The House met at 9:00 a.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Before we begin our routine proceedings, the Chair would like to welcome to the gallery today fourteen Level III students from Fitzgerald Academy in English Harbour West, accompanied by their teachers Mr. Allan Spencer and Mr. Carl Langdon.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today in order to inform all hon. members that government has recently negotiated two more collective agreements. Thirty signed agreements are currently in place covering in excess of 30,000 workers. This represents 85 per cent of government's workforce. These two agreements were reached through the collective bargaining process and both provide for a wage settlement of 7 per cent over thirty-nine months, as with all other collective agreements.
Negotiations of a new collective agreement for the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association in Labrador West have produced a basis for a tentative agreement which the parties will be presenting to their principals for acceptance.
The negotiating committees are confident that they have reached a settlement covering approximately 120 teachers in Labrador West. Both the NLTA and the school board will be consulting with their principals prior to confirming that a tentative agreement has been reached.
I am also delighted to announce that the Avalon West School Board has reached a tentative agreement with their support staff. These 246 employees are represented by the Newfoundland Association of Public Employees. The school board feels confident the NAPE negotiation committee will be successful in presenting their deal to the membership.
Mr. Speaker, this government has moved forward on collective bargaining with many of the public sector unions. It must be recognized, however, that to reach agreement good faith negotiation from both sides of the bargaining table is required. As we continue the collective bargaining process, I am confident that we will reach agreements with the other unions that have outstanding contracts with government.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to say that it is good news to hear that we have reached those agreements. However, Madam Minister, we know that when you say here - I just want to point out a word - you are talking about the school board taking it to their principal, I hope they take it to their teachers, the rank-and-file. I know that is only a play on words here, but we want to say as well that we say to you today that this is part of the bargaining process that is good. Of course, that has been done for a while in one case, and we know as well that this morning it is designed to deflect attention, to bring some good news.
The real issue is: What are you doing with nurses' negotiations, what are you doing with allied health professionals, where are you going with these, and when do you intend to bargain meaningfully with nurses and with allied health professionals in this Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister's statement this morning underscores the fact that in excess of 90 percent of collective agreements are reached without resort to a strike, and obviously these are two examples of it.
I also note that she talks about in excess of thirty agreements. We have over thirty or forty bargaining units in the public sector because the circumstances of each bargaining unit are different. Good faith negotiations, as the minister speaks of, requires government and both sides to recognize that different bargaining units have different circumstances.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: I ask the minister and the government to use good faith negotiations with the nurses.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.
MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, a new and exciting program will be piloted in secondary schools throughout the Province during the 1999-2000 school year.
The "Regional Economic Development and Schools" project will build links between human resource development and regional economic development. Its primary focus will be on the development of learning modules or local courses that address or reflect regional economic challenges and opportunities.
This innovative program will help make students more aware of local resources, potential development opportunities and possible career options that are available in their communities. The program will help students make those important career choices that will impact their future and, in so doing, help provide them with the educational resources to be leaders for our Province in the global economy.
The Department of Education, through its Program Development Division, will work as a partner in ensuring that these learning modules support and enrich existing curriculum outcomes. Modules will be developed for growth sectors of the economy including information technology, aquaculture, agrifoods and biotechnology.
The successful launch of a project of this type depends on many factors, including the commitment of the partners and stakeholders. Especially remarkable is the creativity and innovation of our teachers, who, working hands-on with children, recognize a need in their community, spark an idea for a project such as this, and seize the opportunity to make a difference in the lives of their students. Projects like this one would not be possible without that first idea, and in many cases it comes from our teachers.
The Department of Education is looking forward to partnering with the Newfoundland and Labrador School Boards' Association, ACOA, school districts, regional economic development boards, and really important are teachers in the development and delivery of this program.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, again this is a fine initiative, of no doubt, which prepares our students to meet the future challenges regarding economic challenges. It is a move in the right direction.
The program again is a very positive one, but I question our ability in our system to action such a program. It wasn't just a few short days ago that 182 teachers were taken out of the system, and this is another project that is placed on their backs. I am wondering, especially in rural Newfoundland - we are getting calls - I am getting calls - throughout the week from rural Newfoundlanders, asking me to put to the minister a question as to the allocation formulas, and begging for more teachers.
Again, this initiative is a very positive one; but again, I say to the minister, the action of these initiatives is the problem.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HEDDERSON: If you are going to take 182 teachers out of the system, let's give it some consideration, please.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I, too, rise in support of this initiative. I think it is a great day for our schools when we move into areas such as this, rather than dealing with subjects that were dealt with when I went to school, like history, ancient history, and all these things. While it is worthwhile and probably has a purpose, I think initiatives of this sort will better prepare students for their future endeavours. I think it will make them more aware of the communities in which we live.
I commend the effort on the part of the minister.
MR. SPEAKER: Order ,please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods.
MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As part of our commitment to the agricultural industry, I would like to inform Members of the House of Assembly of the extension to the Agricultural Safety Nets Agreement. This program will receive a provincial contribution of $800,000 of the federal-provincial cost-shared program worth $2 million.
This program covers a national income stabilization account, crop insurance, including the big game crop insurance loss compensation program, and the Agrifoods Innovation Program. It includes marketing, development and diversification, and human resources development program.
Mr. Speaker, this agreement has already contributed over $6 million to non-supplied managed commodities since 1996. To date we have been concentrating on developing the beef sector, forage and pasture development, the berry industry, fur industry, sheep sectors and vegetables sectors.
Mr. Speaker, we have assisted 200 farms units and will continue to support this sector of our rural economy. Jobs in agriculture are important and can be expanded upon through further development of the industry. The regional economic development boards across the Province have made agriculture a priority, and we have initiated discussions with them directly to assist in their strategic plans.
Mr. Speaker, funds under this agreement will be used for land clearing, land improvement and drainage, improvements to feed efficiency, as well as funds to diversify the industry. This cost-shared program has provided the opportunity for industry diversification, value added, and further processing opportunities.
The Department of Forestry Resources and Agrifoods are presently negotiating with Agriculture and Agrifoods Canada and our provincial counterparts for a new five-year commitment to the Safety Nets Agreement.
In July of 1999, our Province will participate in the federal/provincial agricultural meeting to finalize agreement on future Safety Nets funding. This will create the environment for continued support into the next millennium.
In closing, I would also like to thank the federal government, and in particular the minister, Lyle Vanclief, for his continued support of this program.
Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to continuing diversification of the farm industry as well as assisting farmers in creating new markets.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for forwarding a copy of the Ministerial Statement. I agree with the minister on this very important support statement for the agricultural industry. Agriculture needs to be put on the front burner because it can be a very important contributor to our economy and it needs this support.
This commitment was already stated in the Budget. Why do we have to hear it today with other issues here? I think this government should deal with today's issues today.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement. The agriculture industry in this Province is an underdeveloped industry. We, in the New Democratic Party caucus, support any effort to develop this industry because it has such an important potential, particularly in rural Newfoundland. We can, through the development of the agrifoods industry, replace imports and have a more vibrant economy.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Yesterday, under questioning from the Member for Ferryland, the Premier referred to the hiring of more nurses as a collective bargaining issue.
Premier, it was in the Budget, recently announced, it is government who decides how many employees it takes within the public sector service - whether it be teachers - and decided on teacher allocations, how many teachers will or will not be in the system.
The reality is that in recent weeks, leading up before Budget, you talked about a commitment made to - and understanding the need for more nurses in the system. Will you admit today that this is not a collective bargaining issue, that this is a government priority issue? Will you also admit and live up to the promise made in recent weeks and recent months that it is time to hire more nurses and put them back into the front-line system?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the Leader of the Opposition to the extent that he suggested this is not an issue to be discussed with the representatives of the nurses in the Province, because they have put this issue before us on the collective bargaining table and want to understand not only what the wage and compensation issues are going to be at the end of the process but also how the workload issues are going to be addressed.
The nurses' union and nurses themselves have said, and said repeatedly, that the issues that they have brought to the collective bargaining table and now the issues that they are striking over are not just salary issues. I can confirm, that is true.
They have asked to discuss workload issues; and government, out of respect for the process, rather than unilaterally saying in the Budget that this is what we are going to do in the area of workload - it is announced, that is the end of the discussion, we are not going to hear from anybody else - we set aside that issue. We said as such on Budget day. We said that those numbers would ultimately be determined and would become known when we finish the collective bargaining process with nurses.
The talks, as you know, are scheduled to resume again today at 12:00 noon. There was dialogue, primarily through a conciliator, yesterday between 10:00 a.m. and about 6:00 p.m. Both teams then took a break and will back today at about 12:00 noon, and we will see what progress is being made.
The issue of permanents, and the issue of conversion of casuals to permanents, is very much at the table and we are going to respect the process at the table and not unilaterally make a determination on those issues.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, putting enough people in the system, determining what is required to run an effect health care system for everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador and putting enough people in it in terms of hiring of individuals, in this case more front line nurses, while it may be an issue in terms of collective bargaining with respect to casualization and permanence, the reality is - the Premier knows it, government knows it - government has it within its control. It does it for all other professions that they control, all other professions where it is government's responsibility to deliver effective public services.
Again, Premier, leave the collective bargaining process for a second. Why is it that government cannot today stand up and say: We will be putting x number of new nurses in the system to correct what has happened over the past several years, to put more people in the front line system so every Newfoundlander and Labradorian can enjoy a higher level of health care services in this Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, before this process is over that is exactly what we will be doing. We will be putting more people back into the system. I have said already that part of the discussion, as part of the negotiation we have had, government has put a position on the table that has dealt with the issue of permanents, that has dealt with the issue of casuals, and that has dealt with compensation. I am not going to reveal what any of that was. I note that the nurses' union has also respected the confidentiality of the collective bargaining table. We will continue to do that in terms of its detail. All I can say to the Leader of the Opposition is that all of these matters are being discussed, and being discussed at the request of the nurses' union.
I think if I were to take the advice of the Leader of the Opposition and to stand and unilaterally say: This is it, these are the numbers, that is all we are going to do, and do it in isolation of the collective bargaining table, I think I would shatter any chance that remains, and I hope a chance remains -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
PREMIER TOBIN: I say to members opposite, you know, the strike process regrettably, on occasion, does occur, but the strike process does not prevent the parties from ultimately reaching agreement at the collective bargaining table. On this side of the House we remain hopeful that we can negotiate a settlement. I hope that is what the other side of the House wants as well, a negotiated settlement. I believe it is what nurses want and I continue to believe it is what the nurses' union wants.
When there is a strike there are tensions, there is no question about it. It is difficult for everybody, on every side, but you do not solve the issues ultimately and you do not find agreement ultimately if unilaterally, before the process has exhausted itself, one side or the other says publicly this -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
PREMIER TOBIN: I am answering a question. If one side or the other says: These are the numbers, we have determined it by ourselves, we are not interested in determining it at the collective bargaining table. If we were to do that today I can tell you we would end the process of negotiation, and quite rightly end the process of negotiation.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, cheap public relation campaigns in the middle of collective bargaining is what shatters the process, Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Inflammatory comments during the collective bargaining process are what shatters the opportunity for resolution. Make no mistake that members on this side of the House, within our caucus, want what every Newfoundlander and Labradorian wants: a successful conclusion, fair and equitable treatment for health care workers, which means better treatment for all of us should we need the system when we need it.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier talks about should he follow the advice of the Leader of the Opposition. Putting more people, determining more front line workers, is not a collective bargaining issue. Government does it with teachers, it does it with social workers, it does it in every spectrum of the public service. Will the Premier live up to the commitment he made in recent weeks which says he understands, finally, that more nurses are needed? He will not collectively bargain in public, which he said during the election, but he did acknowledge that more nurses were needed in the front line system. Will he live up to that commitment today? Won't he admit that in doing so it may go a long way in bringing a resolution to the ongoing strike right now?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have said for some time - and I was particulary impressed with the dialogue, and there was dialogue and discussion many times during the course of the last election campaign, in which I listened to what nurses were saying - I was absolutely convinced at the end of the process that many of the people who were talking to me were working under very stressful conditions. I was convinced, by physically what I saw in the faces of the nurses that I talked to, that workload stress is real. The people who were talking to me were exhausted in many cases, very stressed, and in need of having additional people, professionals, working beside them to reduce some of the stress levels, and that they were being genuine when they said they were concerned not only about their own circumstance but about patient care and the quality of patient care. I was convinced of all those things.
That is why government is prepared during the course of this negotiation to address that issue, and we have addressed that issue. I am going to see to it that if we can find a negotiated settlement that the issues of permanents and casuals are addressed at the negotiating table. I am not going to stand - it is in my mind wonderful theatrics for the Leader of the Opposition - and unilaterally say: These are the numbers, and I am going to announce it today away from the negotiating table.
Because you know what would happen then? The Leader of the Opposition would probably get what he wants, an opportunity for political advantage. He would get a strike that would definitely go on and an end to any possibility of a negotiated settlement. The Leader of the Opposition should take a more responsible approach when the health care system of Newfoundlanders is at risk as it is today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: If the assertion by the Premier was not so serious it might be laughable. I am not going to take any advice from him. I can tell you this, that the Leader of the Opposition, myself, what I said three, four, five or six weeks ago I would be living up to today in this Assembly, unlike you sir. That is the difference.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: I want to ask you this. More than ever before, I think it is obvious to everyone, that our hospitals are becoming acute care facilities with high patient turnover as hospital stays decrease and long-term patients are shifted elsewhere or moved to more home care.
This shift to acute care places more and different demands on health care workers, nurses and every other worker within the system. Yet government has not given and not lived up to the commitments made recently to put more people back into the system, which is again not part of the collective bargaining process. Premier, it is time to take a more holistic approach in your efforts to restructure the health care system.
When are you going to realize that the changing nature of our facilities may bring with it, and does in fact bring with it, the need for more front line health care workers for changes in the responsibilities that go with that shift?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I and members of this government realize, and indeed every member I hope of the House, certainly all members on this side, realize that we do need more permanent positions in the health care system and need more of the casuals converted to permanent. We understand that and that is going to happen, but I am not going to stand here unilaterally and dictate what those numbers are away from the negotiating table. That is what we are at the negotiating table for. If the Leader of the Opposition wanted to help rather than hinder the process of negotiation he would understand that.
It is perfectly fine for the Leader of the Opposition to make his points to say that he supports that point of view, to say that he wants to see more permanent positions, to say that he wants to see more to see more conversions of casual to permanent. If he really wanted to help the negotiation process and to see us get an settlement, he would be asking me to listen to what Debbie Forward is saying at the negotiating table and to respect some of the views being stated there, rather than telling me to unilaterally decide the issues today in the House of Assembly. That is not the voice of someone seeking a settlement. That is the voice of someone trying to profit from conflict!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible), Mr. Speaker, what is transparent is your ability to say one thing on one day and do something completely different the next.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: That is what is transparent, Premier. I listened intently this morning, prior to coming into the House, to what the President of the nurses' union had to say on the front steps of the Confederation Building. I hope you did as well.
I would like to ask the final question before we move on to other questions by other questioners. Again Premier, the collective bargaining process is taking care of itself. The reality is that you can determine - as you do with teacher allocations, as you do with social workers, everything else - and government can set as a priority as it does with everything else how many more people are needed in the system. Why won't you stand and do that today?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I find the position that is being taken - I have already said it, so there is no point repeating it - to be totally at variance with the process of collective bargaining.
The Leader of the Opposition wants to have it every which way. On the issue of the RNC settlement, which was for 14 per cent, the Opposition party said they supported the 14 per cent. We have asked the Opposition party whether they agree with the principle that if you give 14 per cent to one group of public employees, do you give it to all other groups of public employees? Because it is the government's position that you treat everybody fairly.
I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition, if you give everybody in the public service an amount of compensation or increase equal to that which the Opposition say they support for the RNC, the annualized cost to the wage bill of this Province is $119 million a year. That is $600 million more over the next five years. It is $1.2 billion more over the next decade. To raise that amount of money we would have to raise personal income taxes by 15 per cent or we would have to borrow it.
Of course we have to give fair compensation to our employees but we have to cost it. We have to understand that in order to raise huge amounts of money you either raise taxes or you increase the debt. Now everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador understands that we have to be fair to the people who work for us, but we have also to spend within our means. The Leader of the Opposition cannot have it both ways, saying: I support every demand by every group for any amount of money and, by the way, my party stands for tax decreases. You cannot have it both ways, sir, you have to stand one day and be responsible. Be responsible!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: I was interested to hear the comment from the Minister of Mines and Energy while I was up a few seconds ago saying: But have you listened to nurses? I watched him come in the front door, see the crowd, hightail it around to the back door. Have you listened to nurses, sir?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
To set the record straight, because this is a very serious issue, I parked in front of the building today. The nurses were having part of a rally and a demonstration. As a matter of fact, from my old roots I almost joined in the song - solidarity forever - out of force of habit. I tried to get up the steps. I got to the back of the group. There was no parting of the way, so I just walked around the back, said good morning to everybody I met on the way along, and came in the back door and did not disrupt the event.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
No point of order.
A final supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: The Premier has raised the notion of 7 per cent.
PREMIER TOBIN: Why don't you answer the question?
MR. E. BYRNE: I am about to.
PREMIER TOBIN: Good.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: He raised the notion of 7 per cent. Out in the scrum area yesterday, when questioned about the compensation issue, his response was - and listen to the words: We are not going to offer anything too radically at variance with what we have offered to all the other public sector unions.
What does that mean, really? Now, when I hear the statements made by the Premier I think about settlements government made with physicians - 22 per cent, 23 per cent. I think about the settlements government has made with our judges, with water bomber pilots, with Marine Institute employees, all above that. Premier, why is government undermining collective bargaining in the Province and dealing in bad faith by setting artificial standards for most and not for some that prevent agreements from being reached at the bargaining table?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, those who are listening carefully now see the Leader of the Opposition having been challenged to stand in this place - it is a very quite House, it is a very full House, it has many visitors here - being asked to stand and say what he would offer in a wage settlement, and whether or not he is going to stand behind his party's position that if the RNC is given 14 per cent that 14 per cent should be awarded; and whether or not it is his party's position that if 14 per cent is good enough for the RNC, is it good enough for nurses? If it is good enough for nurses, is it good enough for NAPE? If it is good enough for NAPE, is it good enough for CUPE?
If it is good enough for all of them it is going to cost, annually, another $119 million. All I want is a yes or no. Would you award that wage increase? If so, where would you find the $600 million over the next five years? We are all waiting for an answer. Stand up and give us one!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition cannot hide. The whole House is watching and waiting. Stand and give us an answer to the question!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services.
There are eight institutional boards in this Province and only three of these boards have dialysis units. Consequently, people all over this Province who need dialysis three times a week have to move residence and relocate to Corner Brook, Grand Fall-Windsor or here in St. John's. This is devastating on patients, particularly elderly people who have spent sixty years, seventy years and even eighty years in their own communities, and must now pull up roots. Some of these people lives are dramatically effected and they never cope with the change, not to mention the financial hardships imposed on them.
I ask the minister: Why can't funding be provided to enable people on the Northern Peninsula under the Grenfell board and people under a peninsula's board avail of such services in St. Anthony and Clarenville, for example?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the member asked the question about why we cannot find funding. I have asked the question of the current Leader of the Opposition, and now I am going to ask the question of the former Leader of the Opposition, whether or not it is the position of the Opposition Party - because they have endorsed a 14 per cent wage settlement for the RNC -, do they support a 14 per cent wage settlement for nurses? If they support it for nurses, do they support it for NAPE? If they support it for NAPE, do they support it for CUPE? Do they realize that is $119 million more a year, each and every year, for a total of $600 million over the next five years?
If they realize it, will the Leader of the Opposition, now that he has time to think about it, because obviously he has never thought about it before, will he now stand up and give the House, give the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, a clear answer? Because if you want to pay for all these other programs we have to have money to do it, including for dialysis on the Great Northern Peninsula. Will the Leader of the Opposition take a responsible position today in this House?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what we support is a fair and equitable process. Let me ask the Premier this: In negotiations at the bargaining table, was the notion or offer from government about putting nurses back in terms of two-step progression on the table? Yes or no.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I repeat: When the RNC asked the support of the Opposition Party for a 14 per cent wage increase, the Opposition Party said: Yes, we support 14 per cent. The nurses are in the gallery. Do you support 14 per cent more for nurses? Yes or no.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let us be clear. The Premier is trying to spin doctor, so I will be clear with him. Trying to spin doctor, defray, defer. I understand it is a tough day for you, sir.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Let me give it to you straight. The RNC, unlike every other public sector employee, do not have the fundamental right to strike. What this government has failed to do is to provide an appropriate dispute resolution mechanism for that group. That is the reality!
The answer with respect to the RNC is that we have to put in place a process that is fair, that allows them - because they do not have the fundamental right to strike - that should be determined, as it is federally with the RCMP, by an independent arbitrator. That is our position. Let an independent arbitrator decide.
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the nurses, I am not going to stand in my place like you have in your place and set a standard, and say: This is it, take it or leave it, my way or the highway. If we were in your position today we would be negotiating in good faith with the public sector employees of this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, it is very comforting to know that the Leader of the Opposition would not stand in his place when it comes to the number of nurses and say: This is it, my way or the highway, when that is what he has been asking me to do all morning in Question Period, to set a number today away from the negotiating table!
You cannot have it both ways. You cannot the practice the politics of convenience and you cannot practice partisanship trying to seek advantage out of misery and out of conflict. We are negotiating in good faith. We shall continue to do so at the bargaining table, not in this House of Assembly, where your empty rhetoric has just been exposed for the empty rhetoric that it is.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
A final supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
If there is anybody that should not stand in this House and dictate or chastise anybody for practising the politics of convenience it is this Premier sitting right there who would say anything and do anything at any time for convenience.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: Sir, when will you live up to the commitments you made during the election campaign? When will you stand in your place and say and admit that your management of the health care system has been flawed, and that what is required are more front line services? Stand in your place, say how much, and acknowledge that that will go a long way in solving the outstanding strike and outstanding dispute right now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has had the entire Question Period, and he will have an opportunity after Question Period, to give an answer to the questions I have asked. I will predict he will continue not to give an answer. Because he has not thought through this position of supporting everybody everywhere every time without adding up the consequence of doing that.
He does not know whether, if he supports 14 per cent for the RNC, he also supports 14 per cent for the nurses. He does not know whether NAPE and CUPE, having signed at 7 per cent, whether their contract should be reopened and they should also be given 14 per cent. He does not know what the cost of all that is. I have just told him it is $119 million more a year. He does not know how we would pay for it, and he does not know how to answer.
I have done a survey, and I am going to table this. Of all of the Provinces of Canada, public sector unions, Newfoundland and Labrador is in line or at the top for public sector settlements right across Canada. Mr. Speaker, we want to negotiate, and we are working hard to negotiate a settlement with nurses on jobs, on permanents, on conversion of casuals to permanents, and on compensation.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we will do our best, but I want to table this document which puts us in perspective with respect of the rest of the country, given our ability to pay.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I asked the minister a question. The Premier stood to defend his minister and did not give her permission to speak. I will ask another question.
I spoke with a man in his fifties who has to drive for three hours to St. John's on a Sunday night and back home again on Friday, a person who needs dialysis three times a week. Just last week I spoke with the son of a man from the Northern Peninsula whose eighty-four year old father was devastated with a move to St. John's. He passed away broken-hearted only three weeks after he came here to the city.
His son came to my office with a petition signed by 1,200 people from the St. Anthony area. I understand there are another 1,200 names to follow on this petition, petitioning this government to install a dialysis machine in the St. Anthony area where there are several families in St. Anthony and the surrounding area requiring this service.
I ask the minister: Will she consider giving people who live in rural Newfoundland communities proper access to essential medical services?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am sure the hon. member across the way realizes that we have a population of less than the size of the city of Winnipeg. In this Province we have one unit where we provide cardiovascular surgery, we have one unit where we provide neurosurgery. It is because of the numbers, it is because of the supply, and mostly it is because of the financial ability to pay.
When the numbers warranted we provided a dialysis unit in Central Newfoundland, but it is not just the dialysis unit you need. You need the specialists to go with it and the support system.
What I would say is what I have said for all issues around being able to provide care. When the numbers warrant, if we are able to pay for it, we would consider that like in any other case. It is difficult for people who are receiving dialysis, and it is difficult for their families, but we can only do what we are able to pay for. We cannot make empty promises. We cannot say to people that we are going to provide services everywhere, because we are not able to do it. There is a reason why we have not put a cardiovascular unit in Western Memorial Hospital, and they have been lobbing for it. We cannot afford to do it. We do not have the numbers to do it.
If you ask me why we do not have a neurosurgeon up in the Northern Peninsula it is for the same reason. We have one unit. We have to provide services based on not only our ability to pay, but also on our ability to provide the support systems that are necessary for that type of service.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The one in Central Newfoundland, we raised the issue here in this House when a young man from Grand Falls came to my office a couple of years ago and pressure was put by the public and by people. That is why you put one there. You will never get one if you wait for numbers to warrant it, I say to the minister.
The minister is aware that there are numerous new dialysis machines now being installed in hospitals in this city. They are replacing the ones that are currently being used. I want to ask the minister: Will she confirm that the machines that are currently being used are being given away to other countries - when they replace these - while Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are being denied this service within a reasonable distance from their communities?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I think the question really points out the lack of understanding around - you just do not put a machine in a building and say, come in for dialysis. You have to have specialists.
If you look at the process involved in putting dialysis machines in Central Newfoundland, we had to ensure that we had the proper specialists, nursing staff, to go along with providing the machines.
It is very clear, on much of our machinery - be it dialysis machines, respirators - we have been long known for our response to other countries in giving them equipment when we no longer find it acceptable to use in this environment, maybe because new physicians come in and require different types of machinery. Yes, we constantly give equipment and supplies to Peru and other places, but it is not just about putting a machine there.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I think anybody here listening would understand, if I might have an opportunity to finish, Mr. Speaker -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think anyone here would understand that it takes more than a machine to deliver health care. It requires the proper services and it requires the proper numbers. There is a rationale for making those decisions. You just do not do it because somebody comes in and makes a political statement. It is not how we make decisions. Maybe it is the way the Opposition would make them, but it is not the way we make them.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS J.M. AYLWARD: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services, on a point of order.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very unfortunate that the member across the way would take my response to an answer out of context.
Yes, we give many supplies to many less fortunate countries. The reason we give it is because we try to do our part, as part of a humanitarian service. We are not doing it to the detriment of the people in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
MR. SULLIVAN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.
MR. SULLIVAN: That person is the Minister of Health in Newfoundland and Labrador, not Peru. Your responsibility is to people here in this Province, I say to the minister.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise this morning to present a petition to the House of Assembly. It reads as follows:
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to bargain with nurses in good faith, to be fair to nurses, to provide a better focus on patient care, to address the issue of casualization, to provide a fair and equitable wage and benefits package, and to live up to the commitments given by the Premier on the eve of the election to deal positively and constructively with nurses and their issues. We also urge the Premier and the government to cease and desist from intimidation, truth twisting, and double-meaning promise making.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I have to bring the hon. member's attention to the issue that was raised yesterday regarding petitions. These are inflammatory remarks and the hon. member knows that petitions cannot be presented to this House that are inflammatory in any way, that are offensive to the House.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The process we agreed to yesterday has been followed by this member in presenting this petition to the House. Therefore I say to the House, if there is anything here that is inflammatory, they are not my words. They are words of the people who signed this petition. This petition is signed by nurses who were here in the gallery yesterday. This is their House. It is their right to bring forward their opinions and to have them expressed in this House. The process we agreed to yesterday was followed by this member prior to the presentation of this petition.
Mr. Speaker, I say to the House that I know the process. It was followed and the prayer is right. The wording has been approved. Therefore, I assume I can have the right to continue.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to present his petition?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair finds that the words in it are inflammatory. Members ought to know, and they should know, that they cannot present petitions to this House which contain inflammatory language. I ask the hon. member, and hon. members from here on in, not to use - if the petition is of such a nature that it is inflammatory, that they must not present it in this House.
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, for the words you find inflammatory, I will withdraw them and remove them from the petition. I assume, on clarification, that it is the last sentence of the petition. I will re-read the petition, with leave.
Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to your attention the issues. I cannot do it any better than a poem that was passed to me by Karen Street, a nurse. I have to read it because I will let Karen speak for herself. She wrote as follows:
One time, I smoothed the fevered brow,
I have no time to do that now.
Once, I held the dying hand,
But now, no time - you understand?
I once had time to sit and chat,
No time left now for such as that.
You have a question? - it has to wait,
This man hasn't finished what's on his plate.
I wish he'd hurry; so slow to chew,
When I have so many things to do.
The lady there needs something for pain,
As my beeper rings, and rings again.
Perhaps all she needs is a ready smile -
Mine seems to have disappeared a while.
The man down the hall has wet the bed,
I'm not quick enough, is what he said.
I once had time to stop and talk;
Now I seem to run, not walk.
The paperwork is still not done -
It remains a battle that's never won.
The doctor wants to make a round,
So I find the time that can't be found.
I tell myself I have just two hands,
That try to meet with all demands.
Yet I leave my shift, always wondering about -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. H. HODDER: Those things I've done - and those left out.
Yet I leave my shift, always wondering about
Those things I've done - and those left out.
It seems, at times things go bad to worse;
One time I thought I made a good nurse.
Thanks to Karen Street. She expressed the opinion of nurses in this Province today on the stresses and strains, and what this negotiation is all about.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to support this petition presented by my colleague for Waterford Valley. I do not feel it should have gotten to this point before the concerns of sick people in the Province were addressed, and I am not talking about the concerns of nurses. I am talking about the concerns of sick people in the number of nurses that are put in the system here.
It has been evident by the Premier - he has admitted that - that he sees there is a need to hire new nurses. There was a need on February 4 and on February 5 to hire new nurses. We had a Budget come down just on Monday and it did not address hiring new nurses in the system. That is fundamental. Anybody who visits a hospital, if they have friends or family in hospital, they are overworked, they are stressed out, their sick leave has gone higher, it is difficult to cope with it.
People here with families, too, are being called back on weekends, casual budgets running out in the first week, and calling people back on overtime. It is not cost-efficient. It is not in the best interest of patient care. It is not in the best interest of the health of nurses. That is why 80-some per cent of nurses feel that not only is the health of nurses endangered; in addition to that, the health of patients entrusted to their care is endangered because of an overworked system.
That was done by - I am not sure if it was the Association of Registered Nurses or the nurses' union - I think the ARNN, probably, on the welfare of nurses and the health of nurses.
It is unfortunate that it has gotten to that point. If they were so urgently needed on February 4, why were they not needed on Budget day, and why wasn't it stated in the Budget that they were hiring nurses?
If they want to negotiate and talk about other nurses, to add on, fine, the need is there. It has been identified. The Premier has admitted it. It was fine during an election campaign, in a public forum, but it is not fine enough now on Budget day, that lays out the expenditures for this Province and what we need for health care? We are a public forum - and full page ads - and then telling us we do it around the negotiating table. You pick up a newspaper, The Telegram - what does it cost for a page in The Telegram?
AN HON. MEMBER: Several thousand.
MR. SULLIVAN: Several thousand dollars, and it is good enough to do it in a public forum to intimidate and drive a spike between union leadership and members out there.
It is not working, Premier. It is not working, I can tell you, driving a wedge in public support. It is not working because the public know how hard nurses are working, how hard they are overworked. Anybody coming out of a hospital today will tell you, it is not the quality of care the nurse gives; it is the quantity of care that we have a problem with today. There are not enough on the system.
It should not have come to this. Maybe the Premier underestimated the resolve. Maybe he figured he could play the game and turn the rest of the Province against them. Premier, it is not working. You had better realize it and get this over as quickly as possible and let them get back to work with more numbers, better conditions at work, better care for our patients. Get on with it now and give people in this Province what they want - adequate access and better health care.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think I could speak for members on this side in saying that I think we appreciate the poem that was read by the Member for Waterford Valley. We know of the tremendous stresses and strains that many of our health care providers - in particular, nurses - are feeling.
The problem of finding sufficient resources for health care is not a problem unique to Newfoundland. It is a problem being felt right across this country, in every jurisdiction; in the Province of British Columbia, there with an NDP government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In the Province of British Columbia - the problem of providing sufficient funds for health care. There we have an NDP government that has been very much in the news, and there we had a nurses' work action. The settlement in British Columbia was 0 per cent in the first year, 0 per cent in the second year, 0 per cent in the third year, and a promise of new permanent positions. That is a province with an NDP government.
In the Province of Alberta, a province with a Conservative government, we had work actions within the health care system. In the Province of Ontario, we had work actions in the health care system and representations by nurses; because it is a national problem, trying to find sufficient resources to look after the needs of our health care system.
There is not a member in the House who has not, at some time, through either their own direct experience or through the experience of a family member, appreciated the tremendous contribution that nurses make within the health care system, and the tremendous - beyond the professional care - personal contribution they bring to the bedside in dealing both with those who are sick and in trying to provide a degree of comfort, when time allows it, to family members as well. There is not anybody who does not appreciate that. There are some who can speak very painfully about recent experiences in that regard.
This is not about a lack of appreciation for nurses. To put it in that context is really failing to understand the issue, or failing to debate the seriousness of the issue.
The issue here is, Newfoundland and Labrador is a small Province with small fiscal means. We do not have a big budget. We do not have a $600 million surplus projected over the next five years that we can spend on increased wages. It is an issue of fairness. It is an issue of whether or not we believe, fundamentally, that those who work in the public service ought to be treated fairly. There ought to be some equity in how we treat members of NAPE, members of CUPE, members of the nurses' union, or the teachers who have settled, for example, also at 7 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, if the members opposite really believe - and I would ask them to go away and think about it because I am going to continue to ask the question - that the Province can afford a 14 per cent settlement for everybody, they should say so. If, on the other hand, they believe that the Province can afford 14 per cent for the RNC but we should not give 14 per cent to nurses, they should say so. If, on the other hand, they believe we should give 14 per cent to the RNC and 14 per cent to nurses, but all of those who settled first should be saddled with 7 per cent, they should say so. Because those who say they want to be on this side, those who say they want the responsibility to govern, must also accept the responsibility to make choices. The choices are not easy if you want the responsibility of government rather than enjoying the luxury of simply and only being critics.
I think the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition party, and for that matter the Leader of the NDP - hoping we won't notice him in this regard - have a responsibility, since they want to participate in this debate, since they want to pretend that they have all the answers, to put out an alternate budget; to tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador what they would give nurses, what they would give the RNC, and what they would give the 30,000 others who have already settled. Would you strap them with the contracts they have already signed, or would you give them an additional increase too? If you would, how much? Then, one other important question: How would you pay for it?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, on a point of order.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that I have not been recognized in Question Period for the last six days on his important issue and other issues, I wonder if the House would give leave to allow me to address this petition on this important issue?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Does the hon. member have leave to address the petition?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: No leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise to present a petition on behalf of approximately 200 students at Memorial and their supporters who are petitioning the government with respect to the situation of single parents on social assistance.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I have just been asked to present another petition here.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: I can present two of them if you want.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: I am going to present the students first, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the petition on behalf of the students -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: That petition is from students, too, Mr. Speaker.
The single parents on social assistance going to University are forced to pay back to the government the shelter component, placing extra financial burden on them.
MR. GRIMES: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy on a point of order.
MR. GRIMES: Not to interrupt, Mr. Speaker. Just for clarification - because there is a written record of the proceedings of this House that we all know as Hansard -, the hon. member who is now recognized to present a petition just begged the House, not moment but seconds before, saying that he was deprived of speaking about the most urgent issue in the Province today, which is the nurses. He is now recognized to speak about any issue he wants to bring to the floor. Are we to understand that nurses that he just begged to speak about are not his priority, but his priority is the petition he is now going to present?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of response and responsibility that we have on the government's side of the House. They refused unanimous consent to allow me to speak to the petition that was presented about the most important issue in the Province today. I do not have unlimited petitions in my place to speak about anything I wanted. I was not given leave by him or anybody else to address whatever issue I wanted.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HARRIS: I have a petition to present -
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is on a petition and he ought to keep his comments -
MR. HARRIS: - and I'm presenting it, Mr. Speaker. When that petition is presented, and if I have another petition in my hands to present on the issue of nurses, I will present that one too. If I have another one, I will present that too, and we can go on all morning if the hon. minister wants to sit and listen.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a petition. He ought to keep his remarks -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: I won't go all morning because they will use bully tactics to stop the procedure.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: I know the members opposite do not care about the single parents in university who are forced to live in dire circumstances!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a petition, and I ask him to keep his remarks related to that petition and the material allegations in the petition.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, these petitioners, with my support, are calling on the Minister of Health and Community Services, and the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, to change this discriminatory policy which effectively discriminates against women in our Province, in particular students who are on social assistance who are having their shelter component clawed back from their student loans.
This is a policy which is grossly unfair to students and people on social assistance. In fact, according to a political science professor at Memorial: This policy only serves to further marginalize those who rely on social assistance. The policy is not logical. In a sense you have people on social assistance obviously, for the most part, demonized or marginalized by society, that they are negatively treated, penalized in fact, because they are different, in different circumstances, from students who are not on social assistance.
The single parents at MUN is basically an non-gender organization. The reality is that of the students who are affected by this policy, of the 345 single parent families affected by this policy, 341 of them are single parent families where a woman is the single parent. This is a policy that is aimed at, directed at and has consequences upon single parents who are women and is discriminatory towards them.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: I call on the minister to recognize that this is a discriminatory policy and to insist that her Cabinet colleagues change that policy that discriminates against woman.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to second the petition presented by the hon. member.
Since I have been elected to this House of Assembly, particularly in the fall of 1997, I recall visiting the homes of many of the single parents who are on social assistance who are attending Memorial University or some other post-secondary institution.
At that time I asked the Minister of Human Resources if she would visit the homes and see the humble but very clean homes, and how hard those people were trying; and the position they were put in by money being clawed back from them, how hard they were trying to get out of the system - on the system for so many years - and now trying, under very difficult circumstances, because to be on social assistance in the beginning is not easy for them.
As the member said, they are under very difficult circumstances and this particular policy tends to keep them down. At that time, I can remember, I was so touched by the homes I had visited and how hard these people were trying that I asked the minister would she review this policy. I support this petition again today.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Orders of the Day
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
MR. LUSH: I was waiting for this to raise my point of order. The Minister of Social Services arose but the Speaker probably did not see her. I think she was about to address the petition.
MR. SPEAKER: No, the Chair did not see the hon. minister.
AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a point of order.
MR. LUSH: I am on a point of order. If the House wants to go back and recognize the minister, that is fine. She was standing in her place and I am sure the Speaker did not see her.
MR. SPEAKER: No, the Chair did not see the hon. minister. I am sure we can revert to Petitions if the hon. member wishes to speak.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Petitions.
The hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment.
MS BETTNEY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I simply wanted to respond to some of the factual information that is related to the particular petition that has been presented, and to re-emphasize that when dealing with issues like this there are always difficult choices that have to be made. Certainly, as the Premier has pointed out in his previous comments, when you have to make decisions in government around what kind of policies and what kind of initiatives you can support, there is always a difficulty in trying to choose between these difficult choices as to where you will allocate your resources.
This was a decision that took a great deal of difficulty at the time that we made it in 1997, because we had recognized and really empathized with the efforts and the initiatives of student parents, and particularly single parents, to improve their education so as to increase their chances of becoming employable and being able to become self-sufficient and self-reliant.
We also want to point out however, as we did at the time, that the shelter component of student loans is available to all students, and it is for the purposes of trying to support their living expenses. Student Aid is available to students based on need and on their eligibility. In the case of student parents who are on social assistance, that is duplicated by the social assistance that they receive. In fact, the amount we require for the shelter component was negotiated with the Single Parent Association, with the student parents association, at MUN, so that it could be as little as possible in order to ensure that these parents would be able to retain as much financial assistance as possible.
The amount of social assistance that parents who are attending post-secondary education receive is approximately three times the amount they return through the shelter component. I know that the member opposite understands this, but in addition to this we went to extra efforts to try and accommodate and assist parents who are in this position. Because not only, we know, that single parents who are on social assistance are attending post-secondary education; there are as many student parents at post-secondary institutions in this Province who do not receive social assistance. We tried to put in new programs which would also help them financially as well as parents who are on social assistance. The grants that are provided through the Department of Education and the grants that are available through the federal government are ones that are available to all of these parents. They are not included as a non-allowable expense on social assistance.
We instituted an employment program in cooperation with Memorial University and with CONA to permit and enable single parents who could take advantage of employment to help their financial means and to get good work experience during this time in their education to also be able to do this. I think from my meetings and discussions with this group at Memorial University that they have appreciated the benefit this has provided.
So there is a lot of cooperation that is taking place. There is a lot of support that is being provided. I would say to you that the results also show that student parents and single parents on social assistance are continuing to be able to sustain themselves and continue their education. In fact, the numbers show that there has been an increase in the number of single parents - student parents - on social assistance, who are not attending post-secondary education as compared to before 1997. This has not shown to be an insurmountable obstacle. It has not proven to be a disincentive. We do know that it is a difficult policy, but it is also a very costly one.
As I said in the beginning, when you are in a position of trying to manage the resources of this Province, you have the make those difficult choices and you have to be fair about it.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LUSH: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I am just curious about a procedure that I saw in the House this morning. I want to say to hon. members that Parliament works because of rules and regulations, and because of hundreds of year of refinement and honing of the processes and procedures that we use. I can tell hon. members, if we do not use them, this place will become nothing but chaos. That is why we have the rules and the regulations and the processes and the procedures that we do. You cannot say that we are going to follow some today and not follow them tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker, the procedure that I observed - and I just ask the question; I may be entirely wrong - I thought I saw the Opposition House Leader - I could be wrong and I apologize if I am - present a petition during Question Period.
This is quite unusual. There is a procedure for Question Period that ought to be followed, and for the presentation of petitions; it is the period called Petitions. They must not be done during Question Period. It is unusual, it is irregular, it is wrong, but I may have not seen that at all.
MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, when I read the petition, it said: We petition the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, not the House of Assembly. It was not in order to have it presented in Petitions. The gentlemen who raised it with me is sitting in the gallery today; he is there now. I presented it to the minister because it is petitioning the government. That is why I gave it to the minister.
Had it been petitioning the House of Assembly, I would have given it here; because I did not want 1,200 people in the St. Anthony area denied the right to present their petition because it said: We petition the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.
It is the only avenue I had in this House to represent those people who came to me, and several people needing the service on the Northern Peninsula who called me on this issue - not their member, I might add.
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Bonavista North made an inaccurate statement here that I presented a petition.
MR. TULK: You called it a petition.
MR. SULLIVAN: I said, they presented a petition to the government. That is what I said - to the government. I did not say to the House of Assembly. There is a difference. That difference, I might add -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: I checked with the Chair on the petition. It was not properly worded to be presented, and it was on the topic so I passed it to the minister today. That is proper, it is in order, and it is not contrary to the House.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: It is not a petition to this House of Assembly. It is one that came to the government that I passed to the minister. I can do that, if I so desire, pass a petition to the minister. I do not see anything in that, that tells me... It is not a petition to this House because it is not properly worded. Who said I cannot pass a document, a paper, a comment, to the minister? There is nothing in the House to prevent me from doing it.
MR. LUSH: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, (inaudible) on this: number one, that a petition is supposed to be presented to the House and not to the minister. That is the process of petitions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. LUSH: I sat and listened to the hon. member. I am asking for the same courtesy.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, furthermore, the hon. member is not allowed to table a document. That has been dealt with in this House on many occasions.
AN HON. MEMBER: Pass it back. I will take it back.
MR. LUSH: It is not a matter of taking it back; it is a matter of doing it in the right place.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. LUSH: If I could have the order of the House, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be an inclination, there seems to be a propensity, among members on the opposite side that anything passed to them, written in any way, they can present. That is not the case.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. LUSH: This place has rules and regulations, procedures and processes that have to be followed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. LUSH: I am going to make my points, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. LUSH: The hon. member could have risen in his place at Petitions and asked for permission to do this, the same as we have always done, and I am sure he would have been granted the permission. The problem with this is that it was done during Question Period, and this is not permitted.
I also refer hon. members to Beauchesne, page 155, '454 (6), I think it is, which says that no private member has the right or the obligation to present any form of a document.
Again, the member was out of order and not doing what was proper or appropriate.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair will hear one more submission on this point of order.
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, this morning, for anybody who was here, I sat in my place. When Question Period was over, I held up my hand and asked the Page to pass this over to the minister. I did not have ask to have it tabled. I made reference to the document I had in my hand, and then I asked the Page to bring it over to the minister. I did not ask for it to be tabled. It was the only avenue. I went to the Chair with it, I went to the Table with it. It was not in order as a petition. It was the only avenue I had. I did not violate any rules of the House in doing so. I followed what was agreed to here yesterday. I asked the Page to bring it to the minister, as I often send notes over to other people in the House. He is not in order. There is nothing that I have seen in Beauchesne that tells me that I cannot make reference to something that was given to me, and after I am finished ask the Page to deliver that across the House.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: It is not. It does not say it in that.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair will take the point of order that was raised under advisement and report back to the House.
The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to present a petition. I will read the entire prayer of the petition so we will not have this fuss again.
To the hon. House of Assembly, Province of Newfoundland, in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador ask the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer.
I am proud and pleased today to present this petition on behalf of the residents of Pacquet in the District of Baie Verte who do hereby petition the House of Assembly to pave our road, route 417. We feel that because of its deteriorated condition the road is often unsafe to travel, especially for school students, some of whom have to commute a total of 80 kilometres, including a part of the La Scie highway, each school day.
I will start off by saying very clearly and very forthright that the biggest point that these residents raise time after time again is the fact that with the school reform and so on, the students now, young children, have to get on a bus that is unsafe in the first place, a bus that is unsafe under normal conditions, but also to travel over not just a bad paved road on the La Scie part of the highway but also a gravel road.
Here we are, in our 50th birthday -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SHELLEY: Fifty kilometres.
I am being interrupted here, Mr. Speaker, so I will try to get my thoughts back.
I am here to present it especially on behalf of the school students. I have told this story in the House before, that last year one of the bus drivers in the area, and the students, asked me to get on the bus with them. I sat in the back of the bus - the students insisted on that - and I travelled with them just between the communities of Pacquet and Woodstock, not the full route. It was an experience that everybody here - I suggest that the Premier and the Minister of Transportation experience that. Then ask yourself, if that was your six-year old or seven-year old child that was ready to go to school, would you put them in that circumstance? I have children six and nine years old who attend school everyday, and I cannot imagine bringing them to the bus and putting them on a bus with those conditions.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: That is what these people in these communities face every single day. If some members on the other side want to make a joke that children are getting on gravel roads and travelling buses, they shouldn't. The Member for Twillingate a& Fogo especially, Mr. Speaker. He should be more sensitive and understand what is happening in rural Newfoundland. I thought he did, he usually does, but I guess when he gets in a certain mood he thinks another way.
I can tell him that my district is most like his when it comes to bad road conditions and so. We all should look at this for the children who are on those buses, and from the parents who have to travel that every day, when they look at us celebrating our Soiree '99, 50 Years in Confederation. I support anywhere in this Province that has a situation where we are still driving over the gravel roads in this day and age.
I still look at the Roads for Rail money and how that was spent when we see the ring road and double-lanes through Grand Falls and so on. We are talking about a priority of spending, where the money was spent over the years. That is what we should be looking at. When people are getting up every day early in the morning to take a six-year old to put them on a bus that is unsafe to begin with, but not only that, add to that that they have to travel over a gravel road, especially in the spring, but especially this year in particular. As the Deputy Minister has even mentioned to me, this year in particular with the weather conditions, a lot of mild weather and then freezing again, the roads, including the paved roads and gravel roads, are in a worse condition than probably ever before.
It is not any good to go back and grade them again because, simply put, and residents have said this over and over, there is nothing left to grade. They were upgraded for paving, they were supposed to be paved and then it stopped again. For the last few years, and again this year, just $16 million in provincial roads again this year. I am very pleased. They were upgraded at the time, and it took a long to get them all upgraded to get the paving. They were ready to be paved and it was stopped. That is the problem.
The road system we have on the Baie Verte Peninsula is very unique to the Province. They call it a spider system where all roads branch off and go separate ways for a single community. That is the problem we have. I do not expect all the roads to be paved, just a decent share for the people who live in those areas. They are Newfoundlanders and Labradorians who deserve that and they should have it. Especially I draw attention today again to the main concern of the people of Pacquet and that is to their schoolchildren that are travelling on that bus every (inaudible) day.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, Order 2. I move the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole for Bill 2.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole On Supply
CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have listened intently this morning to members on the opposite side present what they believe to be their concerns or what they profess to be their concerns for the nurses of the Province and the people of the Province.
I heard the Premier of the Province ask the Leader of the Opposition a question. What I heard a couple of days ago, when he was on the Open Line, a caller called in and asked the Leader of the Opposition almost the identical question. If you gave out, if you put into dollars and cents, your party's policy on the agreements that are put before the collective bargaining system and you imposed your party's policy, where would you get the money? Or do you agree, would you give the nurses 14 per cent or 15 per cent or whatever? Or the RNC. Where would you get the money? His answer to this individual on Open Line was: I don't know all the facts, therefore I can't answer your question.
Let's go back to 1972.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!
MR. EFFORD: No, seriously now. In 1972 when the Tory government took over the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador there was a debt of $790 million; that would be the exact amount. Through seventeen years of government - keep in mind now, their policy of the day - those years that the Tory government was in power, from 1972 to 1989, keeping in mind they took over a debt of $800 million, at the end of the day when the Liberal government took over power what they had facing them was in excess of $7 billion.
MR. TULK: Eight thousand million dollars.
MR. EFFORD: Okay, that's a better way of putting it, a clearer way. Eight thousand million dollars in debt, that is what we had facing us.
MR. TULK: From $800 million to $8,000 million.
MR. EFFORD: Eight thousand million dollars, a tenfold increase.
The Premier asked the Leader of the Opposition a question this morning: Where would you get the money? What is one of the complaints in Newfoundland and Labrador about the tax system? Newfoundlanders and Labradorians will say, in every walk of life, that we are paying too much taxes. So if you have to find $600 million to meet the obligations you would have to raise taxes, or you would do what the previous Tory government did, you would borrow the money. So you either raise the taxes or you put us further in debt.
Government is no different than a business. If you operate a business, you have an income through whatever means the money comes in, and you spend more than you take in, at the end of the day there is only one answer: bankruptcy. That's right, there is only one answer, bankruptcy. It would be great to be able to hand out everything that everybody wants.
What is one of the problems with Newfoundland and Labrador and how to spend the amount of money that you have to give the people the services they need? One of the problems is the geography of Newfoundland and Labrador, the scattered population. As the Minister of Health said this morning in response to a question put forth by the Opposition House Leader, the population of Newfoundland and Labrador is comparable to the city of Winnipeg, but look at the geography that population is dispersed over. Look at the amount of services you have to put over across Newfoundland and Labrador.
What do we spend on health care today? Without any further increases on the demand that is put on it, it is $1,159,699,400 for a population of 560,000 people. Everybody is saying it is not enough. Okay. If it is not enough how much do you have increase it? How much do you have to increase, when that dollar figure is arrived at? Where do you get the money?
Nobody sits down and looks at the overall responsibility of a government. I remember sitting over there on the Opposition from 1985-1989 and the government of the day saw fit to put paddy wagons on the parking lot of Confederation Building to take away the people who were on strike. That was okay. This government is being condemned because it wants the collective bargaining system to seek its own level, to do what is right. Sit down across the table and let both parties work out a negotiable settlement that is satisfactory to both parties, as the President of Treasury Board has said time after time in the last four or five days. We are not bringing the paddy wagons on the parking lot. We are not doing anything similar to a dictatorship government like the Leader of the Opposition said this morning. We are letting the process take place.
Whatever agreement is arrived at, somebody has to pay for it. There is no magic wand. There is no pot at the end of the rainbow. The money must come from somewhere. Is everybody in this Province saying: Give everybody everything they are asking for and raise our taxes and we will be happy? Is everybody in this Province saying: Give everybody everything they are asking for and we are satisfied that you borrow the money and put us another $3 billion, $4 billion or $5 billion in debt?
The Member from Baie Verte just said about all the roads in his district that need upgrading. Look at Newfoundland and Labrador, look at the thousands of kilometres of roads, look at the population and look at the taxes. The Leader of the NDP got up and talked about all the single parent students at the university and what they require, then somebody else stands up and says what they need.
Ladies and gentlemen, it costs money. Every service that government provides costs money. What any government has a responsibility to do is to manage the affairs of the people of the Province in a fair and equitable manner without over-taxing or without driving the Province further into debt. I, for one, as one minister, as one member, as one citizen, do not want my children or my grandchildren or my great-grandchildren to pay off a debt of an irresponsible government.
Let me tell you the interest we are paying on the debt that we took over from the former Tory government. In 1989, when I was a minister in the government, we were paying in excess of $585 million interest on that debt every year. Let's put in another $3 billion in debt, or $4 billion, and let's double the interest payments to $1 billion. So on top of all the services you have to pay for and all of the increase in wages, now you have to find double the amount of the interest to pay the people who loaned you the money. There is nobody out there in the world saying: Here is $1 billion and there is no interest.
If the government of the day runs this Province in the manner in which it was run in the past, we have nowhere to go only into bankruptcy, and our children, our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will pay for it. I do not think there is one person in this Province using any degree of common sense who is satisfied for that to happen.
I cannot understand why the Leader of the Opposition, who had months, went through an election, knows full well what the demands are from all of the unions, knows full well that it will cost money, cannot stand either in the House of Assembly or somewhere public and say, as a leader, as an individual who wants to be premier: Here is what I would do. Here is how much money I would allow to be paid, and here is where I would find the money. He cannot answer the question because he knows whatever answer he gives he would not be able to fulfil that obligation. Because the people of the Province cannot stand to be paying higher taxes and the people of the Province will not stand to put the Province farther in debt.
It is only common sense. All that was played here this morning was politics, rhetoric, looking good in front of the audience. When I was here in 1985 to 1989 I never, ever asked a question I didn't have an answer for. Not one time did I stand in the House of Assembly as an Opposition member and ask a question that I did not have an answer for, but I saw it here today. The Leader of the Opposition asks questions every single day in the House of Assembly and he does not have an answer. That is not good leadership.
I am glad, from one individual, on behalf of the people in this Province, that he is sitting on the Opposition and he is not sitting in the premier's chair. God help the future of Newfoundland and Labrador if he was.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I listened to the hon. minister. He has this knack of going back in history. He remembers conveniently only certain parts of it. The history of Newfoundland politics includes sizeable and lengthy times of Liberal management, and includes sizeable and lengthy times of Progressive Conservative management. In the minister's eyes, all was good and rosy when the Liberals were in power. He paints a picture of the good times, and the good times are equivalent to Liberal times. We -
MR. EFFORD: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate that when any hon. member stands in this House they give the facts of what another hon. member said. I never, ever said that the Liberal times in the past were all good times. The best we could do, as members today, who have a responsibility as the government of this Province, is learn from the mistakes of the past and not repeat them in the future.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As usual, there is no point of order. The minister painted a picture. He said that when the Progressive Conservative Party came to power in 1971-1972 this much money was owed in debt, roughly $800 million.
We know that over 40 per cent of the current debt of this Province was incurred since 1989. The Liberal Administration has been in power for ten years now. It is about time to get on with it. How far back do you want to go? The minister gets up and he lives in the past. As a consequence he makes no statements, but they are Newfoundland history. If he wants to look at Newfoundland history, I suggest that he reread chapter fifteen of Harold Horwood's book when he talks about the life and times of Joey Smallwood.
I say it up front, I have a great admiration for certain things Joey Smallwood did. Chapter fifteen talks about "The King of Cost-Plus." It talks about how Liberals operated in the 1950s and the 1960s. If that is what he wants to talk about, talk about how the Liberals managed in those days. Read that chapter, read about Cabinet ministers that bought property for $20,000 and then sold it for $860 thousand. If he wants to go back and give a history lesson, he should start off by going back and reading the history of what happened during the Liberal Administration.
I do believe it is time for us to move on, to move forward, to forget about happened in Frank Moores' days. It is time for us to forget about what happened in Joey Smallwood's days. This book here talks about things that are not happy about the administration of Newfoundland and Labrador: the days when paving contracts were given on the basis of so much tonnage just passed out. If you read through this particular book and you read the things that happened, they are not happy times. It is a sad thing that in Newfoundland and Labrador it was when the Progressive Conservatives came in that we had the first Public Tender Act brought in to this Province. It had to be amended a number of times because when the PCs came in they said: We have to try to do things right.
So when the Minister of Fisheries gets up, if he wants to talk about what happened in Frank Moores' days, and if he wants to talk about what happened in Brian Peckford's days, let's go right on back and see how far back we can go. I certainly would recommend that before he gets up and gives this party over here any lecture, he start off by reading chapter fifteen of Harold Horwood's book. I say that with respect. Because I happen to believe that Joey Smallwood never benefited personally from any of the things that happened in his government, but we know where the John C. Doyles are. We know what happened in the 1960s. I say to the minister that if he is going to lecture us on this side about the Frank Moores days and the days in the 1970s, let's get right back and let's talk about the real history of Newfoundland and Labrador. Let's go and deal with the past.
We on this side, want to talk about what is the future of Newfoundland and Labrador. We want to say to the government that you still are the government, you have been there for ten years now, you can be held accountable for what happened in that ten year period. That is what we are talking about over on this side.
We believe you should be held accountable for the Liberal policies, and what they have done to health care in this Province. The commitments that were made by Clyde Wells to put every dollar back into education that was saved through educational reform, it did not happen.
Mr. Chairman, the commitments that were made were very real. They were believed by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the very same way that during the recent election the Premier of this Province was believed by the nurses of this Province. They believed him when he said that he understood their cause, and when he gave them a commitment that there would be more nurses, that he would be sensitive to it, that he would enter into negotiations in a very fair and reasonable manner, that he would not blindside them after the election.
Mr. Chairman, what we are saying on this side of the house to the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture is: Let's get on with the things of today. Let's put behind us the John C. Doyles and the Frank Moores and the days when things happened in this Province that nobody would be very happy to talk about.
The minister continues to get up. He was up yesterday, chastising this group on this side of the House for things that happened in seventeen years. We are proud of some of it, we are not proud of some more of it, and I am sure that minister is proud of some of the things that happened in the sixties and the fifties, as we all are, but we are not proud of all of it. We are not proud of all of it, and it is reasonable for us to say that. Likewise, we on this side say to the minister: Let's not dwell in the past. Let's prepare for the future. Let's get this Province ready to go forward.
Going forward means being reasonable and fair to nurses, being reasonable and fair to your employees, being reasonable and fair to your public service pensioners, being reasonable and fair to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador so we can, through the parliamentary system, make sure we give them the very, very best opportunities that we have; to make sure that our Province grows, to make sure that our Province prospers, and to make sure that prosperity that we all hope will come to this Province is shared by all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, if there is one thing I do not need from the member on the opposite side, it is a lesson in how to run or manage a business.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. EFFORD: I do not need any advice from the member of the opposite side. I can tell you another thing; if I were receiving two pensions and a salary, I would not be saying the tripe that he is saying over there this morning. I would not be talking about the disadvantaged people in this Province, like he gets up and professes to be.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. EFFORD: Two pensions and a salary.
I am not dwelling on the past, but the one thing that I hope every member in this House of Assembly has the good common sense to do is to learn from the mistakes of the past. That is the reason why I referenced the past. I am not talking about the Joey Smallwood days. I am talking about when the Tory government took over, when $800 million dollars was the debt load, and when it ended seventeen years later it was tenfold. That is how much of a difference.
All I am saying is that we made those mistakes in the past. They were made, but let's not repeat them in the future. That is the reason why the Leader of the Opposition was asked the question this morning. The Premier said that if you give everybody everything they are asking for in raises then it is going to cost, over the next five years, $600 million dollars.
Now, if you give out that much money in increase in pay to all of the people that government is responsible for paying, and you pay out $600 million, where are you going to get it? Why did you not answer that question, or talk about that this morning? You want to be fair? Well, what they are asking for is going to cost $600 million.
Simply stand and do not talk about the past. Look at where you are going to get the money. If you were in government today and you were making that decision, as you are demanding on this government, to give them everything they are asking for, where would you get the money?
The member also said that this government has increased the debt, and that is absolutely false. In fact, this government has decreased the debt of this Province, and in a few minutes I will give you the exact numbers by how much the debt of this Province has been decreased by this government when we have been fair in giving out wages to the people of this Province, in providing services to the people of the Province from all sectors. We have not gone out and further decreased the debt of the government because we are responsible to the people, to the taxpayers of this Province.
The easiest thing to do is to be nice to everybody and say yes, you can give everybody everything they ask for, but at the end of the day somebody must pay the piper. That was the reason I referenced seventeen years of Progressive Conservative government, because they never looked, at the end of the day, at: What is going to happen if we borrow too much, and who is going to pay for it?
I remember the last days of Brian Peckford, when he decided that he was going to retire. What was it he said? I don't have the stomach -
AN HON. MEMBER: Intestinal fortitude.
MR. EFFORD: I don't have the intestinal fortitude -
AN HON. MEMBER: The courage.
MR. EFFORD: - or the courage to run again. That is not false; he did say that. Brian Peckford said: I don't have the courage to make the hard decisions that are necessary to be made. His minister, who is sitting next here, remembers that. He gave it up because he knew the debt the Province had.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. EFFORD: That is not a condemnation of the individual, that is not a criticism. He was honest. He said it.
MR. TULK: He never had the courage to kick out the ministers that he needed to kick out.
MR. EFFORD: That is right. He needed to make some tough decisions to bring the debt of the Province under control for the best interest of the people of the Province, so he left.
This government came in power, and we have made the decisions that he did not have the courage to make.
AN HON. MEMBER: That is right. He did not have the courage to fire his ministers.
MR. EFFORD: He did not have the courage to fire his ministers, the ones who were incompetent in running their department. He did not have the courage to make the decisions to go out and borrow more money, he did not have the courage to make the decision to cut back, so he left.
This government came in 1989 and since 1989 we have made some tough decisions, but in making those decisions we have also provided services for the people who require them. Now the time has come to re-look, to see where we are going, to see how we can reorganize the health system, to see how we can give the necessary dollars to provide and improve the health care system. It is not going to be easy.
As I said a couple of minutes ago, when you are spending over $1 billion on health care, with a population of a little over 500,000 people, how much money is enough? That is the question we should be asking. How much money is enough to provide services for people?
You leave health care and you talk about education. Put in more teachers, build more schools. Everybody wants a community school. Hire on, give them more services, more programs. If you say yes to it all, it costs money. The $785 million that is going into health care will be increased to $1 billion.
Now in two departments alone we have gone well over $2 billion. What is the total budget for the Province? A little over $3 billion. What about all the other services? Well, we will say yes to them. We will double the budget for every department in government, because that is what they are saying. When you double the budget for every department in government, instead of spending $3.4 billion, you are going to spend $6.8 billion.
Where do you get the money? Give me the answer to that. You provide that answer to me and, I guarantee you, we will spend it. That is the easiest thing in the world to do, to spend money. It is the easiest thing to do. No problem, spending money, all you have to do is find it. The difficulty is finding the money.
Let's double the taxes. Let's triple the taxes of everybody in the Province.
AN HON. MEMBER: Voodoo economics. The Tories are (inaudible).
MR. EFFORD: Voodoo economics, excellent, just think about it.
Where would you get the money to pay - if you tripled the taxes of everybody in this Province? Well, one of the answers to that is -
MR. J. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, on a point of order.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just want to make sure that I understand what the Minister of Fisheries is saying. I am pretty sure I heard him say: Let's double and triple taxes. I am pretty sure that is what he said. Does he want that on record?
CHAIR: There is no point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: What I said was, to provide every service that is being demanded on government today, to double the budget of the Province from $3.4 billion to $6.8 billion, as they are saying they would do, you would have to triple or quadruple the taxes. It is simple enough. The Opposition House Leader knows that.
I tell you one thing, the people of this Province are lucky he is the MHA for St. John's East Extern and not on the government side. God bless us! That is one bright light.
MR. J. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: I believe when you are referring to members in the House you are supposed to refer to them by their district. The member -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: No, he did not. He did not. That will tell you how much you know.
MR. SULLIVAN: John, that changed three years ago. You're three years behind, John.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, boy, get with it!
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. EFFORD: You can see, Mr. Chairman, he is not making much of an impression on me. I don't even know what district he is from.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: My time is up?
CHAIR: No, go ahead, you have a couple of minutes.
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Chairman, I was waiting on some numbers to come in from Treasury Board on the debt of the Province so I will just conclude and let the hon. member get up. When I get the numbers I will rise again and present the debt of the Province, and how much we have decreased the debt of the Province since we became government in 1989.
CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
How do you decrease the debt of a Province when you have deficit budgets every year - only two since history? How do you decrease the deficit when we keep - a deficit budget increases debt. Each time you get a deficit in a budget, you increase the debt.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, I did. I have often heard about restructuring debt. I will leave finance for my finance critic but I will make a few comments. The previous Liberal Administration in the 1960s, in one specific year, they spent 40 per cent more than they took in in revenues. Their expenses were 40 per cent more than the revenues of the whole budget.
There is something happening. That rock slide out in the minister's district must have hit him in the head. That rock slide must have hit you in the head. There is something wrong with your figures. He is not accurate.
While he is at it, I ask the minister: He was so efficient in getting all those trucks out to Witless Bay Line, to get him out of a ditch, can you now arrange for some excavators to go out and haul the truckloads of sand out of the ditch and get it there so we can get the proper flow again on the Witless Bay Line?
I want to touch on health. I was just reading here, hot off the wire, March 26, 1999, (inaudible) edition, firsthand, facts right directly to me: Ontario government's daily handout for health care concluded with $130 million payment to hospitals, for hospitals alone to hire 3,300 more nurses. Premier Harris made a commitment to hire 12,000 nurses. The task force recommended 10,000. The task force on nurses recommended 10,000 and he said we will hire 12,000.
He said, there are 6,456 nursing positions so far that the Ontario Nurses' Association acknowledges that government has put into place. If you use that same percentage of increase in this Province, we would need 350 more nurses; if you judge the same per capita as they increased in Ontario.
We have a geography that is different than Ontario. We cannot get the same economies in our numbers. If we applied the same increase that what you would you call the cold, callous Mike Harris provided to nurses, over what the Premier talked about, it is more than double. He has provided more than double the increase that the Premier talked about, or the number that was tossed around, 175.
Mr. Chairman, it is simply not good enough. We are looking here at what other governments are doing. Let's look at the Government of Quebec. They put $1 billion extra funds into health care and a 4.5 per cent increase in addition to that. They have started to realize that there is a problem in Quebec health care, a shortage of doctors, and they are starting to address problems. Over ten or fifteen years ago, Quebec said: Rural parts of Quebec are under-serviced. We have to do something. If you go out and practice in rural Quebec, we will give you 120 percent of the fee-for-service. What did this government do? This government said, because we do not have doctors in rural Newfoundland, we will give urban doctors 50 per cent of the fee and try to force them out in rural Newfoundland. Did it solve the problem? I said from day one, three years ago, no, it will not solve the problem. It did not solve the problem, and we still have the problem today.
What did they have to do? They had to address the disparities between doctors in Newfoundland and Labrador and the rest of Atlantic Canada, and they closed that gap somewhat. They closed the gap, most of the gap got closed, and now they have to do something else. They have to close the gap and disparity between nurses in this Province and the rest of the country.
As I left this Legislature yesterday, I stood in the lobby as the Premier and the Minister of Health and the President of Treasury Board were confronted by nurses. Very genuine they were. I must say, it was very civilized. They stood there and I listened. I listened to the nurses pleading. They said: If you wanted to hire hundreds of more nurses in this Province, you would not get them. It is a job to get them.
We have created a nursing shortage by sending nurses all over the world, not say over Canada. There is a shortage, internationally, of nurses today, a shortage of nurses in the world, a shortage of nurses in the United States. We are creating a major problem.
The Minister of Mines and Energy said here yesterday - and I heard him say it - that Sister Elizabeth Davis said there was more than one permanent job out of the last 270. I heard the Minister of Mines and Energy say that. I asked him if more than one nurse out of the last 270 who graduated got a permanent job. If that is not right, tell us what is right. He could not tell us. He would not stand in his place, this government would not stand in their place, and tell us how many nurses, out of the last 270, got work.
There was one. The nursing union - the paper I read today, I think, indicated -
AN HON. MEMBER: It was more than one (inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: How many? Tell us.
AN HON. MEMBER: The nurses say there is only one.
MR. SULLIVAN: The nurses said only one of 262 nursing graduates obtained permanent work; one of 262. I asked the Minister of Mines and Energy, who said that Sister Elizabeth Davis told him it is wrong. I said: Give me the correct number. He could not give it. Just give me the correct number. Will someone give it to me and tell me, who are they? Where are the ones that got hired?
Can you imagine, to fund and finance 270 graduates in nursing and one get a permanent job? That is criminal.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: I am the Member for Ferryland.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Okay, I will stop shouting. I am sorry about that. I have some medication here.
AN HON. MEMBER: There are lots of nurses in the lobby.
MR. SULLIVAN: It is the nurses in the lobby, he said, who are giving him the headache - not curing it, I tell you!
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, he did not say it. Well, I will say it. I am sorry. I did not mean to say you said it. I said it in the sense that they are giving you the headache, not curing it, because you should have settled with them. They have every right to be out there and it is unfair. It is really unfair. We have not paid homage to the lip service that the Premier said during the election.
When Mike Harris in Ontario has put already - this is what the Nursing Association says - he has put 6,456 nurses in the positions in that Province. The task force said that we need 10,000; he said, we will provide 12,000. They got 6,456. That is the Mike Harris whose booming economy - give us a cheque for $180 million, unexpected cheque, that allowed him to balance the budget in this Province. That is the Mike Harris of growing, prosperous, economic activity in Ontario that is keeping this Province alive on equalization.
Thank God for Mike Harris. Thank God for your roads program, John Crosby. Thank God for all this money that is flowing that saved their necks here in the last election. I just hope the Ontario economy keeps strong. I just hope our economy gets stronger so we do not have to get $1.18 billion or whatever in equalization. I would like to see the day when we do not have get any equalization, because that is a signal then that we have prosperity in our Province.
It is shameful, to be honest with you, it is really shameful to see the resources coming out of our Province today and we have to depend on $1.1 billion a year in equalization. Is there something wrong? The resource of the sea was an abundant resource. It still is, in many species out there. The minerals that have come out of the earth in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, the billion tons of ore in Labrador. We are going to start seeing it now pelletized in Sept-Iles. Voisey's Bay sits in the ground there still. I agree with it. I agree with you on Voisey's Bay. Leave it there. I would sooner starve, to be honest with you, than let it go. I would sooner starve than allow resources -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: That is right. It would really do good for my fitness, to go on a starvation diet for the next two or three months. It would help me.
The same in Labrador West, though. It is not the same stand they took in Labrador West, I can tell you. It is not the same stand.
We have not paid lip service. I would like to go on and on. I have a brief commitment that I have to get to. I am sure hon. members will not mind me getting back again and having a few words.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: No, the member who was going to get defeated, I think, in St. John's East. They are fighting to get up here now, they are so eager to jump up and tell the truth. I can't keep them under control, they are so eager to speak.
I certainly will sit down and give an opportunity to other members. Stay tuned, I will be right back.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to stand in my place today and say another few words about the Interim Supply. Yesterday, when I stood, I spoke about the first leadership speech given in this House of Assembly by the Minister of Mines and Energy. Today we had the Minister of Fisheries on his feet making his first speech on the upcoming leadership of the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I am really, really curious as to when the Minister of Tourism and the Minister of Finance are going to jump into the fray and give their first leadership speeches.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, you are. You want to bet? How much money do you have? How much money can you afford to lose? I say to the Minister of Tourism, how much money do you have to lose?
I can tell you one thing; the Minister of Mines and Energy, the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister of Finance - and I would be really surprised if the Minister of Tourism does not jump in, and maybe the Minister of Health will go at it also.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: In about a year-and-a-half, somewhere around that time. Mark it down, that is when it is coming.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Oh, yes, guaranteed. The Minister of Fisheries is shaking his head over there.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: That is what is going to happen. See if I will be right, now.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) best presentation of anybody over there.
MR. J. BYRNE: Who? Where does he belong to? The Member for Bellevue.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: I know. I am taking it all in. You need not worry.
Mr. Chairman, it is not very often that members on that side of the House will get up and say anything. They will, every now and then, speak from their chairs.
I have to say that the Member from Bellevue was just saying what a good job I am doing in this House of Assembly. Not often will they give us these kinds of compliments, but I am here to accept them. There is no problem there. Every now and then I give compliments to that side of the House.
I just saw the Minister of Mines and Energy walk in. I have to say that he will rip you apart in the House of Assembly when he feels he should; but when he tells you something, you can usually count on it, if he commits to you. But when himself and the Minister of Fisheries or the Minister of Finance go at it - and probably the Minister of Tourism, and the Minister of Health - they have a real battle on their hands to knock the Minister of Mines and Energy off, I can guarantee you that. They will have a real battle on their hands.
The Minister of Tourism is trying to lead us to believe that he is not going to run. I do not believe the man, to be honest with you.
AN HON. MEMBER: You are the best person over there to do the research. I want you to go upstairs and (inaudible) chronic care and acute care. The Leader of the Opposition has it all mixed up (inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, the Member for Bellevue wants me to talk about health. He just asked me to speak about health in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is strange that he would ask me to do that in the House of Assembly today where we saw the galleries full with nurses, we saw the lobby out there blocked with nurses, the steps out there this morning blocked with nurses. He wants me to talk about health. I will talk about health.
I have been in the health care system as a patient over the past number of years. I am consistently going back for follow-ups and what have you. Let me tell you that health care over the past five to six years has deteriorated. Not from the quality of care we get from the nurses, from the x-ray technicians, from the lab technicians, from the people who receive you in the clinics, out-patient clinics, not from the quality of care that way, but from the numbers of people who are there to serve you. I brought up in the House of Assembly about four or five years ago the fact of just a general cleanliness throughout the hospitals. Walk through the corridors of the hospitals and look at the carpets and see the stains that are not being cleaned up properly. That is just one thing. Look at the people who are coming in to clean the rooms; there are not as many as there used to be, and it is not as often.
I was in hospital last year for a full week. The sheets in the beds were not changed for a full week. Because I was a patient who could walk around and what have you, I had to make my own bed while I was in hospital last year. I remember being in hospital a few years before that and they came in daily and changed the sheets on your bed, but not any more. They are talking about health care improving in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? The former Minister of Health, the now Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, stood in his place on the other side of the House many times being questioned by the Member for Ferryland about health care in the Province. The standard line was: Health care in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is improving.
Where is he now? He is not the Minister of Health any more. Now we have the present Minister of Health who will try and twist the facts when she has been asked questions. When the Member for Ferryland asks questions she will twist the facts and come back with something completely irrelevant, not close to the facts at all. They are talking about health care improving in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for a fact? The $40 million they put in the Budget from the regional boards goes for the debt retirement of the boards. Not one dollar of that $40 million is going to go to the front line services in the Province. If we all want to get down to it, let's cut right to the chase. The Premier during the election came back from Ottawa with $40 million in his back pocket three days before the election. Everybody thought it was wonderful. That is one of the reasons why they got re-elected, I would say. Three or four days after, no money.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Not true? He said: We were hoodwinked by the Prime Minister of the country. Forty million dollars, hoodwinked. I mean either the Premier is awful gullible - when the Budget came down he stood and said: We were tricked, we did not know anything about this, it is shocking, disgusting! The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health said the same thing: It is not right, we are not being treated fairly. Then a few days after that a chance meeting in Corner Brook, I believe it was, the Premier and Prime Minister get together, and all of a sudden the Budget is great, no problems. Health care is going to be taken care of. The people of Newfoundland are going to be taken care of.
Now who do we believe? Do we believe the Prime Minister of the country or do we believe the Premier of the Province? That is for the people of the Province to decide, not for me.
MR. GRIMES: We all believe the Premier.
MR. J. BYRNE: The Minister of Mines and Energy says: We all believe the Premier. Maybe they do, maybe they don't, but it is not what I am hearing. The Premier talked about the change in the equalization payments, the formula. He did not know anything about it. Everybody was shocked. Yet we know that last year there were at least four or five meetings with, if not the Premier, probably the Minister of Finance and representatives of the government, the Department of Finance, and they talked about upcoming changes to the equalization payments, the formula. Apparently, from the Prime Minister, the only premier that probably would not have known about it was Bouchard in Quebec because he did not attend the meetings.
AN HON. MEMBER: Jack?
MR. J. BYRNE: What?
MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible) you had the biggest majority of anybody over there (inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Who did?
MR. BARRETT: You did.
MR. J. BYRNE: Not at all. Mr. Chairman, they are up to their old tricks again, trying to change the subject. The Member for Bellevue begged me to talk about health care. I was up speaking about health care and now he is trying to change the subject to something completely different, completely irrelevant.
AN HON. MEMBER: You had the highest (inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: I will speak to that. I did not have the highest percentage, no. I may have had the highest percentage but not the biggest numbers. The Members for Ferryland and Bonavista South beat me, but I has almost the biggest turn around. I went from less than 200 to over 2,000.
I am proud to say that the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the PC Party, had a bigger turnaround than I had. He was the man that the Premier said, two days before the election, was going down to a defeat. Thank God for the Premier. The Member for Ferryland had the Minister of Fisheries up there trying to do the job on him.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: A good fact that we know here, and the Liberals should know this, is that seven of the top eleven margin of victories in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador were on this side of the House. I would say I was one of them. The Member for St. John's East was another.
CHAIR (Smith): Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. J. BYRNE: By leave?
CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: No leave!
CHAIR: No leave.
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate an opportunity again this morning to try to clarify the position of the opposition parties in this important interim supply debate with respect to the critical positions confronting us in the Province today.
We witnessed a wonderful exchange this morning during Question Period with respect to the whole issue of whether we should talk to nurses or not talk to nurses, what should be negotiated, what should be put in place unilaterally by the government. I ended up being more confused at the end than ever and I paid close attention, as I always do. I paid very close attention because I really do believe that Hansard should record the exact positions of the parties on these issues.
The Leader of the Opposition this morning spent the first half of Question Period along these lines. Why is the Premier of the Province and why is the government of the Province spending time talking to nurses about such things as how many nurses are going to be in the system, and how many nurses should be full-time instead of part-time, when he has the right, and, I expect, I understood, that the Leader of the Opposition was saying that he has the responsibility to just stand up in the Legislature and do it.
That position was then reaffirmed, reiterated, and restated by the Opposition health critic, the Opposition House Leader, the hon. Member for Ferryland. They all happen to be the same person. He also stated that: Why doesn't the government just go out and tell the world how many new positions we are putting into health care? Do not talk to the nurses about it.
I could not understand why the Official Opposition would be suggesting, for the first half of Question Period at least, that there is absolutely nothing to be discussed with the nurses about their workload, that the government should just tell them what it is going to be. When in fact the nurses themselves in this round of negotiations came to the bargaining table, understanding full well that the number of nurses in the system and how many would be casual, how many would be full-time, and how many would be part-time, will not end up in their collective agreement as an article or stated or an appendix.
It was an issue that they wanted the government to accept their advice, their input, their expertise because they probably know better than anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador how we should be dealing with the workload issues on the front-lines in the health care institutions of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I was absolutely amazed that for the first half of Question Period the Leader of the Opposition and the former Leader of the Opposition, who probably should be Leader of the Opposition - but we have a little bit of a problem over there. I know the Member for Lewisporte doesn't like to hear any of this, because the former, former premier, who is now the deputy House Leader, who came back as a star candidate, because he thinks in short order he is going to leapfrog the Member for Ferryland, stab the Member for Kilbride in the back and become the leader again - we fully expect to see that unfold in the next little while - I know he is disappointed and upset to see me praising up the current leader and praising up the former leader because that does not leave much room for him to leapfrog the two of them. It is like the Montreal Canadiens trying to reach the playoffs. The problem is it is not that they are ninth place and there is somebody else eight place, they are like eleventh and they have to get past number ten and number nine to get up to number eight.
The difficulty now, if the seating in the Legislature is as I see it before me, the Member for Lewisporte would have to jump over five of them. Fortunately he only has to jump over a couple, because his real seat is a couple of places up. We will see it, and look to see it, unfold in the next couple or three years.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. GRIMES: I was just distracted, Mr. Chairman, by the heckling from the other side, so back to the point I was making.
The whole issue is this. Do not talk to the nurses about how many nurses. That is the position of the Official Opposition by the current leader and the former leader, unanimous. Do not talk to the nurses about how many nurses there should be in the system. Do not talk about the nurses about how many should be part-time, how many should be full-time, how many should be casual, how many positions. Do not talk to the nurses, just do it.
We heard that this morning for fifteen minutes steady belt. I was shaking my head because the nurses that were in the galleries, every one of them had asked their leaders to come to the bargaining table and beg the government: Please talk to us about how many nurses should be full-time, please talk to us about how many nurses should be casual, please talk to us about how many nurses should be part-time.
We have agreed to do that. We are doing it now at the bargaining table. They were shaking their heads in amazement as I watched them because they could not believe that the Official Opposition said: Don't talk to the nurses about that, stand up Mr. Premier and tell them what you are going to do. Don't listen them, just dictate what you are going to do.
Now for the flip-flop. Here is the flip-flop in the second half of Question Period. You talk about polar opposites, a 180-degree turn, a complete flip-flop. When questioned by the Premier, a nice reversal of roles - the Premier was just practising for some time, a hundred years from now, if he lives that long, when he might be back in opposition. He was just practising his questioning skills. He questioned the Leader of the Opposition as to what would you do about the money. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition did not want to talk about that because he does not know. The former leader knows. Yesterday the former leader clearly stated that the nurses deserve more than 7 per cent. Absolutely unequivocal, and that is the position of the Official Opposition, except today the leader came and said: I'm not sure about that, I did not say that. His critic did say that. The former leader did say that for the record, and it is in Hansard from yesterday, stated and then re-stated by myself just for clarity, that that is the position of the Official Opposition.
When asked today of course about the whole issue of what would you do, all of a sudden the Leader of the Opposition, getting a little flustered and a little upset, jumped up and said: I will tell you one thing, Mr. Speaker, I would not be dictating what to do with the nurses, I would be negotiating with them. When he spent the first fifteen minutes saying to the Premier: Do not talk to the nurse about how many nurses, just do it. Just tell them how many they are getting. Just tell them how many they are getting. Do not talk to the nurses about how many should change from a position of casual and part-time to permanent, just tell them. You do not talk to the teachers about how many teachers; do not talk to the nurses about how many nurses.
For fifteen minutes we heard the Leader of the Opposition saying: Do not negotiate these issues with the nurses, you have the right and the obligation and the authority to tell them how many positions they should have. Just do it. Then, when questioned as to what he would do about it, he said: I would negotiate, I would not dictate anything to the nurses. I would negotiate.
I have to admit today I am absolutely puzzled, because the more we try to delve into this issue and get clarity as to the position of the Official Opposition the more confused it gets. Then he jumps up then and brings in our friends like the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association. He brings that into a debate about the nurses and talks again about the fact that the real problem is they do not have any way to really deal with their issues because they do not have the right to strike, they do not have binding arbitration.
He conveniently forgets that it was his party, with the man that sits two seats down from him who is looking for the chance to stab him in the back and take his job back, that brought in the legislation that gives the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association the background and the legislative framework in which they are finding themselves today.
I am really amazed that as usual, I say - but you guys did that. Why would you stand up and say there is something wrong with it when you are the people that put it there? The member two seats down on the right, the former, former premier, put it in place, supported it fully for all of his time in government, and now the fellow that is two seats up, that is going to get stabbed sometime, we just don't know when, is saying there is something wrong with this.
I am really confused again as to what they are real position is. He says: But we were not here then. Even though they were not here then, they went and sought as their star candidate the person who was here then, the man who was the premier of the Province. They bring him in and now they are going to throw him out with the ashes and say: What he did was all wrong, what he did we are going to disown, we are going to wash our hands of that. Don't tie me into that, for goodness sake, do not try to say that I support anything that was done prior to 1989.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, I will take a pause right now and come back to this matter because it needs some further exploration.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
AN HON. MEMBER: The next leader of the Tory party?
MR. RIDEOUT: Do you want to take an ad out in The Telegram and pay for that and announce it?
Mr. Chairman, I have been over here trying to listen to the hon. Member for Exploits.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, am I permitted to speak here? I do not particularly worry about people heckling me or things of that nature. I am not concerned about that. I can shout with the best of them. I think those people who were here when I was here previously know I can shout with the best of them, but I do not want to get into a shouting match to be heard. I have a few things I would like to say and I am going to say them.
I have a right to say them. I was elected to this Legislature. I did not just crawl in here on a vote or two, either. I did not crawl in here on a vote or two. I came in here with the solid support of every community in the District of Lewisporte. I never lost a community, not one. I know that other members are in the same way, but if anybody thinks I limped in here, that I crawled in here, that I sneaked in here, I came back here with the solid support and confidence of the vast majority of the people of Lewisporte. I'm going to speak on their behalf whenever I feel like it within the rules. Whenever I feel like it I am going to speak. I'm not going to be intimidated by the Member for Exploits, I am not going to be intimidated by the Premier, I am not going to be intimidated by the Minister of Tourism, I am not going to be intimidated by the Minster of Fisheries.
I do not care, Mr. Speaker, if they get up and spend day after day - I have watched the strategy unfold over the last several days, Mr. Speaker. I have sat back and I have quietly looked and watched and (inaudible). I do not care, Mr. Speaker, if they spend all night long crawling through the bowels of Confederation Building, going through the archives looking for dirt, looking for something they can get up and bring up and embarrass me. It does not matter, I do not care, Mr. Speaker. I have a hide as thick as a rhinoceros. I survived sixteen or seventeen years in public life. I had better than some of the people that are presently on the other side take strips off of me. In this business you have to be able to take it, Mr. Speaker, as well as give it. If you cannot take it then there is no point, you cannot give it.
MR. GRIMES: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy on a point of order.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, I'm following with real interest. I just wanted to raise a point of order. I know you have recognized the speaker properly and appropriately, and I hope he makes several interventions this morning because I enjoy hearing him speak. I know he gets a bit excited when he speaks, but he should recognize that the Speaker has left the Chair and you, Mr. Chairman, are in the chair. He keeps addressing you as Mr. Speaker.
I know he has been away from the House for ten years. Last week he thought he was in Cuba when he was supposed to be in Chile, and this week he does not remember that the Speaker has left the Chair and that you, Mr. Chairman, are running the debate. Maybe he would like to address the Chair in the rest of his presentation.
CHAIR: There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, after surviving that body blow from the hon. gentleman, after surviving what was supposed to be another knockout punch... When is this hon. gentleman going to stop making a fool of himself? I have sat back and watched him over the last several days, and here is a man, an aspiring leader, a person who could not walk up the front steps of the Confederation Building this morning because the nurses wanted to speak to him. The last time I heard tell of him on the front steps of Confederation Building he was crying with a handkerchief. That is the last time I heard tell of him.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: He wants to get up here on a point of order, point after point? I do not care, Mr. Chairman, let him continue.
MR. GRIMES: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I know that the hon. member wants the record of the House in Hansard to be accurate and correct. It shows again how outdated he is, not only with long ago events but in very current ones. Maybe he missed the Legislature earlier this morning. I thought he was there in his seat. I looked over and he was in the seat. I guess he just had the ears plugged during Question Period.
That issue of the nurses on the front step this morning, Mr. Chairman - and it is very serious - was addressed this morning. The record clearly shows that I did not park around the back or try to find a different way. As a matter of fact, as I drove up the Parkway I waved to the nurses as I have done every day during the dispute. I came to the front steps and tried to enter the building. As I indicated, they were singing Solidarity Forever and preparing for speeches. I did feel a twinge and a urge to join in with Solidary Forever because it is natural to my background. I resisted the temptation because I did not want them to think I was playing games. I tried to get through the group. No one wanted to move so I walked around the back, excused myself, and entered the building. Several people have tried to put on the record of Hansard that this member -
CHAIR: I ask the member to conclude his remarks.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
CHAIR: Order, please!
The Chair has not recognized the hon. member.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) point of order (inaudible).
MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Chairman. To conclude, (inaudible).
CHAIR: I would ask the member to conclude.
There is no point of order. I would ask you to take your seat, please.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: The Chair has determined there is no point of order.
The Chair recognizes the hon. the Member for Lewisporte.
MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible) wisdom (inaudible) obviously decided that the minister was trying to waste time, but it does not matter, sure. He can waste all the time he likes. It is ten minutes back and forth, and it is a point of distraction.
As I was saying, this fearless union leader, back in another day, could not stand the heat this morning. He could not come over the steps of the Confederation Building. I do not know if he had a handkerchief to wipe away the tears this morning or not, but he could not face it. This fearless union leader, as a minister, has turned into a union wimp. He is the weakest link that a union could have to a government. He is useless to the union movement, to his colleagues in the union movement in Newfoundland and Labrador, as a member of the government.
As a matter of fact, he talked about people over here stabbing people in the back, using words like that. There is the Judas of the union movement in Newfoundland, there he is. There is not a union person in Newfoundland who has a good thing to say for him. The teachers do have not a good thing to say for him, the nurses, he cannot even talk to them. He has lost his handkerchief, he has taken his handkerchief and slunk away, and leaving the union movement in Newfoundland and Labrador.
People thought they had a friend, in this hon. gentleman, in the government. The union movement thought they had a friend in the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. He turned out to be no friend. He turned out to be a traitor to them. He is useless to them. He does not represent their interest, he does not try to represent their interest, and when they come to this House he gets up on those platitudes and he tries to intimidate and tries to do all of that.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. RIDEOUT: I was saying a little while ago before the gentleman for Bonavista - slink, slank and slunk. Did you ever hear tell of it?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: That might even be `backupable', by the way. I might even write my own dictionary - slink, slank, and slunk. Check it out. I will go down for inventing another few and I dare say, Mr. Chairman -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. RIDEOUT: That is a pluperfect subjunctive, as the hon. gentleman should know - a former teacher. I do not know if he was an English teacher or not.
AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Fisheries is proud of his dialect, isn't he?
MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, the Minister of Fisheries is proud of his dialect. I am proud of some of the old - I don't know, vernacular, I suppose it is - vernacular that they use down around White Bay where I grew up. I am proud of it. I have heard the Minister of Fisheries say thousands of time that he had no intentions of apologizing for his dialect, nor should he. I don't care who makes fun of me or takes a strip off the way that I talk, or certain words that I say. It doesn't bother me at all. If they want to laugh at that, they can laugh at it. If somebody in the press want to make a comment on it, they can; and they do. It doesn't bother me in the least.
You know, some of that old history and culture of Newfoundland should never be allowed to disappear. Some of the old stuff that I know is not going to disappear while I am here.
Mr. Chairman, I diverge. I apologize.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. RIDEOUT: No, I do not qualify, I say to the hon. member.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, I hope to live for ten years. There is nothing you can do about that, but then I will be -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. RIDEOUT: Casey. Yes, that is right.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I can continue by leave, I guess.
CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.
CHAIR: No leave.
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This morning I have noted and listened to all the speakers on both sides of the House. We should all get Hansard out after today and compare the speakers on both sides of the House and see what type of contribution they made to this House of Assembly this morning in the speeches that they gave.
I listened to the Member for Waterford Valley first, in reaction to what I said about the finances of the Province: where we should be today and where we should go to the future. There is not one sentence in the ten-minute speech that he gave that would have any reference to anything I said this morning, except to say that I spent the whole time talking about history.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. EFFORD: Well, if I got accused of talking about history, I may as well do it. Remember when I talked earlier this morning about seventeen years of Tory government, seventeen years when they took over a debt and increased the debt of the Province tenfold? Let me talk about a couple of examples of how we got from a debt of $790 million to in excess of $7 billion.
One of them was a number of boats. Remember this. What do we do with boats in Newfoundland and Labrador? We use them for the fishing industry. We wanted to change our technology. We wanted to change our method of fishing. How many boats were there?
MR. TULK: We bought two and we built four.
MR. EFFORD: We bought two and we built four.
AN HON. MEMBER: What kind of boats were those?
MR. EFFORD: They were called the middle-distance fleet.
MR. TULK: I could read it all out.
MR. EFFORD: You are going to read it all out?
MR. TULK: I could, yes. I could read the whole works. They have a little summary here.
MR. EFFORD: I am not going to get into the details. I am going to leave that to my hon. friend when he gets up sometime in the near future, because he has all the facts. Where is the middle-distance fleet today? How many million dollars?
MR. TULK: I am not telling you.
MR. EFFORD: You are not telling me? Okay.
MR. TULK: I tell you what, it cost more than Sprung.
MR. EFFORD: It cost more than Sprung?
I do not condemn. A lot of wisdom went into Sprung.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. EFFORD: For any government, regardless of the party, whether it is NDP, Progressive Conservative or Liberal, people who govern must be responsible to the taxpayers of the Province because it is the taxpayers' money that you are spending. Government is not like a private sector business community; they earn money by making or selling products or whatever. Governments administer a business - the government - based on the amount of taxes they collect from the people.
Nobody likes taxes - nobody - but at least when you pay taxes you would like to see it spent wisely. If your taxes are not spent wisely then you are answerable to the people. That is what happened in 1989.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. EFFORD: Yes, very reasonable with the taxpayers' money, people who work very, very hard for their money, the same as everybody else. Whether you are in government or outside, you work hard for your money. When you get that cheque at the end of the week, and whether it is 20 per cent, 30 per cent or 50 per cent deducted from your paycheque that you worked hard for, you know where that money is going and you don't want to see it squandered away. You don't want to see the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador going further in debt. That is the reason why, as ministers, as a government led by the Premier, every demand that comes on government from the people in the Province who require services, you must look at it seriously but you must, at the end of the day, have to make a decision based on the best interest of all of the taxpayers in this Province.
When Brian Peckford left in 1989, he said those very words. He said those very words: I do not have the courage to make the decisions, the hard decisions that are necessary to make for the future of the people of this Province.
That is exactly what he said. In fact, I flew to Gander with him one night, long after he left, when he came back on a flight, and he repeated it: I do not have the courage to make the decisions that are necessary to make.
Seriously, this is a fact. He was telling the truth, and there is nothing wrong with that. That is nothing to be ashamed of. After a number of years in government -
MR. TULK: Do you want to know when that first company was put together (inaudible)?
MR. EFFORD: Yes, when?
MR. TULK: May 4, 1987.
MR. EFFORD: Who was Minister of Fisheries?
CHAIR: Order, please!
AN HON. MEMBER: Tom Rideout.
MR. EFFORD: No, seriously, who was the Minister of Fisheries? Oh, the Member for Lewisporte.
AN HON. MEMBER: No, he wasn't.
MR. EFFORD: Seriously, getting back to what we are doing today, there is a lot of unrest in the Province; because no matter what side you are sitting on - in particular the nurses today; they want a raise. There is no doubt about that. They need certain things addressed, and there is nobody criticizing the nurses for putting demands out there. I, for one, would not, and no member on this side of the House would. They have the right to request an increase in salary, better working conditions, casuals to permanents, increase of staff because of the pressure that is put on individual nurses working in the different sectors of health. There is nothing wrong with that.
If you sat down and had a discussion with every one of them individually, they would not argue and say: We recognize, government, that you have a responsibility also. You have a responsibility to the taxpayers of this Province. You just cannot simply say yes when somebody asks for something. If you had that kind of a government running, it would be totally irresponsible to everybody else in the Province. The process must take place.
That is the reason why, as a government, there is a President of Treasury Board; and that individual has a responsibility to administer her duties in a fair manner, that a settlement is negotiated that is satisfactory to both parties. Now whether that takes a day, a week, or whatever the time process, it is a process that must be followed.
AN HON. MEMBER: And one that government can afford.
MR. EFFORD: And one that government can afford. As I said, satisfactory to both parties; because it is not the people on this side. We don't give the money. We are only spending the taxpayers' money. It is not our money. We do not take it out of our pockets. There is no magic wand. There is no pot at the end of the rainbow. The money that comes in from the taxpayers, we have a responsibility, the President of the Treasury Board has a responsibility, the Minister of Finance, led by the Premier of this Province, has a responsibility, to spend that wisely.
The Leader of the Opposition said this morning that the Premier should now increase the number of nurses, that the Premier now should make the decision without a negotiated settlement. Well, that is a dictatorship. If any leader of any government makes decisions without a democratic process taking place, that is called a dictatorship.
This government has no interest and no desire and no intent to be a part of that. I could not believe the Leader of the Opposition when I heard him say that this morning. Probably he is overworked. Probably there is a lot of pressure on him. Probably he is not thinking clearly. There is something definitely wrong when a Leader of the Opposition tells the Premier: Make the decisions now, do not let the process take place.
There is something definitely wrong, but look back over the previous seventeen years; not a lot (inaudible).
They send the paddy wagons out here. What for? I came across the steps of the Confederation Building when the paddy wagons were down there and they were throwing people in the back of the paddy wagons. I remember that. I was there when it happened.
MR. TULK: In 1986.
MR. EFFORD: In 1986. The Member for Lewisporte was there.
MR. TULK: No, he wasn't. He was upstairs hiding behind Brian Peckford.
MR. EFFORD: Oh, but he was in government I am saying.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to join in this debate this morning on the Interim Supply, and address some of the issues that have been raised this morning concerning whether or not - and I listened very carefully to the Premier this morning, and his comments.
At the first part of Question Period, I thought for a moment that the Premier was getting away from some of his inflammatory remarks that he had made and the Minister of Health had made in the last couple of days about the strike - as the Minister of Health did - in talking about taking things off the table and no guarantees that the offer made yesterday would be there today and how, when the strike happens, of course, the whole situation changes; and the Premier trying to undermine the bargaining position and, in fact, serving to prolong the strike. I thought that he had gotten off that tack when he said this morning that he would not unilaterally set up the numbers, that he would not stand here and dictate the numbers to the nurses union, that he was going to negotiate.
We all heard him say that, and he did it in response to questions from the Leader of the Opposition, who was urging him to tell us how many nurses he was going to hire - like the Premier of Ontario said he was going to hire 10,000 new nurses - but he would not do that. He said: No, I am not going to dictate to the union, I am not going to dictate the numbers.
I thought there was some encouragement, that the Premier was actually learning something about collective bargaining and his responsibilities to bargain in good faith.
Then we got into the issue of compensation and the issue of 7 per cent. The very clear indication from the Premier of this Province this morning was that he was prepared to dictate 7 per cent to the nurses and do everything in his power and whatever the Legislature's power is to impose 7 per cent on the nurses of this Province.
That is what this Premier said this morning. He said he was not going to stand here and dictate and unilaterally set the numbers for the nurses. Then he talked about the 7 per cent. I think that this Premier has made it very clear that he intends to dictate 7 per cent to the nurses and impose that on them in legislation if they do not agree to it. I do not think that is bargaining in good faith.
Then he goes on to try to confabulate numbers out of nowhere. He said: Well, if we gave 14 per cent to the RNC and then we gave 14 per cent to the nurses, and 14 per cent to everybody else, it would cost $119 million this year, and in five years it would be $600 million, and in ten years it would be $1.2 billion.
You might as well have said: Well, in 100 years it will be $12 billion and get a bigger number still, in 200 years it will be $14 billion. Really scare people. What kind of nonsense is that? We are talking about a process with thirty or forty bargaining units, all different, all with different histories, all with different problems, all with different numbers in their own - comparable to other provinces.
We had the RNC, for example. The RNC has its own process. It is a process of arbitration if negotiations do not work. They go to negotiations, they meet for negotiations, they have an impasse at negotiations, and they have a process of arbitration that is binding on them. That arbitrator listened to their concerns, took into account the Province's ability to recognize that there was a special circumstance here that had to be dealt with, just as the Province itself recognized with the water bombers there was a special circumstance that had to be taken into account. They recognized with the medical doctors that there were special circumstances that had to be taken into account.
When the Premier is removing any possibility of acknowledging differences, problems, or situations with the bargaining units - you take the nurses, for example. The entry level for nurses was a three-year diploma and an RN certificate. Now their educational requirements are upgraded. You have to have a Bachelor of Nursing now to join the nursing profession in this Province. You have to have a university degree.
We had a situation just a few years ago where there would be twelve nurses looking after thirty-six patients. That is down to eight, so the workload has had to increase. We have a situation now where the patients in hospital are sicker than they were five or ten years ago, for a very good reason, because discharge from hospital takes place very, very quickly now. The only people left in hospital are the ones who are in need of acute care and not just monitoring. So you have sicker patients with greater needs in hospital today and you have fewer nurses to deal with that.
These are all special circumstances. The comparison of the wage rates for nurses with other provinces is also a special circumstance. PEI, little, tiny PEI with less fiscal capacity, obviously, than this Province, pays their nurses better than Newfoundland and Labrador. Why should we have a situation where we can lose nurses across the Gulf? Why should we have a situation when we now have Ontario announcing 10,000 new nursing positions where we are going to lose our nursing graduates, where we are probably going to lose some of the nurses we have in our system today?
Government has to recognize that they have a process in place, one for the RNC which is binding on them but not on the government under the current legislation, one for NAPE, one for CUPE, and these processes all operate in different ways. If NAPE did not want to sign on the bottom line they did not have to. They made their decision to enter into a collective agreement. That does not mean that that gives the government the right to impose a settlement with one group on every other single group. That is not bargaining in good faith. That is what was revealed clearly this morning, that this government appears to have no intention whatsoever of recognizing that when you go in to bargain, you have to bargain on all the issues.
You have to be prepared to negotiate on all issues and not take the position: If you don't agree with some of this we are going to ram it down your throat through legislation. That is what is being told to the nurses of this Province: You may as well forget about your right to strike, because you are going to lose on the street because we are going to order you back to work and we are going to impose a 7 per cent solution on top of you.
That is what is happening, and that is what is wrong with the approach taken by this government. It was revealed quite clearly here this morning. Much as the Premier was trying to score Brownie points and debating points by saying: We will not dictate the numbers to the nurses, they in fact have the intention of doing exactly that on the issue of compensation. That is going to mean, if they do it, an end of any semblance of true collective bargaining in the public sector in this Province.
CHAIR (Oldford): The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I don't think there is any group of people that could go on strike in this Province that could have a greater impact on all of the people in this Province than the health care sector, the nurses. I can hear the rhetoric, which is Opposition's right, to play politics. I was there for four years, from 1985-1989, but there comes a point in time when responsible people, elected by the people of this Province, must work together and try to solve a very serious situation.
What the Leader of the NDP said a few minutes ago is not correct. Some to the things he said are not correct. The Premier of this Province said this morning that he was not going to interfere in the collective bargaining process. There are more things on the table than just money, a lot more things that are important to the people of this Province, to the nurses. There are a lot more issues. I do not know what it takes for the members on the opposite side to understand what the Premier said.
If you want the whole process to collapse, then say so. If you have the right answers to this very serious problem, make a suggestion. Put it in writing, sit down and have a meeting and talk about it. It is not good enough to be on the other side of the House and say how serious the situation is, and be critical of everything that is going on, without making a contribution to resolve the problem. You have the answers; tell us what the answers are. Tell us where we are going to find the $600 million. Tell us who is satisfied to have their taxes doubled or who is satisfied to have the debt of the Province doubled. Let's find out where the money is coming from.
The easiest thing to do is spend money. Anybody can spend money, but spending money wisely, spending money within the limits of your own budget is different. You cannot spend money you do not have. If you were administrating your own budget in your own personal life, and you take in $500 a week and you spend $600 a week, at the end of the day you have a major problem. If government takes in $3 billion a year in the budgetary process and it spends $4 billion, you have a very serious problem.
MR. HARRIS: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Quidi-Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I heard the member just say that you cannot spend money you do not have. I heard the Premier when he came from Ottawa after the social union saying: We have money now to solve the nursing problem. Well, show us the money, I say to the minister.
CHAIR: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: In conclusion, Mr. Chair, here is what the Premier said. There was an increase in health funding. That is what he said. In other words, there would be more money to spend in the health care sector. As I said, more money means an addition to the $1.1 billion that is being spent now in the health care sector. That will be determined at the end of the day of the collective bargaining system.
When that system succeeds the nurses will get more money, the nurses will get more services, the things they are asking for, the things that are on the table. How much of that will be? That will be determined at the end of the collective bargaining process.
CHAIR: The hon. the 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.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Trinity North.
MR. OLDFORD: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole on Supply 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: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I move the House adjourn until Monday at 2:00 p.m.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday 2:00 p.m.