIVAN: It is my understanding, and I am sure that members on the other side - if I interpreted you wrong, I apologize, but my understanding was that this House would accept petitions that were not properly worded because we did not want to deny the people the right to present petitions because the people do not always know how they should be worded.
I know of communities that sent in petitions, and it was my understanding that the House would accept them.
AN HON. MEMBER: You are stretching it now.
MR. SULLIVAN: No, I am not stretching it. If anyone thinks different, I will give them an opportunity and I ask the former Government House Leader. That was my understanding, that we would not deny petitions that did not have the correct wording.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: I agree, it is not a properly worded petition. I admit that. It is not properly worded. I also admit that the people who presented it thought it was a petition because, on the letter I tabled, it said, present the petition.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: If I had seen it before I would have. I would have done a sheet and asked them to change it.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The point that the hon. Member for Terra Nova has raised is indeed a very valid and important one. That is why the Chair, at the end of the petitions that were presented today, did intervene and remind hon. members that in the past we have had concerns about the presentation of petitions here in this Assembly, and that we had asked for hon. members to clear with the officers at the Table any petitions that were presented to this House.
There are two concerns: one, that the hon. Member for Terra Nova raised, and that is that petitions are not in the proper form. That is one. On occasions when petitions have not been in the proper form, members of this House have granted leave to a member who did have a petition to present that was not in proper form; but a very, very important point is the language of a petition. That is why we ask hon. members, when presenting a petition to this House, to have it checked by the Table officers to see, (1) that it is in proper form and; (2) that the language is not offensive to the members of this House.
Again I will repeat what I had asked members to do before, and that is to present the petitions, clear it with the Table before any petition is presented in this House. Otherwise the Chair will have to intervene, if it has not been checked by the members, and disallow the petition.
The hon. the Opposition House Leader, a point of order.
MR. SULLIVAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
So all petitions, even if they are properly worded - it is my understanding now - have to go through the Chair before they can be presented to this House? Even if they are in the proper terminology? We cannot stand in our place any more and present...
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: That is my interpretation of what the Speaker said, even if they are written out, "legislative assembly convened", a direct petition to the House.
Regardless of how the public would word a petition - the public may put it in the right form, the right order, but the words might be a little harsh - does that mean that petition cannot be presented? I think we need to know this, because that means we cannot stand in our place and present to this House petitions that come to us properly worded but may have strong language. We need to know that. I think that is something we have to have clarified here.
MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: I think that what I heard Your Honour say is that - the Standing Orders are quite clear on this, 1994. It sets out the form of a petition.
The Member for Terra Nova was just simply saying that this petition was improperly worded; in fact, was not even a petition. The Opposition House Leader acknowledged that, that it was not a petition. Now he has been in the House for five or six years. He has been a Leader of the Opposition for a number of years. He knows the rules. He has been around for a long time. He knows, and knew full well - that is why he apologized - that was out of order.
What you are saying, Your Honour, today was anybody who has any doubt, check with the Table. That is very simple. Check with the Table to see if your petition is in order. We obviously know if it is in order, but if you have any problems or you are not sure if it is in order, check with the Table.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I just want to clarify. What the Chair is saying is that when a member presents a petition to this House, if it is not in proper form, members have asked for leave. If a member knows that a petition is not in the proper form and he asks for leave, then on any occasion members have been willing to give leave. What I am saying here is that if the language of that particular petition is offensive, then the Chair will certainly not permit the petition to be presented.
What I am asking is the cooperation of members of this House in the presentation of petitions, so that we do not get into points of order and points of privilege, to clear - this is a very simple request - with the Table, before presenting the petition, petitions that they have. Okay? I am just asking for your cooperation on that.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Friday, at 9:00 a.m.