The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The Chair has not received any notification of statements by members. The Chair will still call, just in case there has been some mis-communication.

Statements by Members.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise today to announce that government has enhanced its coyote management plan by amending our Wildlife Regulations to introduce a new coyote harvest for the Province.

Mr. Speaker, introducing a new coyote harvest strengthens our management options in addressing the number of concerns related to coyotes, such as predation on livestock and our wildlife populations, particularly big game. A coyote hunting season will allow for greater hunter participation, resulting in increased recreational and economic opportunities.

Government is committed to ensuring a sound coyote management plan for our Province. We believe that establishing a specific coyote hunting licence and a designated hunting season for coyote is a prudent approach and the best option to addressing concerns about the expanding coyote population. The new coyote hunting season will complement existing coyote management strategies, which include a trapping season, a shooting season during big and small game seasons, and an individual permit system to remove problem coyotes.

Mr. Speaker, the firearms permitted under the new coyote hunting licence include the small calibre centre fire rifles, not greater than .225 calibre, and shotguns with a shot size #2 or larger. The effective and humane harvest of coyotes, as with all wildlife populations that are hunted in this Province, is a key consideration in the establishment of firearm regulations for coyote hunting.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the new coyote harvest strategy is not to eliminate coyotes from the Province, but rather to help manage the population more effectively. Given the adaptability and reproductive capacity of the coyote, total elimination of the species is not a feasible option.

Mr. Speaker, the 2004-05 coyote hunting season begins May 1 and will end July 2005. This season will be closed from July 11 to September 10, 2004. It will open again on September 11 and close on July 9, 2005. Given that some of this years's season has elapsed, Mr. Speaker, the 2004-05 licence will be valid until July 9, 2005. Thereafter, the coyote season will begin on the second Saturday in September and end on the second Saturday in July. Coyote licences will be available from the Government Service Centres and wildlife licence vendors.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We welcome this initiative from the minister today. I want to compliment the minister on bringing this forward today. As well, we have had quite a number of calls on this particular problem. I know in my own district, and talking to people in the district, the caribou herd on the Burin Peninsula has been ravaged by the coyote. As a matter of fact, most of the smaller caribou have disappeared completely. I see this as great news in terms of conserving our livestock and wildlife population. I also have a concern that if we are going to have such an extended hunting season for coyote, I hope that the minister has adequate resources in his budget to make sure that we have better enforcement out there. I hope that some of those layoffs do not include -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. BARRETT: - the enforcement officers and that this is a properly supervised hunt.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of his statement. Mr. Speaker, from all reports around the Province coyotes do seem to be a problem in a lot of areas of the Province, but I wonder if the minister intends to have a study commissioned to determine more accurately the numbers that are out there. I will say that the hunt is welcome news because there are enough reports from different areas of the Province to suggest that there is indeed a problem with coyotes.

Mr. Speaker, one of the disadvantages of trying to combat this is that coyotes are one of the few -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: By leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: The coyotes are the only animal, probably in this Province, who do not have any natural predators. They can go up and down the food chain. Having no natural predators such as wolves, which are long extinct from this Province, their numbers do increase and multiple. Their breeding rate, Mr. Speaker, for anyone who knows anything about coyotes, is much different than that of other animals. So, there is a lot of cause for concern and this hunt is certainly, I think, legitimate and worthwhile but I would suggest to the minister that he commission a study to determine more accurately the numbers and where in the Province they are most populated.

MR. SPEAKER: Before we begin Oral Questions today, I want to remind members that yesterday we had a point of order relative to the time taken for the asking of questions and the time consumed in the answering. There was a general statement made by the Chair that we would try to adhere as closely as possible to the goals that we set out at the beginning of this session, whereby the questions should not be more than forty-five to fifty seconds in length and that supplementaries should, as far as possible, not have extensive preambles.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today is day twenty-one of the largest strike in the Province's history. Ironically, it also happens to be Employee Appreciation Day.

[Comments from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair, again, wishes to remind all members who are visitors to the House, in the galleries, that they are not to engage in any way or to reflect in any oral manner with comments that are made in the House, or in anyway possible to show their approval or disapproval for anything that happens on the floor of the House. I ask all visitors for their co-operation. We know that this is a difficult time in our Province and we welcome you as visitors to the gallery, however, please keep in mind that the traditions of the House are that visitors are not to participate in any way at all.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question for the alternate Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, which is the Minister of Health and Community Services, as I understand it, is: Could we get an update on what negotiation related activities have occurred since the unions offered another olive branch some twenty-five hours ago?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Since yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour, in her statement in the House, indicated that mediators had been, I guess, dispatched to see where there could be any common ground. That process concluded itself, is my understanding. Government has made a request, through the Premier and the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, to meet directly with the President of NAPE and the President of CUPE. It is my understanding that meeting is either occurring right now or is about to occur.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On a supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, hopefully our visitors today will be back at work tomorrow if there is productive work actually occurring outside this Legislature today. Also, hopefully, the Premier who publicly applauded the union leadership last evening and this morning for making significant moves might make some significant moves himself today, on behalf of the government, such as taking concessions off the table so we can have a settlement.

Mr. Speaker, another question for the alternate to the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. The Premier and the President of Treasury Board consistently claim that they need to do something about future benefits like sick leave - and here is the key, Mr. Speaker - at the urging of the bond rating agencies.

On March 16, the Premier, in the presence of the Minister of Natural Resources, claimed at a press conference that he had - and this is a very important phrase - he had alarming correspondence from the bond rating agencies and, as late as last evening, he said that is why they need to change provisions such as sick leave.

Would the alternate to the Minister of Finance describe to us, and answer for us, what actual correspondence from bond rating agencies is in the hands of government, and could she table it for us?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, given the fact and the acknowledgment that this year's Budget was a tough piece of work, not unlike what the Leader of the Opposition, in many budgets that he was involved with and brought down himself, has gone through. Given the fact that, even through all of that, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, on Budget Day and in the Budget Speech, introduced a Budget, recognized that this year's accrued deficit would be $840 million, much of what we did -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am about to answer the question, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

Much of what we did was on the advice of trying to maintain a balance between ensuring that our current credit rating remains in place - and I know the Leader of the Opposition understands the importance of that, because if there was any downgrade in that, government could be faced with trying to find an additional $55 million to $75 million to $150 million if there was a downgrade.

Now, given the question that the member has just asked me in terms of the correspondence - Can it be tabled? Will I find it? - I can only say on behalf of the government that I will take that matter under advisement and I will report back to the House at the earliest possible opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the answer and the undertaking, Mr. Speaker. Maybe I can save the House Leader, who seems to be going to answer the questions instead of the Minister of Health and Community Services, who is the alternate to the Minister of Finance, I will save him some work. As a matter of fact, I have in my hands here a response to a Freedom of Information request that we placed to the government asking for that information, and I will provide him the answer.

The response that we received from the Deputy Minister of Finance is that there is, in fact, no alarming correspondence from the bond rating agencies, as the Premier stated on March 16. As a matter of fact, it goes on to say, with the Deputy Minister of Finance, there is no correspondence from bond rating agencies at all. None whatsoever.

Now we have a government answering in the House today that if the bond rating changes we might have these dire consequences, because again we have a situation being described to the Province other than what actually exists.

Mr. Speaker, let me ask this question: On October 29, as a matter of fact, after the election, with the new government already in place, the Dominion Bond Rating Service, which is one of those bond rating agencies, confirmed the credit rating of Newfoundland and Labrador. It did not say it might be downgraded. It confirmed it and stated, and it is their quote: Trends remain stable. Trends remain stable.

MR. SPEAKER: Order please!

I ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The question is an important one. Why is the government, whoever is speaking or answering on behalf of the government, misinforming the public and trying to justify a totally unnecessary attack on collective bargaining benefit items, with information that is completely and totally at odds with what the bond rating agencies put in the possession of the new government a week after they were elected?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, maybe I should wait and let the leader ask all of his questions. He has asked a question and then stands up - to which an answer he already had, or he believes that he was in possession of.

The fact of the matter is this - and maybe the Leader of the Opposition should write a Freedom of Information request. Maybe he already has. If he has, I am not aware of it. Maybe he should ask for the correspondence of what the fiscal agents of the Province had told the Province and the provincial government sometime in November and December. The response was clear, and the royal commission on our position within Canada, a commission which he started, Mr. Speaker, said exactly the same thing, that the fiscal situation and spending practices of the Province are unsustainable. In other words, we couldn't spent $1 billion this year more than we had, we couldn't spend another $1.1 billion next year that we didn't have, we couldn't spend $1.2 billion the year after that, or $1.3 billion after that; in doing so, adding almost $4.5 billion to our debt.

The only place that would bring us, Mr. Speaker, is to a point where there would be absolutely no level of service -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his answer.

MR. E. BYRNE: - for people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Government House Leader would know, having been in this position, that we ask the questions because we know the answers but the government hasn't bothered to tell the people of the Province what the answer is, and they need to find out.

Mr. Speaker, let me move again - because the Government House Leader who, I guess, is designated today to answer the questions said: Well, in October that might have been true. That might have been what a bond rating agency said in October, but we got different information in November and December.

Let me provide this information and ask this question, Mr. Speaker. Moody's, which is another bond rating agency, provided information to the government in January of 2004, just before the Premier spoke to the people of the Province on January 5. Here is what they stated, their quote: We assign an A-3 rating to the Province, the highest it has ever had in history, having raised it in May, 2002. The upgrade that we provided recognizes the Province's - listen to this! - improved debt profile since the mid-1990s, and its brighter -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

- and its brighter economic prospects.

Now, they sat in the Cabinet, they sat in the Caucus, they suggested it. The statement finished by saying - this is January when the Premier was about to go to the people of the Province saying, we are drowning in debt - the Province's rating outlook is stable.

Mr. Speaker, the question - can the Government House Leader answer on behalf of the Premier? - is that the alarming correspondence that the Premier said in his presence in a press conference on March 16, that he had received from the bond rating agency? Is that what they are talking about?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, we believe, based on the information that has been provided to us, that one of -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The Leader of the Opposition has asked a question. I listened to his question. I wonder if he would have the courtesy to listen to my answer.

Much of the reason why we have not seen, at this point, or probably will see a downgrade in the Province's credit rating which would put at risk - admittedly, the Leader of the Opposition shook his head when I talked about it earlier - the Province having to find an additional, anywhere from $50 million to $150 million, depending on the length of the downgrade or how much the downgrade was. Where would we find the money to do all of the other things that we are currently doing?

Mr. Speaker, when we became the government earlier this year, or in the last year, we faced a fiscal situation that was almost three times greater than - when in 1989, as a member of a former government - he faced. Almost three times greater!

Let me say to the Leader of the Opposition, that we took the view that he did. This is what he said then: The problem has always been that if you do not -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. E. BYRNE: - sooner or later take the bull by the horns, Mr. Speaker, and deal with it, you can always delay, but every week, month or year of delay will put you in a more difficult problem to grapple with it and provide public services to the people of the Province.

That is the situation that we inherited from you and your government, Sir. That is the situation that we are trying to deal with on behalf of everybody.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That is the story they have chosen to believe themselves and are trying to foist on the people of the Province. Today we are getting to the truth, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, not the bond rating agencies but the Province's own financial advisors, a separate group of advisors that they pay rather well to advise the Minister of Finance and the Premier. They advise government that the bond raters who gave us stable ratings, raised our ratings, did not say they were at risk at all, nothing alarming, things are stable. Does the government understand the difference between the situation is stable verus the situation is alarming? What is alarming is what is happening in the Province today, twenty-one days into a strike, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the government's own advisors said the bond raters want to see an action plan that is front-end loaded, which is why we do understand that the Premier and the President of Treasury Board are out with the negotiators today, probably talking about a two-year wage freeze. That is front-end loaded, that is action in the early years. Those kinds of things are what is recommended.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The issue that we have been talking about here and the reason this strike is going into its fourth week is about sick leave, in which there is no savings for the government for years and years and years to come, because they are going to get rid of 4,000 employees in the next four years.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair appreciates the exchange that is back and forth, but the last set of questions we were nearly two minutes in the asking and we were a minute-and-forty in the response. We are now up to a minute-and-forty in the asking and we should get these exchanges done a lot faster. A few seconds to put the question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The question for the Government House Leader is: Why has this government caused a strike that is now finishing its third week and endanger of going into its forth week over an issue that has nothing whatsoever to do with alarming correspondence or with front-end loading an action plan in the Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, we have to come to recognize, and I know the Leader of the Opposition does, that the financial situation that faces all of us - this is not thirty-three members on the government side who have an $840 million deficit. This is a 510,000 people problem in Newfoundland and Labrador. Now, this is what the Leader of the Opposition said when he sat on government. He said: Health board deficits are continuing to grow at an alarming rate; $40 million this year, $50 million in 2001, $65 million in 2002. We are on an extremely dangerous course, if not contained, could lead to financial disaster for Newfoundland and Labrador. The fact, sir, is this: You did nothing about it, you recognized the problem and you left us holding the bag.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Every time we get close to the truth they get a little bit sensitive and they go back to the past and blame it on someone else. They chose this course, against advice, and have told the people of the Province the exact opposite.

Mr. Speaker, the last question from me, a different question. Let's go back to the beginning. In December of 2003, just before Christmas, before the Premier spoke to the people of the Province on January 5, Moody's, another one of those bond rating agencies again, stated that Newfoundland and Labrador's debt ratios have eased since the mid -1990s. Their quote is: Interest payments on the debt have remained flat since the mid-1990s and actually even decreased - and members opposite are going to hear this for the first time - have decreased from $574 million to $560 million.

I ask the Government House Leader, on behalf of his leader, the Premier: How does that match the false billion dollar story that the Premier concocted on T.V. on January 5, when he spoke to the people of the Province about drowning in debt and having to give a billion dollars to the banks when he had just received the report from Moody's saying that the interest had flattened out and even declined to under $600 million? Answer that question for the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, the way the Leader of the Opposition is purporting information today, you would not know if the coffers of the Province are flush, that they are overflowing and that there are thirty-three people on this side of the House who want nothing more than to cause hardship and anguish to the people of the Province. Nothing is further from the truth.

Mr. Speaker, it is as simple as this. DFO stocks, for example, say that Northern cod is stable, but at a low level. Does anyone find that alarming? The fact of the matter is this, that unless -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

We need to recognize this, that unless we deal with the financial situation - it cannot be lost upon anybody, that Budget Day the Minister of Finance stood up and delivered what you described as one of the harshest budgets ever, but still contains accrued deficits this year of $840 million more than we have. What would you do with it? Would you continue to spend what we do not have? Because if you did, you would be taking the future away from my two children and I am not going to let you do that, sir.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions -

[Comments from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again I remind visitors in the gallery, it is the second time that I have had to interrupt Question Period to remind visitors that they are not supposed to engage in any dialogue whatsoever. The Speaker does not want to have the galleries cleared. It is the last thing any Speaker would want to do. Please, I ask visitors for their co-operation.

I want to say to visitors that they are always welcome in here, but please do not engage or make any response to anything that is said on the floor of the House.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and they concern another 20,000 people who are waiting to go to work in this Province today.

A little over a year ago, this minister and his Premier called in the Competition Bureau of Canada to investigate the processors of our Province. They both claimed that the processors were colluding to limit - and I say limit - competition. That is what they said, that they were colluding to limit competition.

Does the minister realize that plant quotas will not limit competition, but they will eliminate it entirely, and that these same processors who they claim were colluding to limit competition will then drive the price down offered to fishermen for their product.

Will the minister now stand and tell the Province that he will never - never - implement production quotas unless and until the FFAW agree to them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, the member is correct in saying that we did call in the Competition Bureau to investigate the actions of fish processing companies in this Province. That was just about three years ago and, as I understand it, the investigation is still ongoing.

As for the issue of plant production quotas, we said when we rolled out the Dunne Report that we were prepared to engage in a discussion with the industry, with harvesters, processors and plant workers, on the possible implementation of plant production quotas. We said then that we would not engage in plant production quotas in 2004.

I reiterated that on the Fisheries Broadcast yesterday, and on numerous occasions over the past two months; however, I will say this to the member and to all who want to listen, that there are only two ways to deal with fish processing in this Province: Price setting, and that is in a regulated fashion with plant production quotas and a collective bargaining act; or, in the absence of that, with an open and free market, the auction as we proposed back in February.

Those are the two choices, Mr. Speaker, and I am free at any time to engage in the industry in a debate on either of those options.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

I think that the minister did not answer my question. I heard him say that he would not implement them in 2004, but I happen to know that officials in his department are saying that they are going to implement them in 2005.

Another question, Mr. Speaker. The minister indicated yesterday, in the media, that there is no role for the government in the dispute between the harvesters and processors of our Province. Plants in the Maritimes and Quebec, as we speak, are already buying crab and shrimp, while we are hearing from our fishermen that they are talking about landing their catches in Nova Scotia.

Does the minister realize the impact this is going to have on our plant workers in the Province? How can he justify driving our fishermen over to Nova Scotia and keeping our plants closed?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Part of the reason why we have the problem we are confronted with today in this Province is because of the overcapacity. I am not going to blame this member when he was minister because, to my knowledge, he did not really issue any licence, nor this one here, but the government they were a part of did issue a whole lot of licences and create the overcapacity that we have in our industry and the overcapitalization that we have in this industry, Mr. Speaker.

We, as a government, have a role in developing policy, in issuing licences, or not, in the quality assurance program, and in inspections and so on. That is the role that we unveiled. We indicated our intentions when we rolled out the Dunne Report on February 4. We are sticking to those intentions, Mr. Speaker. We will work with the industry in any way that they feel we can participate in helping to facilitate -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the minister. The minister has about twenty seconds left to reply.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, we will engage at any time, as we did over this past weekend, through the facilitation of a mediation process. We are prepared to do that now.

Mr. Speaker, I will say this: If the industry wants us to post the price for fish in this Province, I have no problem putting a process in place to do that, but at this point there is a dispute between harvesters and processors about the price -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. TAYLOR: - and they must resolve it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is obvious that the minister talks a lot but says nothing. He has not answered a question here today.

Mr. Speaker, he talked about the overcapacity in the industry. In 1972, I say to the minister - and his colleagues sitting next to him know this - in 1972, when the Tories took over the government in this Province, there were120 processing licences in this Province. When you left in 1989, there were 260. So, if you want to talk about overcapacity, you caused it.

Mr. Speaker, my final question. The minister and the Premier talk about no giveaways of our natural resources. Their inactivity is forcing fishermen to take our resources to the Maritimes and Quebec. They are sitting on their hands while our resources are being exported. What is the minister going to do about the 20,000 fishermen and plant workers in this Province today who are waiting to go to work?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Under the rotation we have, the Chair will recognize next the member - no, sorry. The member will be recognized next, but the Chair will give the minister about thirty seconds to make a reply.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not cause it, Mr. Speaker. In 1989, and the five years before that, I was steaming around Belle Isle catching codfish. I did not cause the overcapacity in the industry either.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, at this point, in crab and in shrimp, there is a process in place, there is Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. I have said there will be no plant production quotas in 2004 in crab. I have indicated my intentions to deal with the issue with the industry. We have said that at any time we will be prepared -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The minister should now finish his answer.

MR. TAYLOR: - to engage in this process and deal with it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Government House Leader, who is answering for the government today.

Yesterday, the Premier indicated in this House that he would be flexible in negotiations with the public sector workers. Yet, last night on TV he said that signing bonuses were only for hockey players.

Will this government not acknowledge, Mr. Speaker, that one-time payments, whether they are called signing bonuses, special allowances, lump sum payments, one-time payments of one sort or another, are a common feature of wage settlements in the public and private sector, and that they have been used, for example, in the latest round of bargaining with the Government of Canada, the Government of Quebec, the Nova Scotia Government, the CBC, and Bell Canada, none of whom, as far as I know, employ hockey players.

Will this government acknowledge that this is a possible way of solving the dispute without adding to the long-term salary budget and, in fact, Mr. Speaker, to deny the use of such options could, in fact, lengthen the strike and eliminate the possibility of reaching a successful conclusion?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to acknowledge that today - it could be right now or within a short period of time - the Premier, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, are sitting down, face to face, with the President of NAPE and the President of CUPE. What they are going to talk about is obviously trying to reach an agreement that everybody can live with and that will be in the best interests of everybody.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that in the interest of that meeting occurring right now, I am going to leave the negotiations to the President of NAPE, to the President of CUPE, to the Premier of the Province, to the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, leave it to them right now where that meeting is occurring, and not happening between the Leader of the NDP and myself in my capacity as Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Health and Community Services, concerning the transportation of palliative care patients upon being released from hospital or being told by their doctors they are able to go home. The minister is aware that the only way these people can travel home to be with their families and loved ones is by air ambulance.

When will the minister make the necessary changes in policy that will enable the air ambulance to transport patients back to their homes upon being told, by their doctors, there is no further treatment available?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am aware of the situation that the hon. member is talking about and we are currently reviewing it. We have not reached a conclusion at this point in time, but we are approving individual instances on an ad hoc basis.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair was advised earlier that it was set at 2:08, but if I have made a mistake I will correct it. There is one minute left.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This question is for the Minister of Natural Resources.

Last week, the minister announced that a compliance officer to ensure the enforcement of the adjacency principle for Voisey's Bay employment would be released this week.

I want to ask the minister: Is that still on track, and will that compliance officer have the authority to make sure that people in Labrador, who are qualified for employment at Voisey's Bay, will get it first, rather than what is happening today, being at the end of the line?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Last week, in response to the member's question, I had indicated that by this week we would have a response. The week is not concluded yet and we are still on target to have a response. I want to say to the member, clearly, that when it comes to the adjacency principle that the Voisey's Bay Nickel Company has, it is our view, as the Department of Natural Resources on behalf of the government, that we are going to put in place a process which involves personnel that will see the people of Labrador have faith and confidence in getting hired, and ensuring that the adjacency principle that was committed to them is lived up to.

Also, Mr. Speaker, and finally, let me say this: That the process that will be put in place will not just be a monitoring position, but will be a position that ensures that if there is an oversight or somebody is aggrieved that it is corrected. That is the commitment that I made last week and that is the commitment I am standing by today, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair now recognizes that the time has expired. The Chair apologizes. I normally set two stopwatches. Today I forgot to do it. I asked the Table Officers and they gave me the 2:08 instead of the 2:09. I apologize for any inconvenience it may have caused the hon. Member for Labrador West.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, today I stand and would like to present a petition by retired public service pensioners in the Province. A few weeks ago I attended a session in Clarenville that was well represented by the retired pensioners expressing concern about the treatment this government has had with our retired public servants. The day the meeting took place - actually, there was an announcement by the government that took these people out of the torture chamber they had them in for three-and-a-half or four months. The Premier indicated that it was off the table; that it was never the intention of the government to reduce the pension benefits of our retired public servants and it was never on the agenda.

We all know that back in January the Premier and his government said, when they started the collective bargaining process, that they were going to reduce the pensioners by .06 per cent, which caused a lot of anxiety with our people. I attended this meeting, Mr. Speaker, and most of the people were from Clarenville. There was an invitation to the MHAs of the area to attend. The Member for Trinity North did not turn up. They were very, very upset because they knew the Member for Trinity North previously had risen in this House of Assembly and presented petitions on their behalf when he sat on this side of the House of Assembly. As a matter of fact, they were very upset with the poor representation that they received.

After I got this petition - because they indicated they would forward petitions to be presented, even though they knew that this was off the table. I made contact with them because I received this petition a day or so ago, and they said: No, Percy, we want you to stand in the House of Assembly to make sure - because the negotiations are not completed yet. We have not concluded the negotiations. We said that the Premier and the Minister of Finance - we have been on the edge of our seats for the last three weeks. When we start to reach a crisis situation in the collective bargaining process - and what happened here yesterday was unbelievable. Just before the House opened we had the managers stuffed into the galleries to fill the galleries.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame! Shame!

MR. BARRETT: We had the managers, who are making $100,000 a year, stuffed into the galleries to occupy the seats so that the general public could not get in here. So, we do not trust this government and the pensioners do not trust this government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's allotted time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave to clue up.

MR. BARRETT: There will be a lot more petitions presented on this issue because just recently, this morning, I received another petition. The petitioners want me to ask a question of the Member for Trinity North: They want to know where you are?

[Comments from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: I will inform visitors in the gallery that if there is further commentary at all the Chair will have the galleries cleared for the day, and if they are cleared for the day, the doors will remain closed for the balance of the sitting day.

[Comments from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry, the House will recess and the galleries will be cleared.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We were hearing petitions before the recess. The Chair will call for petitions again now.

The hon. the Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of Labrador residents concerning the question I asked the Minister of Health and Community Services earlier, on travel for palliative care patients, whose only way of getting back to their home is on Air Ambulance.

Mr. Speaker, none of the airlines going into Labrador West today is a suitable option of travel for people who need to travel on the Air Ambulance because of their medical condition at the time they need to travel.

The minister said in response to my question, Mr. Speaker, that the policy was under review. I certainly hope it does not take long for that review to be conducted and a positive answer be given to the people of the Province who find themselves in this position of having to get home to their loved ones.

She also talked about, right now, at the present time, taking care of individual cases as they occur. Well, Mr. Speaker, the problem with that, and I know because I have dealt with it obviously enough -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. COLLINS: The problem with that, Mr. Speaker, is that it takes a day or two days of my time, when the patients are from my area, who I have intervened on their behalf and their families behalf, by talking to the Minister of Transportation, by talking to the Minister of Health and Community Services, both in the last case, which is the first case I have had to deal with since this government has taken power. In that case I commend both ministers for the assistance that they provided during that period of time. But the problem with that situation, or with that system, is it takes time to get the okay. Unfortunately, a lot of people, a lot of the patients who I am referring to for this travel, the one thing that they do not have, in many cases, is a lot of time. Many cases that we have been able to get people back to their families and their loved ones, they have gotten back just in time to spend a few hours with them, sadly, before they passed away. That is not good enough.

The Air Ambulance is the only form of travel for these patients and their families. It has to be put on to bring these people back, once their doctor - generally here at the Health Sciences - has said that there is no further treatment available for them and releases them to return home. The last thing, Mr. Speaker, the most inhumane thing that can happen when a doctor tells a patient that, is to have them sit in a hospital waiting for a phone call saying you are going to be transported in two or three or four hours time. Because, Mr. Speaker, the first line now from the Air Ambulance is that we will take you back to your home - and that home could be in Labrador West. It could be in the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area. In could be in the Corner Brook region or St. Anthony. What they are told at the present time is that when we get a call for the Air Ambulance -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: By leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave to conclude.

MR. COLLINS: - is that when we get a call for the Air Ambulance to go to your area for an emergency, we will take you back at that time. Mr. Speaker, that could be a day, it could be a week, it could be a month. The people I am referring to, who need this service, do not have that kind of time frame in the most cases. It is important for the minister and for this government to bring about the changes necessary so that patients can be transported home in a timely manner to spend their last days with their families and loved ones in comfortable surroundings.

I urge this government, Mr. Speaker, and the minister, to bring in the necessary changes as soon as possible so that patients, who find themselves in this position, are not subject to more mental anguish and suffering than they already are.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: This being private member's day, we have the motion, I do believe, by the hon. Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

The Chair now recognizes the hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to move: WHEREAS a strong and dedicated civil service is an important part of maintaining and improving both the social and economic life of people in this Province;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly does not agree with a downgrading of the civil service in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure, and I have some other emotions today, tainted with a bit of sadness as well, that today, being Employee Appreciation Day, we have some 20,000 of our public service outside, on the streets, fighting for what they believe to be their right. So, it is with somewhat concern today that I bring this motion forward. I feel it is rather significant that we discuss it here in this hon. House in light of the past Budget that we also had.

Government has the responsibility of providing for its citizens, and part of that responsibility is providing for a strong and dedicated public service, to make sure that the special things, the things that are important to people's lives, are being looked after.

Yesterday we sat here and I noticed that there were management brought in to fill the seats. It sort of struck me that these people were brought in as essential employees, and I did not think it one little bit essential at all to fill the seats to keep our public from attending the proceedings of this House. It is not my impression or my feeling that these people were best utilizing their time when we have our seniors lying in hospital beds, waiting to be taken out, just to be given some care, a little bit of a change from their mattress, to get up and be moved to a chair.

Not too very long ago, my own father was lying in a hospital bed and I appreciated - and this is why it came to me today, that this motion is so important - I appreciated the role of those people in our health care facilities. It is so important. It goes beyond our health care facilities, which I will get to later.

It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, I guess, that the managers were not ordered in today, because they too are employees of government and they could listen to how I feel about their role. It is unfortunate that they are locked out. I hope they are not locked out in the cold.

In any event, having somebody spend time in a health care institution, that is when you get a getter appreciation of what is happening; why those people are so important. I am not just talking about the nurses or the doctors. I am talking about the ward clerks, the steward on the floor, the person who takes someone down for an X-ray, who smiles at them, even though they are going down to find out that, yes, maybe they do have cancer.

People are brought to those institutions at a time in their lives when their main concern, their very main concern, is their own health. The family of those people, their main concern is the health of their loved one.

I am sure we have all experienced that. Hopefully we go through life and we never experience it, but unfortunately the cycle of life brings us to a point where that is exactly what happens. Somebody, somewhere along the line, who belongs to us ends up in a health care institution.

When we look at the steward or the ward clerk, the person who signs somebody in for an exam or anything, they are always there with a smile to try to ease the stress and stain of that individual when they go through their tests. Even from the point of view of the floor being cleaned, the person who goes into a room - and it happened so many times as my father was lying there in bed - and empties the garbage can next to the bed, who always said a kind word or had a smile. Even my father's last day - the housekeeping people. There is no such thing as insignificant people in our public service. There is no such thing. Everybody has an important role to play, and it cannot be taken lightly.

In our last Budget, the Budget that we are debating in this hon. House right now for this year, 4,000 people are slated to go, but it is all being overshadowed, unfortunately it is being overshadowed, by the 20,000 people and the plight they are in, out on the street right now. There are all kinds of games being played. All of a sudden - it is like a rabbit chasing a carrot - just as they get close, somebody pulls the carrot away. I hope that is not what is happening today. I notice the Premier and the Minister of Finance are down having negotiations, or at least I hope they are. I hope they are not going to pull that carrot away from the public sector again today and get past another weekend.

It is discomforting to all of us when we have to cross the picket line and come to work, but those people out there, they are not the enemy. There are people out there who are fighting for what they have come to believe to be their rights, and it is rights. They have earned their right to a collective agreement, and that a collective agreement stays in place until a new one replaces it.

Those particular people, when they come back to work, are going to be coming back to serve the public of this Province. The people of this Province have come to expect a level of service from the public service that they do not mind paying for. Going, standing up in a lineup - and I experienced that just last year when I was involved in your roles. How many of our offices around this Province are understaffed, people getting sick, having to stay off because they are overworked or stressed out because they are working too much? We do not have to go very far. We can go to Mount Pearl, to the Motor Vehicle Registration Office out there, and see what is happening out there. At given days, the lineups are out to the parking lot. The one in Harbour Grace, the Government Services office out there, the lineups are to the parking lot almost any given day.

I know people right now - I know the strain is going to be on these people when they do come back to work, and I know they will be back to work, but the strain that will be on those people when they get back to work, trying to catch up on the backlog. We have heard the stories about car dealerships not being able to sell vehicles because they did not have plates. That thing sorted itself out for the time being, but it is the little things throughout an individual's day or week that they have to go to a public servant and ask for their service to get some assistance, whether it be getting water checked, their well. If you live in a rural community, it is very, very important.

Last year we hired a number of extra water analysts just to make sure that the drinking water of the public in this Province was in good order. That is very, very important in rural Newfoundland. It is different in cities and municipalities because they usually have some people on staff who monitor the pump stations from time to time and make sure that the water is being treated and that they have a safe drinking supply, but in rural Newfoundland when you get out there and you have an inspector who probably has to drive, on a given day, maybe 300 or 400 kilometres, as they do on the Northern Peninsula - they leave Corner Brook and go up the coast, or go from St. Anthony to somewhere else - those are the functions that we sort of forget about, and as we get involved in government it becomes commonplace that these people, we see them every day and we sort of forget what their roles are.

AN HON. MEMBER: Taken for granted.

MR. SWEENEY: They become taken for granted, and that is why today's motion is so important, that we let these people know that we do not take them for granted.

The other thing that we have to keep in mind is a reduction, as I said in my motion, does not agree with a downgrading. A downgrading, to me, means a reduction, and 4,000 jobs out - the first thing that I think about is, I will go back to saying about my father last year when he could not cut up his supper, and the person who brought in the meal, the porter, took the time to cut up his food and spend a moment with him and helped feed him. If we take 4,000 people out of the public service, what is going to happen to people like my father? The person who is suffering, who is most vulnerable, in a hospital bed, what is going to happen?

I know and I have read through the Budget about reviewing the role of nurses in this Province, which sets off an alarm bell, because any time there is a review undertaken by bureaucracy of government, what happens then is: What are we going to fool with? What are we going to tamper with?

AN HON. MEMBER: Skill mix.

MR. SWEENEY: The word, as you just said, skill mix. Skill mix means, to me, less nurses and more nursing assistants. We will find a way to push down the high paying jobs and prop up the other jobs. Now, as soon as that happens, then we get into longer stays in bed, because I am convinced that with 4,000 people going out of the system there will not be new people coming in. That means those nursing assistants who are already worked to pieces, worked to death, from my experiences in the long-term care facilities in my area and from the hospital in my area, that means that they are going to have to do more, probably trained to give medications, give needles and other things.

The comfort of the person who is sitting there, the senior who is lying there in bed, getting their Attends taken off and a fresh unit put on, that becomes the last thing you do, because as the term means in the hospital, the terms comes to light, meds. We have to get the meds out there. A lot of times, when places are understaffed, what happens with meds is that you get a med alright, it is a pill to help somebody sleep longer so that they are less trouble, they are less bothersome to the staff.

AN HON. MEMBER: Less patient time.

MR. SWEENEY: And less patient time, less attention given to a patient. That is what meds means.

That is why I saw a trend in our last Budget that the real people, the people who are out there providing care to our children, to our mothers and fathers and to our brothers and sisters, those are the people who will end up suffering in all of this. Four thousand people, I don't care how we cut it - because the years haven't been good to the numbers of the public service.

I remember when I first joined the public service, I watched and I saw it gradually deteriorate. I was involved in the college system, and I saw in the college system how, all of the sudden, you cannot do a plumbing course in a government run facility anymore, you cannot do an electrical course, there are only certain point at which you can get in, and in many cases the waiting lists are three and four years.

I say to the Member for Trinity North, he will have his chance to speak. I am sure he will expound wisdom all over the place, as I have heard him talk so often, that he is such an expert on everything.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace. I would appreciate it if the member could be heard in relative silence.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much.

I feel very strongly about this motion, Mr. Speaker, because you have to show respect for the people who serve the public of our Province. I represent the people of my Province and I have a right to speak here in this House without being drowned out by insults and other shoddy remarks that mean nothing to anybody. At least I have the decency to get up here and say how I feel about the people that I represent, the people who work for the people I represent.

MR. JOYCE: Four-hundred and seventy-five teachers gone.

MR. SWEENEY: Just this year - and I thank my colleague from the Bay of Islands for bringing that up - 475 teachers going out of our system. Now, that is not going to hurt too much, I say, Mr. Speaker. That is not going to hurt very much in Mount Pearl or St. John's but that is going to hurt in rural communities on the Northern Peninsula. It is going to hurt down in Clarenville. It is going to hurt in Carbonear and Harbour Grace, Victoria and Bay Roberts, and the Bay of Islands. That is where it is going to hurt. We are going to go back to what we saw back in, I hate to say it, but the 1930s. You know, back in the 1930s. I would imagine the member - I know you were not alive at the time but probably we had one-room schools on the North Coast of Labrador. We probably had one-room schools.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: We are going to go back in parts of this Province where we are going to have multi-class units, I think they refer to it as, or sitting to, the great teacher of all, a computer monitor. Now, I do not know how somebody who is sick in a classroom, or some young child who is four or five years old can sit in a classroom and ask that computer can they go to the washroom, or if they are sick and being nauseated if they can go outside. I do not know how that is going to work. Now, computers are great things, but they are great learning tools not great teaching tools.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to clue up.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. SWEENEY: I realize I have fifteen minutes at the end to clue up debate, so I adjourn.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I am certainly pleased to stand today to say a few words on this private member's resolution put forward by the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

I will just read: THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly does not agree with a downgrading of the civil service in this Province. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member got the idea that we were going to be downgrading the civil service in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not know where he got that idea. We have been upfront with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We may be downsizing the public service but we told the people of Newfoundland and Labrador during the election. The people on the opposite side of the House, they were the people who made it a big issue. They picked a page out of our Blue Book and made a big to-do about it. They were fearmongering and telling people we were going to let go as many as 20,000 people out of the public service. But the people saw through it and knew that what we would do, we would be responsible in our actions.

I will just read right from the Blue Book, if I could, on page fifty-eight, it says, "Approximately 40% of all government expenditures go towards salaries and employee benefits. Over the next five years, approximately 25% of the public service will be eligible for retirement. A Progressive Conservative government will use this five-year period to reduce the size of the public sector through attrition." Nothing about downgrading, just reducing the size of the public service.

What we hope to do, in the long-term, is improve the services provided by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. When people retire within the public service we will look at each and every position and there will be some people who will be hired back in. There is no doubt that. As a matter of fact, in the Budget the Minister of Finance said that we will be putting a committee in place to look at those individuals who would leave the system and try to get them back in as soon as possible afterwards. So to say that we are going to be downgrading the public service is misleading, at the least, Mr. Speaker. We will be improving the public service in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I have to comment on this most recent point that the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace got up on, and the Opposition Leader. He was up yesterday on a point of order talking about the galleries; people in the galleries, staff in the galleries. Well, Mr. Speaker, obviously that side of the House of Assembly is: Do as I say, not as I do. If anybody wants to remember and look back at the House of Assembly when the Voisey's Bay debates were going on, what happened here was that the galleries were full by staff, deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers, directors and managers. Not only that, Mr. Speaker, they were in the galleries, in the seats, before the House was even open. When the debate went through and was finished that night and the vote was taken - people watching will obviously know that there is supposed to be no response from the galleries. We have had the Speaker clear the House in the past number of days - and what happened? They were instructed, Mr. Speaker, by the then Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, to stand and applaud in the galleries. Obviously, from that group, it is: Do as I say, not as I do. They tried to put something on this side of the House that is not there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: That is what has been going on, Mr. Speaker, in this House of Assembly for the past few weeks, getting up and fearmongering, asking a question about one thing and the next day changing their minds and asking about something else; wanting the Premier involved one day, not wanting him involved the next day.

The Leader of the Opposition getting on the Open Line shows every morning and evening - the most simplest little things happening in the House of Assembly and trying to blow them out of proportion. That is what he is up to, Mr. Speaker. Not only that, when we have people in the galleries here, the civil servants who are on strike, I see members on that side of the House inciting the people in the galleries, Mr. Speaker, by comments from that side of the House and actions, and what have you. They should be ashamed of themselves! They should be taking this a lot more seriously than what they are doing. They are trying to gain political points on the backs of the civil servants.

We are in a situation in this Province today - and the Minister of Fisheries was on his feet yesterday and gave a really good speech on this, Mr. Speaker. In this Province today we have a debt of over $11 billion for 500,000 people, and a deficit this year of $840 million. Now, we have to deal with that. We have an Opposition that is in place now that were in government for fifteen years and they have to take some responsibility for that. You would not but we were over here being the big, bad wolf. That is the impression they are trying to give out there. We are trying to be responsible and trying to correct the problems which were created by that crowd on that side of the House of Assembly.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: That is what we are trying to do, and we are trying to do it in an orderly fashion. What do we have from that side? I remember the Leader of the Opposition standing up and saying: You know, we will try to assist. He said himself that we are in a dire situation with respect to the fiscal responsibilities of this Province, and every chance he gets he is undermining what is trying to be done on this side of the House of Assembly, the government of the day.

Yes, we have 20,000 people on strike in this Province. I have family on strike on the picket line and I have good friends on the picket line and a lot of acquaintances. Do you think that I want to see them on the picket line? Do you think anybody on this side of the House wants to see them on the picket line? Not likely, but to listen to the crowd over there, you would not know but we were getting some kind of enjoyment out of it or something. They should be ashamed of themselves! That is the problem we have in the Province today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. J. BYRNE: Look back on it. The question has to be asked - again, the Leader of the Opposition, every time he gets on his feet: Don't look at the past, we have to look at the future. But to correct the problems we have today, we have to look at the past and see what happened, I say to members on the opposite side of the House. We have the abuse of the Public Service Commission for years and years. We had abuse of the Public Tender Act for years and years and years, and they are over there criticizing us for trying to correct it.

It was a PC government that brought in the Public Service Commission. It was a PC government that brought in the Public Tender Act to try and correct the problems of the previous administration to that; contracts were given all over the place. We see today, this Administration over there just weeks before the election, extending a contract for the ferry system, the Appollo, up on the Northern Peninsula going over to Labrador, weeks before a four-year contract - $16 million to $20 million, and they wonder. They have to question and wonder why we are over here doing what we have to do.

As the Minister of Fisheries said yesterday, what we are trying to do is protect our future on this side of the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker, trying to protect our children, our grandchildren, and great- grandchildren. They have no responsibility. I do not know what the Leader of the Opposition does when he looks in the mirror in the mornings. There must be nothing showing there because he takes no responsibility.

Another thing, I have to go back to this. I want to speak on the Budget, when the Budget Debate comes up, and point out all the good things in the Budget. Not all the negativity coming from that side of the House, but some of the good things.

Members on that side of the House should look back too, and say: Listen, I was a part of the government - and again, they were a part of a government that let 3,000 civil servants go, pink slips. Only last week, or a few weeks ago, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Christmas Eve.

MR. J. BYRNE: Christmas Eve, basically. That was a nice Christmas gift.

It was only last week, or two weeks ago, that I heard a member, a high profile person in this Province who is involved with the strike, come out and say - listening to those individuals over there - I really felt bad for the 4,000 people and families who got their layoff slips the other night.

Mr. Speaker, that is completely misleading, completely untrue. What is happening - over the next number of years - there will be a downsizing, not a downgrading, a downsizing, of the civil service. As I said last week, every job will be looked at. If someone retires, Mr. Speaker, do you think, as I said, if a person retires, a nurse retires, or a snow plow operator, a physician, or whatever the case may be, X-ray, lab, these people, that they are not going to be replaced? Really, there are certain positions that have to be replaced, and we will be looking at that.

As I said, there is a committee in place that will be putting people in positions that were vacated. To be up there, fearmongering all the time, trying to incite people in this Province, when we all should be coming together. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I would like to see the federal government, the provincial government, the municipalities, the unions, the labour, all coming together and saying: Listen, we are in a difficult situation in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have to take some responsibility. We all are part of the problem, Mr. Speaker, and we all need to be involved in solving the financial situation of the Province today in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The people out there, the general public, are supporting us. They understand what has gone on in the past, over the past fifty years in particular, of all governments. There is no doubt about that. We all had responsibility; but, if you listen to the Leader of the Opposition over there, Mr. Speaker, it blows my mind, I have to say. He will get up and wash his hands of everything that went on in the past, and he was a part of it.

It was probably a good time to have the debate on the Budget, for the Leader of the Opposition, around Easter time. He was certainly acting as Pontius Pilate, taking no responsibility at all, Mr. Speaker. He should be ashamed of himself, and members on that side. We should be working together.

As a matter of fact, this resolution, Mr. Speaker, was put forth for no other reason than politics. We have resolutions come to this House of Assembly to try and improve the situation of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is strictly politics, there is no doubt about that, to say "...that this House of Assembly does not agree with a downgrading of the civil service in this Province." Really! Do they expect us, on this side of the House, to agree to that, when we are here trying to correct the problems of over fifty years, fifty-five years? Mr. Speaker, it is shameful. They should be ashamed of themselves.

What I want to do, Mr. Speaker, is move an amendment to the private member's resolution, of course, which would then be more in line with what is trying to be accomplished in this Province today in Newfoundland and Labrador, not to play politics with it.

Let's look at the civil service out there who are on strike today, 20,000 people, family, friends, acquaintances, some with a husband and wife on the picket line, and in here trying to play politics with it. We have to get a resolution to this as best we can and as soon as possible, Mr. Speaker, not to try and extend it and to incite people when they are in the galleries. I can name people on that side, Mr. Speaker, who are at that every day when there are people in the galleries, but I will not. I would not do that. I would not want to embarrass them, Mr. Speaker.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I want to move that the private member's resolution now before the House be amended by adding, following the BE IT RESOLVED clause: That ‘downgrading' be defined, in this context, as eroding the ability of the government to provide high-quality public services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador within the Province's ability to pay.

That is what I would like moved, Mr. Speaker, and it is seconded by the Member for Lewisporte.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has not yet received a copy of the amendment. If the Chair could have a copy forwarded, then the House will recess very momentarily. There is no need for members to leave. We will recess for just a few seconds so that the Chair can consult with the table to make sure that the amendment is in order.

The House will recess for about a minute or two.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The Chair rules the amendment to be in order, and advises the member speaking now that he has about two minutes left in his address.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the amendment is in order, and I am sure that other members on this side of the House would like to speak to the resolution and to the amendment.

Mr. Speaker, why are we in the situation that we are in today? We see members on the other side of the House questioning a study that we had done recently of $150,000 to try and improve a situation in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; but, Mr. Speaker, they seem to forget. I could go down through a list of money that was wasted since I have been in this House of Assembly, that I have been questioning for years and years and years, since I have been here, eleven years. One, for example, they had an ad campaign in the media not long ago, $250,000, about the good things that are happening in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is part of the reason why we are in the situation we are in today.

A few years ago, the group on that side of the House had a big new conference, a big media event in Labrador - $1 million to announce the Lower Churchill. Where is the Lower Churchill, Mr. Speaker? Not one job created - irresponsibility.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Sorry, not all members. I am sorry. The NDP were not involved in that. I stand corrected.

Mr. Speaker, we had court cases from the Liberal Administration, Atlantic Leasing, $4.2 million, not a job created, Mr. Speaker, taking care of their buddies. Cabot 500 Corporation, we all know about that, where the people were fired and they were forced to pay out over $500,000 for being irresponsible. They have the Trans City, where the Public Tender Act was abused to the hilt - and then sued, and another $5 million paid out for not one job being created. The list goes on and on and on. We are here, what? less than six months, and the people on that side of the House expect us to turn the world around in six months.

Mr. Speaker, what we are planning to do is put a long-term plan in place and to work gradually and to resolve the problems of Newfoundland and Labrador with a two-pronged approach, to cut our expenditures and then to look at job creation in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, which will certainly benefit the Province as time goes on, and if the people -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, just to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted to clue up.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if the people on that side of the House would sit back and be a bit relaxed and give us maybe a little bit more time than five or six months - I am not asking for fifteen years, like they had to do something, but at least give us a reasonable amount of time to cure the problems of Newfoundland and Labrador and we will continue to work towards that, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

The resolution that we are debating here today - it is Employee Appreciation Day. How ironic, Mr. Speaker, that we are here talking about Employee Appreciation Day and we have had the people who work for government out for more than three weeks. Just think about it. Just think about it.

This morning, while I was preparing some notes to do a fifteen-minute speech on this today, I went to CBC National on the computer, and on CBC National there was a picket line, or a poster, I should say, of three people with these words on the inscription: My vote sentenced me to four years of hell.

These are people who are there out on the picket line. I want to, in the few minutes that I have, try to demonstrate that there was no need for us to put our public service through the situation that has happened and has occurred in the Province. There have been too many highs and there have been too many lows for the people. If we go back - and we can go back, if we like - to January 5, January 6, January 7, January 16, January 24, February 7, February 17, March 5, March 18, I have them documented and I have some material that I want to look at. We have, Mr. Speaker, many, many instances over the last number of weeks - and we can go back to January, if we like - when the first salvo was given to the public service that there would be no increase. That, in itself, was a traumatic experience for many of the people who are on the picket line. It might not have been a traumatic experience for people like us, but it was for them. Single parents, two children, three children, working with a maximum salary of $17,000, $20,000, $25,000 or $30,000 a year. It was for them; it had to be traumatic. Then, all of a sudden, as we go up through, we see the term of events happening up to March 31.

On March 31, when there were some negotiations, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board got involved, the Premier got involved, and there was a ray of hope for those people who were on strike. They saw light at the end of the tunnel. They really did. They were hoping and praying that there would be a resolution to the strike - or the impending strike, I should say - but it did not happen. It did not happen. These people's hopes were dashed. All of the hope and vision that they had for being able to carry on and maintain for their families was taken from them. They had thought that there was going to be an agreement.

Since that particular time, what has happened to the people on the picket line is that there has been despair. They want to go back to work. When things got really tight, for example, there had been again some hope given to the people out there, that there would be a resolution to the strike, and their hopes were up. Then, quickly, they were dashed again. There is going to be no strike. The strike has gone from day one to day two to day three and we find it as it is now, three weeks into the strike.

I am hoping, I really do - and I say that sincerely, with every inch of fervor that I have - that we do find a resolution to it, because the people who are out there on strike, these people from the general services and the people who work in the seniors' homes as LPNs and so on, these are not the high-paying jobs that are in government. These are at the lower end of the scale. If we were to give them, for example, 1 per cent increase, the people who are on strike today, it would not cost $20 million or $30 million. It would cost $10 million. It is the people who should never be in the situation where they are, but they are.

Then, another example, only yesterday they rallied here at the building. They rallied at the building again yesterday. As they were rallying yesterday, yesterday afternoon I think it was, they say: Okay, we are going to send the mediators back again to talk to the people to see if there are any grounds whereby we might be able to find some resolution to it.

It is twenty-five hours after that and there is still no resolution, and there might not be one. Again, what happens is, you lead the people along with the hope that there is going to be an agreement and it never happens. The people who are out there on the picket lines, they have already capitulated, they have already given in to zero and zero. The only reason they were out there, basically, was the sick leave, and primarily the Warren Report for secretaries, again, and custodians within the school system. These are the people who are at the lower end of the rung. These are the people we are talking about here, and it is these people who have been tortured.

To me, in a sense, they have been in the torture chamber. That is really what has happened to the public servants, because there is nothing worse than psychological torture, and that is psychological torture that has happened to the people, because they get a fair hope that something is going to happen and then it does not. Again, something is going to happen and it does not, and they are waiting. This has been three weeks for those people who have been on strike.

MR. DENINE: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: The Member for Mount Pearl, that is fine, you can talk about rolling back wages and so on. I listened to the speaker who was there, and you can have your say afterwards. All I am saying is, the people who are in the situation now, the people who are there today. The thing about it is, when we have people who are picketers or people who are out there on strike in the gallery, there is no noise. As soon as they disappear, you cannot hear yourself speak. That says a lot. That says a lot, I think.

Mr. Speaker, the thing about it is that those people who are the most vulnerable are there. The sad thing about it - and I might be proven wrong, and I hope I am proven wrong. It is my belief that right from the beginning that is when the people should have been told, and they were not told, that these concession about sick leave days and so on were not coming off the table. I honestly believe - I might be wrong, I hope I am wrong, and I say that with all the strength I can muster, and all the honesty, and I hope it does not happen - I fear that we will be back here some time within the next week or so because we cannot find the concessions, that we will have to legislate these people back to work, and all of these -

MR. HICKEY: (Inaudible) been there before.

MR. LANGDON: Okay, I might have been there before, I say to the Member for Lake Melville. That is fine. I have been here before. I am not saying that I have not, but what I am saying to you, to the people of the Province who are watching, is that if that was the case, then why put people on a three-week situation that we have had day after day after day, highs for those people, and lows. It has been like this here. It has been a curve for them, and it is very, very difficult.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing that could very well happen, and I have said this many times and I will stand by it, if we do bring legislation here into the House and you legislate changes to the contract, that these people do not want concessions - if you legislate, for example, sick leave days down from what it is, against their will, and bring it into the House, and you do not take the janitors or custodians into consideration, I am telling you, what we have seen in the galleries will be a picnic because the people from the nurses' union, the people from the teachers' union, the people from the FFAW and the people from the loggers union will be here. I predict that will happen, because it has never ever happened where will you will legislate changes unilaterally to a contract and bring it in. I am telling you.

The thing is: Do I want it to happen? Absolutely not. I have relatives who are on picket lines too. My wife is one of them, she is down at one of the seniors homes and has been there for twelve years. She does a lot of good work and provides good work. In fact, Mr. Speaker, I could never perform the type of work that my wife would be doing at the seniors home - I could not do it - as an LPN. I think you have to have compassion for these people day after day and be able to care for them in a way that I do not think I could do. That is why - like in the situation right now, it has been twenty-one days, over three weeks, that the people who are in these homes have not had the proper care and attention that has been due to them. That is a tragedy in itself, Mr. Speaker.

The thing about it is, the strike itself, I think personally, could have been avoided. Even today, I am hoping that the Premier and the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board do find a resolution to it. I will be the first one to applaud my desk if it happens. But I am afraid that it will not, because as I said earlier, I believe that the whole premise, right from the beginning, was the fact that we have too many people within the civil service. We want to curtail some of the numbers. It was interesting yesterday - when you sit here and listen to people you hear what they say. The President of Treasury Board and the Premier have basically said that there are too many people in the civil service, but the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and Labrador Affairs said: I do not want to see any people go. If we had the money to pay for them and so on we should be able to keep them. That is quite different from what some of the other ministers have expounded; quite different and it is telling.

Now, him and I happen to disagree, and it is philosophical. That is a debate for another day. That is for the people of the Province to decide four or three-and-a-half years or so from now, if that is the case. I happen to believe that as we sit here the public service - we need a good public service, but if you take 4,000 people out of the service that we already have then it is quite different. We have heard where Newfoundland and Labrador, by the way, has a greater percentage of people working for it than in other provinces, but just think about the services that the provincial government provides in Newfoundland and Labrador that is not provided in Ontario. In Ontario, for example, all the housing problems - like Newfoundland and Labrador Housing - are all done by the city; the City of Toronto, the City of London, the City of Scarborough, but here in Newfoundland and Labrador we have many small communities. They do not have the expertise whereby to do it, so what happens? You have the extra people from government that are in the field to help people who are unable to help themselves. We need more people, and that is just one.

In education, the same thing. In Ontario, when you get your municipal bill for your municipal services you have an education component built into it. We do not have that here. The municipalities themselves do not have it. It is not built into their tax structure. In Ontario and Alberta it is part of the municipal taxes. So, it is different. We are different.

Just look at the number of people that are in the Province, 500,000 people. The same as the City of York, but look at the size. It is the size of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick together. The services are all over the place; 10,000 miles of coastline. I believe it is possible to take the HRE person out of New-Wes Valley; it is possible to take it out of Bay d'Espoir; it is possible to take it out of Harbour Breton because you have computers and you will be able to link it up, but there is no personal touch. There is no being able to go into the House and being able to look at the services.

A lot of us here, all of us are members and many of us are in rural parts of the Province. People look to us for services. They do not differentiation if you are a federal member or if you are a provincial member. You still have to do the EI appeals for them; you still have to do Workers' Compensation; you still have to do Canada Pension for them. That takes up a lot of their time, and that is the work that we do. It is the same thing, as I said, for the civil service. It is different. It is a different situation than we find in many other parts of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, when I look at this particular resolution, as I said here: Be is resolved that the House of Assembly does not agree with a downgrading of the civil service in the Province. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs put in an amendment to it that says: if we can afford it. Again, it goes back to philosophy, and I am not going to change that. It is a different philosophy of different people on different sides of the House, it is government verses the Opposition. That is why you have governments from time to time and people elect them. You have a different agenda, you have a different way of doing things, you have a different way of priorities, and that is it, but I do not agree that we can not afford the civil service; not for one moment.

I think that we need more water quality inspectors out in the fields of Newfoundland and Labrador than we already have. I was talking to a reporter today and he said to me: We still have 280 communities on the boil order. I said to him: Look, I know that we have 280 communities on boil order. Over the last number of years we tried to take care of as many as we could. I said to him, there are a number of instances here where you have counted 280, where you have ten artisans wells, or ten wells from a community, twenty from another, but the whole idea about it is that - only recently I think I heard the minister say that the towns were complaining about the cost of this water service to the community. I think the minister's reaction was: Well, okay, go and do it yourself.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I remind the member that his time has lapsed.

MR. LANGDON: Just a minute to conclude.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Many of the municipalities that are out there do not have the wherewithal to do it. They depend on people in government with expertise to be able to ensure that they do have good quality of water and that, you know, whether it is THMs or lead or whatever the case might be, they can rest assured that because of people who are well-trained from the civil service, people who are there working for us, can do a job that is commendable for all of us.

So, I certainly support the resolution put forward by my colleague, the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works, and Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wanted to take an opportunity this afternoon to pass a few remarks on the resolution that is put before the House by the gentleman from Carbonear-Harbour Grace, and, in particular, to say a few words to the amendment that is put forward by my colleague, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I listened very intently to the hon. gentleman who just took his seat, and with the possible exception of thirty seconds or forty-five seconds or so at the most, I do not believe the hon. gentleman made any reference at all to the resolution. The hon. gentleman talked a lot about the strike. He talked about people losing their jobs. He talked about a whole bunch. He talked about philosophy. He talked about a whole bunch of things but he did not spend any time whatsoever, in my view, discussing the resolution. That is what is before the House, the amendment and then the resolution that deals with, in essence, downgrading of the public service.

I want to take a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, to discuss the resolution, but before I do, the hon. gentleman, who just took his seat, talked about people making unilateral changes to contracts. Are we going to - he said he posed the rhetorical question - is the government going to - and the Opposition are hoping like the dickens, that we are going to have to move into legislation at some point. They do not want to see a negotiated settlement to this labour dispute, I say to them. It was not very difficult to detect that tone from them, I can tell you. But let me make some reference for the record, so that the record is clear to the people and to our colleagues in this House. The member made some reference to unilateral changes to contracts. Now, I am only aware of one situation in this Province where a government moved unilaterally to change labour contracts, and that was a government which the hon. gentleman, who just took his seat, was a part of.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the Wells government, shortly after coming to office in 1989, negotiated with the labour unions representing the public service of this Province -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman, I never interrupted him once. If he cannot take the heat, he should get out of the kitchen.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order by the hon. Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to take time from the Member for Lewisporte. I can take the heat when I am in the kitchen just like he can, but I am not abrasive like that. I will say to him, that I was not in the government with Wells, I was not in the Cabinet, I was on the backbench. Technically speaking -

AN HON. MEMBER: On the backbench?

MR. LANGDON: Indeed I was on the backbench with Wells, and it was not until after, the last six years of the fifteen, that I was in the actual government.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair rules that there is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Transportation, Works and Aboriginal Affairs.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that obviously is not a -

MR. MANNING: It is a point of mixed up.

MR. RIDEOUT: It is a point of nothing.

The hon. gentleman was a supporter of the government, the only government that I know, Mr. Speaker, in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador, that unilaterally broke negotiated contracts with the labour movements.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, there are others over there - it is the official Opposition I am talking about now, not our friends the NDP. All of them over there, I do believe, with the exception of the Opposition House Leader and with the exception of the Member for Port de Grave, all of the others who currently make up the official Opposition, were supporters, either private member supporters, backbench supporters or ministers in the only government, in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador, that unilaterally, by force of law, by force of the Legislature, took away what was negotiated at the bargaining table, Mr. Speaker. They went out, Mr. Speaker, they negotiated wage increases, they negotiated all the benefits, and I remember them coming back into the House and saying: We made a mistake, we cannot afford it.

Mr. Speaker, what did this government do, this new approach? What did we do? We told our people upfront we couldn't afford it, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, we took the heat for it from January up until the last of March. That is what we did. There were people in this Province who told us we should try to blind side our employees, we should be less than honest with them, we shouldn't be upfront with them, we should wait until we get around the bargaining table to tell them the sad news. Well, Mr. Speaker, this new approach, this new Premier, this new government, thought we should be honest with them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: We didn't think that we should follow the course, the old, tired, tried approach of the old government. We didn't think that we should go out and negotiate something with them that we couldn't afford to pay. We didn't think that we should do that and six months down the road, September or October, when the fall session of the Legislature comes, come in here and tear it up. We didn't believe we should do that, Mr. Speaker, and we are not going to do it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: That is the Liberal approach, Mr. Speaker. That is hiding behind the power of this Legislature approach. We have said from day one that we do not want to. It will be the last resort, if we have to use the power of this Legislature, and I hope to God we do not. We will if we have to, Mr. Speaker, but we will be fair, we will be honest, we will be transparent and we will be up front.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the gentlemen and ladies on the other side, from time to time, make a great show about: All you want to do is live in the past. All you want to do is talk about the past government. All you want to do is talk about the past approach. You do not want to talk about the future and the new approach.

Mr. Speaker, I left this Assembly - voluntarily, by the way - in 1991, and I came back again in 1999, thanks to the good people of Lewisporte. From 1999, the day I entered this Legislature, until the election was called in September or October of 2003, any day that I was here - and my colleagues who were here with me at the time can testify to this - any day that I was here, Mr. Speaker - I know there were a lot of days I was not here, and people know why - but any day that I was here, there was not a day passed over my head but the Leader of the Opposition or some minister on this side, when a question was asked by the then Opposition, said: Ask your colleague from Lewisporte. He was here. He was part of the government. He helped do all those dirty, dastardly Tory deeds. Go talk to him and ask him. Don't ask us.

You think, Mr. Speaker, that after six months we are going to let this hon. crowd off the carpet? Not likely, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, those people in Opposition today had fourteen or fifteen years governing this Province, and if they think that every sin of omission or commission is going to be forgotten by the people of this Province in six months, I would say you have another thought coming.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: If they believe that this government is going to allow them to forget it, Mr. Speaker, not likely, not on our watch, not when I get a chance to get to my feet, I can tell you, and there are dozens and dozens over here like me who are going to remind every one of those hon. members what they did, or what they failed to do. The past is a present, and you will always be repeating it, Mr. Speaker, if you do not learn from it.

The people of this Province learned in October, they wanted a different approach. One of the different approaches was to tell the people who work for us exactly what our situation is, tell the truth, tell it up front.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: The hon. gentleman who introduced this resolution today, Mr. Speaker, so silly, ridiculous and convoluted, gets up talking about we are going back to the dirty thirties, the 1930s. He knows as much now about the dirty thirties as I know about the dark side of the moon.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I remember my father talking about the dirty thirties, and people dying because there was no health care, people dying because they were starved to death, people dying because there was tuberculous, people dying out in the rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador because they had nothing to eat.

Do you mean to tell me, in all honesty, that this is what is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador today? They were not a very good government, Mr. Speaker, but that did not even happen under them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: I mean this is so ridiculous and ludicrous. This resolution, let's call a spade a spade. It is here for political purposes only. It is here so the Opposition can have a day, which is their right, to continue to fearmonger, to put the fear of God into the good, hard-working people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the only reason this resolution is here.

Well, Mr. Speaker, let the word go forth. Let the word go out to those people out there, that there is hope in Newfoundland and Labrador today!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Let the word go out to our children and young people, that there is a future for them in Newfoundland and Labrador today!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Let the word go forth, Mr. Speaker, from this time and this place that there is new leadership in Newfoundland and Labrador today!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: And that we intend to take the cares and the sorrows and the needs and the compassion of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians into our thought process and provide the best possible government we can, Mr. Speaker!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: That is why I am here, Mr. Speaker. I have no other reason to be here. My colleagues have no other reason to be here. We are here to provide sound, good, honest, open, transparent government to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what we campaigned on, that this what the people threw out the old crowd for, gave them the royal order of the boot, put them over the head of the wharf. That is what the voters did to them, and what they expect in return from us is what we said we would do. We will provide no less.

This resolution, as I said, talking about going back to the thirties, talking about what the previous government used to do, and blame everything on the Member for Lewisporte, all of that kind of stuff is not going to wash.

I will tell you what we do not do. I will tell you what this government does not do. They were mentioning political staff and so on in the galleries. This government does not take its hired political staff and put them on the Open Line shows every day or every night, Mr. Speaker. We do not do that. I tell you, there will be no political staff belong to me, while they are in my hire, get on Open Line. I can get on Open Line and I can speak for myself, and every member of this government can do the same thing. Our political staff are hired to do the political work that we want them to do. They are not hired to be Open Line defenders of our policies and our positions. I can do that. That is what I was elected for. That is what the people of Lewisporte want me to do on their behalf, to be the politician, to make policy decisions, to be a minister, to lead for them. We are not going to turn that over to some ‘hiree' who has nobody to answer to. I answer to my constituents.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the resolution, the amendment that was proposed by my colleague, is a very sensible one. We are not talking about downgrading the public service, the inflammatory language that was put in by the Opposition for their own political purposes. We are talking about - I understand that over the next three or four years there is somewhere between 6,000 and 7,000 people who voluntarily will leave the public service.

AN HON. MEMBER: They had an attrition policy (inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: They have had an attrition policy.

AN HON. MEMBER: They just did not tell anyone.

MR. RIDEOUT: They just did not tell anybody, exactly, as my friend says. We are saying up front that somewhere, perhaps around 4,000 of those - we will look at every single position. If we have to have a snowplow operator replaced on the Northern Peninsula, Mr. Speaker, the snowplow operator will be replaced. If a nurse goes out of the system, there is a nurse comes back in the system. They are saying there is no hiring. Again, it is falsehood. It is foolishness. It is fearmongering. It is trying to make a tough situation that we inherited, after fourteen or fifteen years of Liberal mismanagement, it is trying to make, like the old fellow said, a silk purse out of a sow's ear. You cannot do it. That is what they are trying to do. It is not washing with the people of this Province. The people of this Province voted for change. They voted for a new approach. They voted for a new leadership. They voted for a new vision. They voted for transparency, and everything they voted for is being delivered to them by the people of this Province, by this government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: We did not say it would not be tough, Mr. Speaker. We did not say we would not have to make tough decisions based on the mess that this hon. crowd left us, but we are doing that, and at the end of the day the people of Newfoundland and Labrador will be better off because we were here instead of them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The people at home can turn their TV back up again, now that we have our fill of the rhetoric and the loudness and the aggressiveness of the Member for Lewisporte, and listen to something that makes a little bit of sense.

A little bit of sense now, Mr. Speaker. Let me read into the record again the resolution that the Member for Lewisporte went on and on and on about, ad nauseam, in terms of what was meant by this resolution. What it says, Mr. Speaker, is:

WHEREAS a strong and dedicated civil service is an important part of maintaining and improving both the social and economic life of people in this Province;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly does not agree with a downgrading of the civil service in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, who could argue against a resolution like that?

We are talking about people and their families who will be impacted if we do not respect our public servants, if we do not pay some recognition to the jobs that they do throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, for us. We are talking about teachers. We are talking about nurses. We are talking about health care workers. We are talking about maintenance workers, highway workers. We are talking about people from all facets of life, 20,000 public servants who are today out on strike. Of course we want to make sure that these people have jobs, because the jobs they provide, the work that they do for the people of this Province, is so important. It is important to every one of us in Newfoundland and Labrador.

When I go in and use the health care system, I want to know that there are enough nurses there, that there are enough lab technicians there, that there are enough people in the health care sector to make sure that I get the service that I need. If I expect it, then I am sure that people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador expect to have the same courteous approach and the same kind of treatment that they need and deserve.

It is not until you have had the opportunity to actually avail of the health care service in this Province that you really do appreciate the work that goes into it, and the employees who work there, and how hard they work to make sure that the patients in their care get the kind of treatment that they need. I speak from experience, Mr. Speaker, of the need to ensure that we have people to deliver that service for the people in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The Member for Lewisporte went on again about honesty, about how we wanted to be up front with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, I know how up front the Premier was with the people in the District of Grand Bank. I know only too well, how up front he was, when he campaigned.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS FOOTE: Yes, I was. The Member for Kilbride says, as I was, and indeed I was very up front with the people from my district. You ask them, not point fingers at me. They know only too well that I was up front with them, and for every one over there who suggests that I was not, indeed I was.

When the campaign was on, where was the Premier, when he was trying to become the Premier of this Province? He was down campaigning, promising to build a health care facility in the District of Grand Bank. He is on record and his quote is: This hospital complex was started in Grand Bank and it will be finished in Grand Bank.

Well, little did people know what he meant when he said: finished in Grand Bank. He misled them. Talk about honesty, talk about being truthful with the people of this Province. How can you then expect the people in the District of Grand Bank -

MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, last week, maybe it was two weeks ago, there was a ruling by the Chair on the very same language that was used, that the Member for Grand Bank just used. It is clear you can say that the government misled people, or the people feel misled by the government, or people feel betrayed by the government, or people feel that the government betrayed them, but the member, in using the language she just used, which is almost exact - I think the record will be bear it out - when she talked about honesty and integrity, he misled. There was a ruling by the Chair last week, that was unparliamentary, or two weeks ago. In saying that, I ask the Speaker to recognize that ruling, to enforce the ruling, and ask the member to withdraw those comments.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the point of order, I would like to seriously respond to the point of order because it seems like the Opposition, whenever anyone on this side of the House raises any legitimate concerns about the actions of this government, or an individual in this government, and I say for the record albeit the Government House Leader here has singled out the comments as being made to a person, the person who the Member for Grand Bank has used the term here today of misled against, is the very person who leads for, speaks for, represents this government, this Administration, in everything that it says and that it stands for. There is nothing derogatory, improper or unparliamentary in referring to the head of the government when you make a reference to someone who misleads somebody.

That brings me to the next issue here, which is the world misled itself. As the Speaker has ruled in this Chamber, the word, in and of itself, is not unparliamentary. It depends upon the tone that is used, the context in which it is used, and the facts and circumstances that the person who uses the words use it. In this particular case here, the Member for Grand Bank has said that the people of her District of Grand Bank were misled.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: If I could finish, the Government House Leader will get his opportunity to respond.

In Beauchesne, the word misled has on some occasions been held to be unparliamentary and on others to be parliamentary. I refer the Speaker to page 147 of Beauchesne where that is indeed the fact.

The fact that the Government House leader stands up and says the word was used, it was used against a person and therefore it is unparliamentary, and we have had an earlier ruling, is not the case. The Speaker made it quite clear when he gave his ruling that the use of the word mislead, or misleading, always must encompass the circumstances in which it was said.

Maybe it is a premature point of order by the Government House Leader, and maybe if the Chair would listen and the Government House Leader listen, so that the Member for Grand Bank can finish the context in which she is using this word, the Chair would be in an appropriate place to decide if it is, indeed, unparliamentary. To stand up because the word has been uttered and say that it is unparliamentary, and to apply, inappropriately, an earlier ruling by this House is not acceptable.

MR. E. BYRNE: The Chair will decide if it is inappropriate or not, not you.

MR. PARSONS: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker, and I say to the Government House Leader, that is why I am addressing this issue now in my allotted and my permissible time to respond to a point of order. He raised the point of order, and if the Government House Leader did not wish to hear what I had to say, perhaps he should not have raised this worthless point of order in the first instance. Since he did, I am fully entitled and will respond, subject to directions and orders from the Chair, not from the Government House Leader.

Again, Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, if the Chair is to decide if this use of the word, mislead, is inappropriate here today, you have to hear the full context, and the context hasn't been given by the Member for Grand Bank. Then, if the Chair feels that it is inappropriate the Chair will make a ruling accordingly; not for someone to be jumping up prematurely and suggesting that because you simply use the word it is unparliamentary, and you haven't even heard yet the facts and circumstances surrounding it.

That is the whole point here. If we are going to be jumping up on points of order all the time because someone uses a word without even giving an explanation, we will never be able to use any word here, if someone want to attribute a negative connotation to the use of that word.

Mr. Speaker, the ruling earlier made by the Speaker is not applicable to this particular case right here.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair was about to stand before the Government House Leader made motions that he was going to stand, and the Chair certainly recognized the Member for Grand Bank when she directed the quotation towards a member. The Chair will certainly rule that if the context of what the member was putting forward was directing at a group of people, it would certainly be admissible. The Chair clearly heard the Member for Grand Bank refer to a member of government as misleading the people of the Province, in the context that she put forward for information here. The Chair rules that is clearly unparliamentary, and the Chair would ask the Member for Grand Bank to withdraw those remarks.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker.

MR. J. BYRNE: Are you challenging the Chair?

MR. PARSONS: I say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I am not challenging the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I am not challenging the Chair and wouldn't even consider doing such. I would like some clarification. Maybe I missed the point myself, in which case if I did I would certainly apologize to this House.

My understanding is that the Member for Grand Bank used the word Premier and didn't refer to a particular member. That is why I premise my argument that if the word Premier was what was used, she is referring, by the use of the word Premier, to the government indeed. He represents the government. She cannot be anymore definitive and general in using the word Premier. So I would like some clarification. I did not hear, I thought she had said Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, to the same point of order.

MR. E. BYRNE: The transcript will show that she said: He - using and talking about trust and integrity - misled people. So, it was not general. It was very specific. It was exactly to the point of the ruling last week. That is why I stood up on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was not frivolous, and I appreciate the ruling that you have made.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would ask the Member for Grand Bank to withdraw those remarks, please.

MS FOOTE: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.

I withdraw the fact that I used the word: He. Let me just say that the Premier misled the people of Grand Bank. The Premier betrayed the people of Grand Bank.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member has already gotten direction from the Chair that the remarks she is making in this House are certainly unparliamentary. I ask the member if she would be kind enough to withdraw the unparliamentary remarks and continue with her speech here in this House.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, how would people of Grand Bank feel about the way they have been treated by the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Member for Grand Bank if she would withdraw the unparliamentary comment that she made in her earlier statements.

MS FOOTE: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I did mean to withdraw the remark before I started again.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Let me say again how the people of Grand Bank feel about the way they have been treated by the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is sad, indeed, because they do feel that what he promised he did not deliver on. He promised to build a new facility in Grand Bank. He did it in the context of, if he became Premier, that in fact, that new facility would be built. They clearly feel that he did not deliver on a promise that he made. Now, how someone can go into a district knowing the number of health care facilities there and still commit to completing that facility, and then turn around when he becomes the Premier of the Province and suggest that it is not going to happen, then we know why they feel the way they do.

When you look at the employees, the public service employees who work in the old Cottage Hospital in Grand Bank, who work in the health care facility down there, the seniors home, you can understand why they feel the way they do. They feel they have been let down by this government. They were so enthusiastic about the fact that there was going to be a new health care facility replacing the dilapidated hospital that is there today and replacing the senior citizens home which today houses residents who require a different type of care. The seniors' home that is there required a Level I and Level II care. Not anymore. Today people are being given Level III and Level IV acute care in a facility that was not designed for that very reason. So, yes, not only are the residents of the Blue Crest Seniors' Home concerned about what has gone on here but the public service employees, who work in an unsafe environment in the old cottage hospital, they are concerned daily about the conditions under which they work, but as well, the employees who work in the seniors' home.

When I look at our public service workers, I know how hard they work. I have witnessed it. I have witnessed it in the cottage hospital and I have witnessed it in the Blue Crest Seniors' Home; I witnessed it in St. Lawrence and I witnessed it in all other parts of my district and throughout Newfoundland and Labrador. Public service employees need our respect. They are on the picket line, not because they want to be on the picket line. They do not want to be on strike. Twenty thousand public service employees do not want to be on strike. They have been looking to this government for a settlement. The Leader of the Opposition stood here day in, day out, last week and this week, and spelled out how there could be a resolution to the situation in which the government finds itself today; in which the entire Province finds itself today. But, no, it was not good enough for the leader of the government. It was not good enough for the Premier, even though it was pointed out that the concessions with respect to sick leave would not cost the government anything in the short term. In fact, not for the next four years. So why would they not take advantage of an opportunity when it presented itself, when it was shown how, in fact, there could be an agreement reached so that our 20,000 public service employees could go back to work? Back where they want to be and back where we would like to have them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the Member for Grand Bank that her time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS FOOTE: Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

I think we all know that we would all be better off if our public service employees were back at work, where they would like to be and where we would like them to be, and certainly where those who depend on their services need them.

I am calling on the government to recognize this resolution which, again, recognizes the importance of our public service employees in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today, as well, to say a few words on the motion that is before the House this afternoon. I would like to start off, Mr. Speaker, by saying there is no question, there is no doubt in anybody's mind that the public service is a very important service to the people of this Province, and practically everything that we do in our lives on a day to day basis.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the loss of 4,000 jobs, no matter which way it occurs, whether it is through layoffs, whether it is through attrition or through any other means, is going to have a very negative impact upon the delivery of services in our Province. In addition to a negative impact, it is also going to put out there a very bleak future for the young people of this Province who are currently enrolled in post-secondary education and were looking forward to a future working in this Province on behalf of the residents of this Province.

We have heard many speakers throughout the years, Mr. Speaker, talk in this House about the out-migration and about how we have to come up with ways to control that. Well, one of the ways to control that is certainly not the elimination of 4,000 public service jobs, because in this Province today the public service, in certain areas, is almost - and it is in some areas - the primary employer. If you are looking in private industry in areas of this Province, their major industry or employer is in the natural resource sector, and if you look at the loss of one job in the primary resource sector, that translates into four or five jobs in the secondary sectors in the community. So, the 4,000 jobs that will be lost through attrition by government, in a lot of areas of this Province, will translate into a greater number of job losses than that because there will be secondary job losses through layoffs, in addition to the ones that are being eliminated through whatever process government uses to reduce the number of employees they currently have.

We also heard, Madam Speaker - I notice the Chair has changed - a lot of discussion in recent days about the percentage of public servants in this Province in comparison to public servants in other provinces. It is ironic that, while it is favourable for us to use that comparison when we talk about public servants in the Province, we do not use that comparison when we talk about other areas in our Province, such as corporate income tax which in our Province is the lowest in the country. Why aren't government comparing our corporate income tax to that of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, which is much higher? If we did, and if we went to the level of Nova Scotia or New Brunswick, it would bring in $60 million to $75 million more to this Province on an annual basis that could be used to provide improved services to the people of our Province. If we are going to compare one issue, Madam Speaker, let's talk all the issues, put all the eggs in one basket and make a fair comparison about many different issues.

The reason we have a higher percentage of public servants in this Province - one speaker previously spoke about the services that we provide that other provinces do not provide to their residents, because they are provided by bigger municipalities through a different source of funding. Look at the geography of this Province and it easy to determine why our public servants and our public sector is probably at a higher percentage for our total population than other provinces may be. That is not to say that is not needed, because it is. It is needed. How can people in the rural areas, in the remote areas of this Province, live and have the services that they need and that they should have if we go about the process of eliminating 4,000 jobs in the public sector? Many of the smaller communities in this Province - I know the community that I am from originally, the community of Gambo, which is in the district of the Member for Terra Nova, there is a Human Resources Centre in that community. That enhances the local economy in that town greatly. I can say, with twenty regional offices about to be cut throughout this Province, if that is one of them, that will greatly have a negative impact upon the people of that community and the surrounding area. There are going to be twenty offices closed in this Province. Where they are has not been determined yet. Neither, according to government, has it been determined how much money that will indeed save government in the long run.

I know, Madam Speaker, that we need not to reduce our public services in this Province. We need to increase public services. This government has made a great deal in their Budget Speech and their Throne Speech about improving the financial picture of this Province in the next two to four years. Well, Madam Speaker, taking this approach certainly does not lend itself to a position of having much confidence in the position that they are putting forward and their ability to achieve what they say they will. We need to improve services in this Province, in a wide range of areas. I know that in my area and in other parts of Labrador we certainly have the need for improved services. I would even say, Madam Speaker, that we need a change for services because we are lacking fundamental services in many areas, that many people in other parts of the Province and country take for granted.

In Labrador West, in the district that I represent, Madam Speaker, we have a great need for a new health care facility. I spoke about that previously in this House, about clumps of plaster hanging off the walls, about draft coming in through the windows, that people have to stog toilet paper around in order to keep the draft out. These are patients in the hospital, Madam Speaker, who are sick. One part of that hospital you will freeze in, the other part you will almost cook because there is no control over the heat. We have a lot of need for improved services.

We have a need as well in Labrador West for a uniform travel subsidy for seeking medical treatment in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Whereas people in other parts of Labrador can travel to Happy Valley-Goose Bay or to St. Anthony for $40 return, people in Labrador West have to pay almost $500 to get to the same place, for the same treatment. We call that fair, Madam Speaker? People in Labrador West do not think it is fair, by a long shot. They think that they are being discriminated against because of where they live. I do not know how any government past or present can justify how that has existed for so many years prior to us even being aware of it for the past year or so. Again, that is an issue that this government has to address because if they are going to preach being equitable and being fair to all residents of this Province, then I would suggest to them that is a very good place to start.

We also have to recognize the fact that not everybody lives within an hour's drive, or two or three, of the metropolis of St. John's, or the Health Sciences Centre or Corner Brook where a lot of patients can be treated now. A lot of people have to travel at great financial hardship to get the services they require, so there is a need to improve the travel subsidy plan that exists within our Province, one that was brought in probably about twenty years ago and has not seen any increase from that day to this, which probably was a good program when it came into being, Madam Speaker, but certainly, with inflation and everything else that is after increasing, it is after taking a toll on that system and it is not near the benefit today that it was when it was introduced.

When we look around this Province and we look from Port aux Basques to St. Anthony to St. John's, from Nain down to L'Anse-au-Loup over to Labrador West and Happy Valley-Goose Bay area, a lot of communities have a lot of people who are dependent upon jobs with this government. The local economies in some cases are totally dependent, and a reduction that will be across the board that will probably affect every department of government that we know of today will certainly have a negative impact on this Province.

Madam Speaker, it is not a downgrading of public service that is needed, it is an increase in the amount of public service that we have at the present time, and it is more important, I would suggest, to people in rural and remote areas of this Province than it is to people who live in St. John's or within close proximity where many of these services will still be available to the public at very little cost to obtain.

With regard to the current situation that we find ourselves in today, with the 20,000 members of NAPE and CUPE who are on strike, I notice negotiations were taking place. I did hear a little rumor, or somebody just spoke there a few minutes ago, saying that negotiations are not on now. I do not know if someone could verify that or not for the House. That is the word. That is what some people, an hon. member just told me, are being told, that negotiations are not going. The hon. House Leader says that is not true, which I am certainly very pleased to hear, and I am sure everybody in the Province is pleased to hear. We certainly hope that, that can be achieved today, Madam Speaker, by way of negotiations. I will say to the government opposite that, that I will criticize them at every opportunity for things they do not do that I think are right.

They did not jump the gun and use the weight and power of the Legislature to force workers back to work, legislate them back to work, up to this point in time. I would have hated, Madam Speaker, for that to have happened, because that interferes with collective bargaining, it interferes with democracy and it interferes with the rights of people to unite, come together, in an organization and be able to bargain for their benefits and their wages.

Madam Speaker, I certainly give best wishes to the negotiators for both sides who are at the table today. I hope that an end to this strike is soon, it is long overdue for it to end. Many people in this Province today are suffering and going without things that they need, they are going without services that they require, and probably more important than anything, Madam Speaker, they are going without serious medical treatment that could make the difference between life and death. It is important to everybody in this Province that the strike come to a conclusion, that it come to a negotiated conclusion. I look forward to the negotiations continuing, and, hopefully, by the end of the day we will have some good news.

Those are all the remarks I want to make, at this time, Madam Speaker.

I thank you for the opportunity to have input on this. Again, I wish the negotiators success and hope that this strike is over very soon.

Thank you.

MADAM SPEAKER ( Osborne): The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: It gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today and speak to this resolution. It is talking about civil servants, and I think that since I was a civil servant for many, many years, dating back to 1979, with the Province of Newfoundland, I would like to make some comments on the resolution that is here.

First of all, when I got a copy of the resolution, the first thing I did was check to find out what was the definition of downgrading, because that is the term that is used by the hon. member. It is really not reduction as he was talking about but rather it is lowering value or esteem and that is something that I can certainly speak to.

Madam Speaker, when I joined the provincial public service in 1979, there was a Progressive Conservative government, so I have had the privilege and honour of serving under both a Progressive Conservative government and also a Liberal government. When the Liberal government took power in 1989 I was a civil servant at the time along with thousands of other people, and there were many, many changes made in the civil service.

To go back to the definition of downgrading, lowering value or esteem, and that is something that the hon. member is concerned about now. The Liberal government back then did not think much of the public servants. At that time, thousands of people were laid off. It was almost like a reign of terror. People lived in fear, wondering when their pink slip was going to come. In addition to that, many of the people who left , when they got their termination benefits, in many cases they did not receive the benefits that they were entitled to. As a result, many of those people had to embark on legal lawsuits which incurred a lot of expenditures on their behalf and took a good many years before they were resolved.

One of the members on the opposite side said he can remember, or he was thinking back to what was going on back in the 1930s. After living through the 1990s with the Liberal government, I can say, you do not have to go back to the 1930s, you can just go back to the 1990s. Really, that was a desperate time for the public service in Newfoundland.

Madam Speaker, another thing I would like to talk about is the changes, when he is talking about reductions in the public service. One thing we are all assured of is that there are going to be changes, there will always be changes. While some positions may have to change or some positions may have to be eliminated, new positions are created. In this Budget, Madam Speaker, there were a number of new positions that I am very, very proud of. One, is additional social workers for Labrador, that there is a commitment by this government to put additional monies into additional social workers for that part of our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: In addition, there is a commitment for seventy-five new RNC officers. Also, just today, I was looking at the $1 million that got approved for new mental health services in this Province. Again, we are looking at the creation of new positions. Madam Speaker, even though there are changes and some may be negative, there are always positive changes.

Earlier this afternoon, I heard my hon. colleague, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, talk about several things that have happened over the past decade. Again, it was under a Liberal government. The Government Purchasing Agency in Public Tender Act, that was brought in under Progressive Conservative government, and it was a good strong act. In fact, I helped to work on the initial act and am very, very proud of it. Unfortunately, when the Liberals took power, the Public Tender Act was, year by year, dismantled, to the point where by the time the Liberals left power the Public Tender Act was only a shadow of its former self.

Many of the people who worked under the Government Purchasing Agency, and also had to deal with the Public Tender Act - I am going back to the definition now of downgrading and lowering value and esteem. Many people who worked under the revised act felt that they were compromised, because the Public Tender Act that now exists is really a very, very weak act.

Another thing which my hon. colleague spoke to, the Minister of Municipal Affairs, was the Public Service Commission. This was something that was created under Progressive Conservative Government. Yet under a Liberal government, the Public Service Commission was also dismantled, and that organization also is a shadow of its former self.

Going back again to esteem and the value of public servants, I want to talk a little bit about Trans City. My hon. colleague mentioned a little bit about that. Well, I know a lot about that, because I was the Deputy Minister of Works, Services and Transportation when the Trans City hospitals were being built. At that time, yes, Madam Speaker, it did affect the esteem of people who were working on that file, because there was constant pressure to do things that were not appropriate.

One of the things which the hon. Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace talked about was reduction in public servants. One of the things that I would like to clarify - everybody is talking about the 4,000 fewer positions, the 4,000 layoffs that are supposed to come over the next four years. One of the things that is very, very clear in the Budget, Madam Speaker, is that, no, we are not looking at 4,000 layoffs, because approximately 6,000 positions are going to become vacant over the same period of time. It is our intent that the 4,000 positions will not be layoffs but rather we will take them from the 6,000 positions that will become vacant. Really, Madam Speaker, people should stand up and say what is exactly in the Budget, and not fearmonger and give people the wrong impression as to what is going to happen over the next number of years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Again, I would like to repeat, Madam Speaker, there will be 4,000 fewer positions but that does not translate into 4,000 layoffs.

That leads me to another thing, Madam Speaker. Prior to being elected for the District of Topsail, I was Auditor General for the Province, which most people know. One of the things I was concerned about the whole time that I was Auditor General was the financial position of this Province. Every year, starting in the late 1990s, I noticed that the deficit of this Province increased. In 1999, it was a $187 million deficit. In the year 2000, it was a $221 million deficit. In 2001, it was a $350 million deficit. In 2002, the year that I left, it was a $467 million deficit, and that number kept growing until the last fiscal year. The projected deficit is $958 million. That is almost $1 billion. That is the legacy that is left by the Liberal government. Really, what happened when the Liberals were in power toward the end of their term, is that they lost control of the public purse. So, now we have a deficit going from $187 million to $958 million over a period of time of six years.

One of the concerns that keeps getting raised are the salaries, and reduction in the number of public servants. One of the things that we were charged with was trying to decrease the deficit. Of course, since the majority of expenditures are spent on salaries, that is where some of the reductions have to come from. Salaries currently comprise 40 per cent of government expenditures; so, of course, that is one of the areas we would have to go to in order to realize savings. Having said that, and having worked with the Liberal government back in the 1990s, I find it very difficult to go into massive layoffs that were carried out by the Liberal government. Rather, this government is a more caring government. We will be looking at attrition to reduce the salary costs of the government.

To go back again to the deficit, Madam Speaker, this year it is $840 million. It was over $1 billion and, through hard work, we had to reduce by $240 million. It was a very difficult and a very painful process, so the deficit for this year is projected at $840 million. Nonetheless, all of these deficits translate into debt, and one of the things that you can be sure of is that today's deficit is tomorrow's taxation, so many of the services that we enjoy today and last year and the year before and the year before that were funded by debt, and that is something that we are leaving to our children. In other words, many of the services that we enjoy today and yesterday and the day before will be paid for by our children, by our grandchildren, and by our great-grandchildren.

Madam Speaker, I have three teenagers. I would like to leave them something worthwhile in this Province. I do not want to leave them billions and billions and billions of dollars of debt. I certainly do not want to leave them the legacy of billions and billions of dollars of debt that was incurred under a PC government, so this government takes very seriously getting in order the finances of the Province.

In closing, Madam Speaker, I would like to say that this government is a caring government. We will be reducing our employees through attrition rather than by massive layoffs, as was done by the Liberal government. Having served under a Liberal government, I have had first-hand experience as to what massive layoffs can do.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

When the hon. member speaks, he will close debate.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: As I said in my preamble, when I spoke earlier today, I speak today with mixed emotions. I felt a certain degree of sadness and I have just learned that I have good reason to be sad. The Premier is on his way to NTV studios today, right now as we speak, to announce on provincial TV at 6 o'clock tonight that he will be introducing back-to-work legislation tomorrow in this House of Assembly. That is why I saw the need to bring this motion forward, because it was obvious from the day the campaign started, and the years leading into it, the path that this government was going to take - obvious. The victims here are the people of the Province, the public sector. Everyone else has to pay the price.

I will say to the minister, in her maiden speech, I remember all too well, Madam Minister, you as a deputy minister. I have been a member of the public service long before you, and I remember all too well. I remember back in the 1990s when Clyde Wells was not a villain to you then, I will tell you that, but I will keep that dialogue for another day, because one of the things that must come out of this House is the responsibility of us, as members, to represent the people who elected us; not to sit and not be heard.

It was interesting enough today, Private Members' Day, that three ministers stood in this hon. House and responded to this motion, a motion to eliminate the downgrading - and we get all kinds of cutesy words we want with it, whatever it means, but there is nothing short of a perfect description of downgrading anything is when you take people away from the system. It is nice to say you are going to replace them, of the 6,000 that is going to be gone through attrition. That is a cute way, but that is not cute. There is nothing cute about that to the hundreds of graduates in this Province who are going to be graduating at the universities and the colleges here in this Province in the next month or so. They are writing their final exams as we speak. There is nothing cute, I say to the members opposite, about those people now making plans, looking for jobs on the Internet, because there are none here in this Province for them in the public sector. That is what I will say to you.

It is a very say day in this Province when we get cutesy with the words about downgrade. I have a dictionary, but downgrade to me, from a working-class family in this Province, means one thing, and being cute about the 1930s - yes, the 1930s left a black mark on this Province. We still have not recovered from it, what happened in this Province through the 1930s, when the fish merchants - as my colleague there from Fortune Bay said to me, and said to all of us here, that after fishing and working your soul out, from before daylight in the mornings to after dark in the evenings, the women of the family trying to feed their children and do the work besides, and at the end of the season end up with nothing. Well, that is what is ending up right now in this Province. The young people of this Province are ending up with nothing. Nothing!

I stand affronted in this House, offended over what happened yesterday here, when I approached my place of coming in and doing my job for the citizens of my district, and not getting in through the door. It is the first time in the history, I think, in this hon. House that this has happened, where hon. members could not gain access, and I thank the Speaker. I want to say thank you to the Speaker for getting us in.

The other part of it - and I mentioned earlier about the gallery being filled with people, employees who are in here with their special authorization cards, already signed in, giving authorization because we are undergoing labour unrest. Those cards can get you anywhere in this building. But, what should happen yesterday? They were lined up out there 12:45 p.m. or 1:00 p.m. signing in, getting visitor passes in the book. Just imagine! I am not really concerned about whose instruction, because they were instructed. They were good people. I saw those people, friends of mine for thirty years, going with their heads down in shame, having to go out and sign the visitor's book, even with the fact that they are in here as essential employees.

AN HON. MEMBER: Be here or be fired!

MR. SWEENEY: Be here or be fired. Sit in that gallery. Don't let the public in to see what is going on here. I am going to tell you what went on here. There is a pattern.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: I say to the Member for Lake Melville, laugh all you want, but this member will not sit down until his time expires. Even then he still will not stop talking to represent the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: I say and I contend from day one, there were people saying that the Premier was not negotiating because he was inexperienced. I am telling you it was a plan; a plan from day one. Go after the public sector first, because who is next? Who is the next group of victims in this Province? It will be the nurses. Then who is after the nurses in August? The teachers. Make an example of the public sector, the people who are doing a lot of work for less money; the carpenters, the painters, the plasters. Go after those people because we can make an example out of them; because I want to drive my right-wing agenda home. Let's put things back the way they should be. I have heard it. I have heard it so often. The thing that is wrong with Newfoundland and Labrador, how it can never prosper. I have been in the circles. I have been around this city enough, and I have been around the Province enough. I have heard it. Members opposite have heard it. The thing that is wrong with this Province, it cannot prosper, is because of the unions. They have too much strength. You cannot make Newfoundland and Labrador grow economically because of the unions.

Now, the members over there in the back may not have heard this before, but let me tell you, over the next three or four years you will hear it. It will be said. It will be leaked out to you, because that is the Tory way. We are witnessing it. Right now the tape is being done, the film is being done to go out on the airways to the people of this Province by 6:00 p.m. Breaking news, an impasse. We will have to legislate the employees back because of the hardship to the people.

It is funny, I say to the Minister of Health and Community Services, yesterday everything was okay, everything was fine. Everything was okay today. She did not answer today. Do you know what? We have to give the people in the unions, those people out there, our carpenters, our painters, our mechanics, our nursing assistants, our ward clerks, we have to give them full credit because, do you know what? They did not buy the line like they did the week before.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: They did not buy the line. They knew that if they had said, we will give you another offer today, they will get through another weekend and drive them into next week. They also knew, too, that the people out there lying in those hospital beds, who have not been out for twenty-one days, are still suffering. By now there are sores on their behinds from those Pampers, those Attends. That is the kind of thing that has happened here, for somebody who wanted to carry out his right-wing agenda over two years ago.

I sat here, I sat over there, and I was gestured to and told to shut up, I will get you. I was told that from a gentleman who sat right there a year ago, the finger drawn through his throat. Right now, I tell you, I am not worried about threats. I never was, because I was always man enough to stand and take it on the chin, and I am going to continue doing that. I was always man enough. That is the thing that the people here in this House are expected to do, to be man enough or woman enough to stand and express their views and express the feelings of the people who sent them here, because without them you would not be here.

The Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde, laugh all you want because you have to go back to the people as well. I am not intimidated by laughter. I never have been, never will be. I have shared a good many jokes myself in my day, and I hope to continue onwards, but today is no joke. This is a black day in the history of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: A black day, and there are a lot of people out there who will be saying this when the word gets out to them.

Mr. Speaker, my final remarks - I am a little bit off because they were a little bit disruptive - the importance of my motion today was - never mind the downgrading, cutesy words with the downgrading - for the preservation of the way of life of Newfoundland and Labrador.

AN HON. MEMBER: Valued employees.

MR. SWEENEY: Valued employees who are living out there in our communities. We have all seen ads, and people laughed at the ads about this one volunteering with a hockey team or somebody else with Boy Scouts or Girl Guides. These are all valued people in our communities.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fire departments.

MR. SWEENEY: Fire departments. We can go on and on. Mr. Speaker, that is why I brought this motion forward today, because I knew that it was Employee Recognition Day. What a way to recognize the employees of this Province. What a way to do it, legislate them back to work.

Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks and I ask for all members of this hon. House to do the right thing now and stand and support my motion.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): The Chair will now call the vote on the amendment put forward by the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

The amendment would read, after the words, "BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly does not agree with a downgrading of the civil service in this Province", the amendment would then read, "and that downgrading be defined, in this context, as eroding the ability of the government to provide high-quality public services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador within the Province's ability to pay."

All those in favour of the amendment, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

The amendment is carried.

On motion, amendment carried.

MR. SPEAKER: The resolution now, as amended.

All those in favour of the resolution, as amended, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against, ‘nay'.

The resolution is carried.

On motion, resolution, as amended, carried.

MR. SPEAKER: This House now stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30 p.m., on April 22.