The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Today we have an announcement to make and the session will now be called to order. We will not be calling for the admission of strangers because, on the recommendation of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and also because we do not have our personnel in place, our commissionaires, the public galleries will not be open today. However, the proceedings are being recorded and they are being televised, and, of course, they will be published by way of Hansard.

The issue for the House and the Speaker is an issue of safety, and given the volatility that has been reported to me by the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary officials in that particular matter, the Speaker has taken the recommendation of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary and the senior officials and has ordered that the public galleries not be opened for this afternoon's session.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today on a point of parliamentary privilege, first of all, and I would like to make it quite clear, I am not challenging the Speaker's rule as to the comments that you just made but stating the position of the Official Opposition regarding the closure of the galleries today. I think it is only proper and fair that the Official Opposition of this Province have an opportunity to outline what they feel the circumstances are.

First of all, regarding the parliamentary privilege, we came here, the Official Opposition, as well as the NDP, Mr. Speaker, for the second time this week and could not gain access to this building. I raised this point of privilege a few days ago. Your Honour undertook to do an investigation of the matter and we are back here again, two days later. Without any interference from any strikers or anyone, we came to enter this building this morning to do our job, and, again, we were denied access to this building by someone inside this building.

Now, the precincts of the building, as I understand it, take in the House of Assembly and the area immediately outside of it. It does not include the vestibule outside and it does not include the entrance way to the civil servants entrance. Someone out there is in charge of security, Mr. Speaker, and on two successive days have denied the Official Opposition to come in here to do our jobs. I fail to understand why we had to call the Speaker, whom I am not even sure has control over the area in question, and ask for admission to this building. I called the Government House Leader again, when this happened this morning, and he quite rightly was upset about this as well, the fact that we had been barred.

My question, Mr. Speaker, is: What is the point of raising a point of privilege, and being given undertakings that this is never to happen again, when we come back and within forty-eight hours we run into this exact same situation again?

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, regarding the issue of no one in the galleries here today, the people's House, we came into this building to do our job in the people's House without any interference whatsoever from strikers. I point out - again, I am at a loss to understand. I thought that the Speaker, the Sergeant-at-Arms and the Commissionaires run this place. The RNC may be under the control of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General but it is not my understanding that the Speaker of the people's House takes his direction from the RNC of this Province. The government might dictate to the RNC what is or is not a reason of safety in this House, but Your Honour just stated that you are making your decision based upon advice of the RNC. My understanding is that the RNC does not control the security of this building here. That has been based upon the decisions of your staff, your Sergeant-at-Arms, and your Commissionaires.

So, again, we disagree vehemently with the Chairs decision that the seats of this House here today are vacant because someone might do something, and you have taken your advice from a body, a police force, that supposedly has nothing to do with the confines and the security of this building right here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I wish to speak to that point of parliamentary privilege, and to say that I support the comments and remarks of the Opposition House Leader. I am advised by a telephone call a few moments ago that there are approximately thirty to forty people outside the House who wish to gain entrance to participate, by observance of the proceedings, and that there is no indication from anyone that anything other than observing the matters of the House is what is desired.

When the point of privilege was raised by the Opposition House Leader the other day, I pointed out the passage from Beauchesne indicating that the RNC, or the police forces, have no role in the House of Assembly unless the Speaker invites them in, and invites them in presumably once the Speaker has determined that he cannot control order in the House or in the galleries or in the precincts of the House without the presence of the RNC. There has been no indication whatsoever, other than the RNC or someone in the RNC saying it might be safer if we did not have anyone in the galleries. Well, it might always be safer, Mr. Speaker, if we did not have anyone in the galleries, if we did not have freedom of assembly, if we did not have freedom of speech, if we did not have all of the freedoms, the freedom of collective bargaining and the right to strike, and all those freedoms and rights that we have.

Mr. Speaker, I find it, to me, contrary to the normal expectations that you, Your Honour, would rely merely on advice of that nature without rationale or reason for it. If there had been some indication of a threat or bomb threat or some other threat, or something that might be taken into account, but merely to recommend that the people's House not be opened to the people seems to me to be an advocation of the House's responsibility to make sure that we are in control of our own proceedings and you, as Speaker, are the defender of that liberty of Parliament that we hold so dear.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you reconsider and perhaps consult with the House Leaders and recess the House so we could consider that, and consider as well - I am advised that the individuals outside, when I said, where are the Commissionaires, they said: We have no difficulty with Commissioners coming into the House. We met them on the way over. We walked over and we were told that they were told to go away for an hour.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to reconsider that and perhaps with a meeting of the House Leaders and myself to decide whether there is a basis, based on what specific information may have been provided by the RNC, to close the galleries of the House and to consider the availability of the Commissionaires, which is the security force of this House, under the direction of the Sergeant-at-Arms. That is very extraordinary, I would submit, for the House to be closed merely based on the recommendation of the RNC, without something more.

I would respectfully ask, Mr. Speaker, that you consider recessing the House for a few moments, meeting with the House Leaders and myself from this caucus, to consider whether there is an alternative to the ruling that you have made.

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

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

The Opposition House Leader contacted me, and I immediately contacted the Speaker. I appreciate the commentary by the Opposition House Leader, saying that I was obviously upset, correctly. As I said the other day, if one member is denied access to this House then it is not only that member's privileges that have been breached, it has been all of our privileges.

There is one thing that we are supposed to be guaranteed in this Legislature, as members, and that is the right to assemble and the right to conduct the business of the people, without threat, without intimidation, free from civil arrest, within the precincts of the Legislature. I appreciate the point. I concur with the point.

I will say this, Mr. Speaker, that the recommendation made by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, possibly some time this afternoon that himself, the Opposition House Leader and myself, as the Government House Leader, meet with you so that we can review the situation and you can advise us on what basis you made the decision.

I will say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I support your decision. I know that any decision taken like that is not made lightly. Even in 1999, under similar circumstances, the then Minister of Mines and Energy, now Leader of the Opposition - I have it there - talked about how the Speaker decides on the security and safety of the public galleries. I believe he may recall that.

To the point made by the Leader of the NDP, I think at some time this afternoon, if it is okay with you, we can meet with the Speaker and move on.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Further to the point raised by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and commented on by the Government House Leader, the whole point here is not for delay. The point here is to resolve the issue of: Are we, or are we not, going to allow people to come into the people's House?

We do not wait until later this afternoon to have that chat and have that discussion. This is bigger than either one of us here. It is bigger than the Speaker. The Speaker may decide what is or is not appropriate in this House, Mr. Speaker, and we all respect that, but this issue of, can the people come to the people's House, is bigger than all of us. That is the essence of democracy. That is being denied here and it cannot be done frivolously. It must be done with full thought and regard by all parties concerned, and anyone who can help shed any valued opinion upon that decision.

To proceed and decide some time later in the afternoon whether people can or cannot come into their House is kind of a frivolous exercise. The whole issue is, if they are allowed in, they ought to be allowed in from minute one - not two hours down the road. That is the whole point.

I agree wholeheartedly with the Government House Leader's comments that there should be a recess, but not later; we should do it now. The Government House Leader, myself as Opposition House Leader, the Leader of the NDP, and yourself, should meet to converse about this idea and decide if there is any way possible to have the people in the people's galleries.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand that under the circumstances there wasn't a full opportunity for Your Honour to consult with the House Leaders. I know you were able to advise what you had planned to do, but there was no opportunity to consult and have the discussion based on the reason. It is, in fact, my recommendation that we meet immediately, so that we can see if there is a way to ensure that democracy may be served within the needs of security. We would like to have an opportunity to do that, to meet with you, before such a decision might be implemented.

I will say, too, that when I was speaking to the issue of the rule of parliamentary privilege, it was again clear that when we, after notifying your office that the members of the House were approaching the door, when we got to the door there was nobody there. The doors were locked. Several people, members of the House, knocked on the doors. Nobody answered. It required further calls to your office to get someone to come to the door to even let members of the House in. Clearly, whatever system was hoped to be put in place was not working. That can be the source, obviously, of some discussion at a later time, maybe later on this afternoon.

The issue of the opening of the galleries to the public, when there are thirty or forty people outside waiting to get in without, apparently, any intentions that are certainly known to me - if the RNC or Your Honour know some things that we don't know, then perhaps it would be appropriate that the Government House Leader, the Opposition House Leader and myself meet with you to discuss these matters.

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

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

I have faith in the reasons why you made the decision. The Opposition were not the only members today who had extreme difficulty getting into this House, and I want to make that very clear, extreme difficulty over the last two days. I think we all have to recognize that, for obvious reasons, the environment we are operating in has caused some situations.

I am certainly not going to challenge the Speaker's ruling. You have made a decision and we support that decision. When you want to get together with the House Leaders, I believe that is important, but that is up to you, Sir, in your capacity as Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Given the extraordinary circumstances that we are operating under - there is a parliamentary theme that the Speaker's rulings should not be questioned, but given the circumstances of this day, there are other factors that the Speaker has knowledge of. Therefore, if it is the will of the House, the Speaker has no objection to recessing the House for five minutes or so, so I can share some other information with the House Leaders.

I would ask that the House now recess for fives minutes, and ask the House Leaders to meet me in my Chambers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has consulted with the hon. House Leaders for the government, the official Opposition and for the New Democratic Party. The Chair recognizes that it is ultimately the decision of the Speaker and, having reviewed the matter with the Clerk of the House and the Sergeant-at-Arms, and also having reviewed all of the factors, including the fact that we do not have Commissionaires in the building - they have been denied access - the Chair's ruling, on the fact that the galleries remain closed today, stands. However, in saying so, this should not be taken by any member, or members of the general public, to mean that on another day, when circumstances are different - and the Chair has undertaken that we will consult with the union leadership to see if we can make some arrangements to have access to the building by Officers of the House and the Legislature, members themselves, and do that over the next several days or hours - the decision this afternoon to leave the galleries closed must not be taken by any member, or any member of the public, to mean that this would be the condition that would prevail.

The Chair is very cognizant of freedom of speech, very cognizant that the public business should be done in the public forum, and that certainly is what the objective of any Speaker would be; however, given today's circumstances, I do believe, and I firmly believe, and the Chair will continue to adhere to the principle, that the decision made today is the correct decision.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

With regret, I have to indicate that I believe personally, and this caucus believes personally, that the decision that you have just taken is one that is in grave error and strikes to the very heart of democracy - absolutely to the heart of democracy - and I believe members here, by their -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member know that decisions of the Chair cannot be challenged. They can only be challenged by a substantive motion that would have to be moved and seconded and notice given for it. Therefore, the Chair rules that the Chair has made the decision.

There was an amendment passed in our Standing Order some years ago, I believe it was in 1999, that decisions of the Chair are final and they are not to be challenged in any manner at all.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, again, I am not indicating that I am challenging the Chair. I would like a few minutes in the people's House, in a democracy, to explain why we are not going to sit here with that ruling. We will be leaving this Legislature, and I would like to explain to Your Honour, as the Speaker, to the members opposite, and to the people of the Province, why we see this as the biggest breach of democracy in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I request the consent of the House to speak for a minute to that issue, because it is that serious, Mr. Speaker, and I take it that I have consent and agreement to speak to that issue?

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has every opportunity to speak and tell people why, wherever, but I am not going to give consent to challenge the Speaker's ruling. That is the fact of it.

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

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

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

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

I think we have seen here today, and again with the action of the Government House Leader, an absolute denial of democracy in the Province. You committed, Mr. Speaker, to have an investigation done as to why the doors were locked forty-eight hours ago, and committed that it would never happen again. Today, when we were at the doors, with no obstruction whatsoever, indicating that we wanted no police protection, did not need any, did not want any, did not desire any, were not going to accept any, the doors being locked, we called the security, got an officer of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, who says: I have an order and a command to not open the doors. The question was: Would you mind telling us who gave the order? He said: I will have to get back to you; I cannot disclose that information.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are in here and again the right for peaceful assembly, freedom of speech, as due the public unless they do something wrong, I would suggest it is a grave error not to recess the House, call in the Commissioners, make the arrangements that you, as the Speaker, are talking about trying to make in the future. I am sure that the people of the Province and the picketers will allow the Commissioners to cross the lines. If we are not going to have the public galleries open today then we, as the Official Opposition, will not sit here.

Mr. Speaker, every bit as serious as that, it has now come to our attention that the same orders that were given to not open the doors for us, as elected members, have now been given to not allow the members of the media to enter into the gallery.

MR. E. BYRNE: Why is that?

MR. GRIMES: Why is that? The Government House Leader says: Why is that? Now we are at the very essence, Mr. Speaker, of the whole issue. We cannot have this occurring. We will not stay in this Legislature with that happening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition giving me the information - or giving me the opportunity. Again, this is new information to the government side. I concur with the Leader of the Opposition -

MR. HARRIS: As do I.

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

I concur with the Leader of the Opposition. I ask the Speaker to recess the House again until we can find out what the situation is with respect to the information that has been brought forward to our attention.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I agree with the Government House Leader; this House should be recessed. I would also say that we will not be in this House if the House is not open to the public, because we do not believe that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary should run this House, or access to this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair can only say that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before the Chair came to this House this afternoon, the Chair was asked a question, and the question was whether or not the doors would be open for the media. The Chair, in the presence of the Clerk and others, gave the direct order that this House is not barred today to members of the press. The Chair was asked a question, and the Chair has already communicated on that matter. When the galleries were closed to the members of the public, there was no intention on anybody's part at all to have the galleries closed to the members of the media. The media are welcome. If they come to the door they will be admitted, and that has been communicated to them by the Clerk of the House and myself, prior to this session opening this afternoon.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I take it that by agreement, all three parties have agreed to recess. I expect, Mr. Speaker, that you are also going to deal - not only with the media. We will not be in this Legislature this afternoon if we do not try to make arrangements to have the Commissionaires come in, open the galleries, and have a free Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

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

We will take the recess and we will have the opportunity - we will reconvene as soon as we discover the answers that we are all looking for.

Thank you.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would like to thank the Commissionaires who, on very short notice - after being here at the building for more than an hour earlier today and were not able to gain access. I would like to thank the Commissionaires for coming in and also other House officials who were able to be here and had been here earlier today and are now present. Therefore, the House can now function in the manner that all of us would like to have occur on a regular basis.

I want to also note that when welcoming visitors to our galleries, that we want to make it quite clear that visitors, according to our Standing Orders, are not permitted to participate or demonstrate in any way, any approval or disapproval.

It is a case where - I say to the Government House Leader, that the bells have rang and the Commissionaires have - if members wish me to say the expression, admit strangers, than we shall. All visitors who are in the galleries are always, in parliamentary terms, strangers to the House, but they are visitors in every other sense.

I want to make it quite clear that we ask visitors not to participate in any manner on the proceedings in the House, and we thank you for your co-operation. The Chair, of course, wishes that this session this afternoon proceed in a very orderly and parliamentary manner.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not wish to be difficult, Mr. Speaker, but your admonition to the galleries sort of fall on deaf ears or no ears because in the galleries the people have not been admitted yet. We have a very extraordinary circumstance here this afternoon. We agreed that we would recess to allow the Commissionaires to come into the House, to allow the media to come in, to allow the galleries to be filled if the public want to come in. I just came to this House, Mr. Speaker, and the media are outside still waiting to get in, are not signed in. There are people outside waiting to get signed in. Again, I am not trying to be difficult, but if that is the intention here today, to allow the people in the people's House, they have to be allowed the appropriate time in order to do that.

Thank you.

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

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

Whatever time is warranted or justified to allow people to sit in the gallery, to participate, or to take in the proceedings, absolutely. That is why we recessed, so we could provide that opportunity to get our own staff in so that everyone else could come in. So, if we need some more time, that is fair enough.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has been advised that while there still may be people who are outside in the process of coming in, members are free to come and exist in the galleries at any time. Therefore, we are not going to close the doors, and say: Those who are in, are in. Not at all. Member are free to come into the gallery. When the gallery is open, it is open. It is open for entry. It is also open for people who wish to leave at any time. Because we began proceedings now, does not mean that other members who are outside are not able to gain entry. I understand that people are coming in and they will continue to come in. I do not know if we need more time. I will take direction from the House Leaders if we need more time, but we have had substantive time since some people were first admitted about, I understand, twenty minutes ago.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the Speaker's remarks, but as I came into the House just a few minutes ago, there were a substantial number of people outside the doors, including members of the media. I see that the media gallery, the press gallery has three people there but there are, at least, three or more that I saw outside the doors who are waiting their turn. The signing-in procedure is proceeding. It apparently takes a little time, so although the doors may have been opened early, they obviously have not been open long enough for members of the media, who are normally in the press gallery, to be here. I would suggest that perhaps another few minutes be permitted so that the normal attendees of the press gallery have an opportunity to be participating in the proceedings by observing them.

MR. SPEAKER: If there is a feeling that members of the public have not had sufficient time, I was advised by the House Officers and others that they did, but if that is the case we can take an extra five minutes. The House will recess until 3:55 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. members, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, are well aware that the last twenty-two days in our Province have been more than difficult given the largest public sector labour disruption ever in our history. Today, I rise to inform my colleagues in the Legislature that the health care system can no longer sustain a strike of this magnitude for anything other than a limited period of time.

Government met with representatives of the health sector, and today we have concluded it is necessary to respond to the urgent pressure which this sector is experiencing. It is clear now, in the twenty-second day of this labour disruption, that our ability to provide emergent and urgent care is significantly reduced. The fatigue of our health sector managers, our inability to continue to offer adequate care, and the concern over not being able to attend to the needs of patients who are not classified as "emergency" are troublesome. Our health system is being taxed to the limit, and that is a situation government cannot tolerate.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association said yesterday, our health system is fragile, our patients are suffering and are at risk. An indication of the seriousness of the problem that the health system is confronting is evident in the capacity to produce cardiac catheterization. Normally we see eight to ten in-hospital patients per day awaiting cardiac catheterization. Three days ago we had thirty-nine patients waiting; yesterday there were fifty people waiting. For cardiac bypass surgeries, we normally perform sixteen per week. Now we are performing only four. On top of this, we have seventy people waiting for cancer surgery in the St. John's area, and many others around the Province. And, there are an unknown number of mental health patients who are not accessing the critical services they need to remain safe and healthy in our community. A very real issue, also, is the people who are awaiting diagnostic procedures, a percentage of whom will also require surgeries or oncology treatments.

Mr. Speaker, on top of the strains in the health sector, our education system and general public services are diminishing. People are feeling the anxiety of this extraordinary ordeal every day now. While we appreciate the work of our managers, non-bargaining unit employees and those union members who have provided essential services, we understand that there comes a time when functioning at even a minimal level is not good enough for our Province. While it may not be a matter of life and death, our broad public services are the backbone of a well-functioning society - a state to which we must return.

I wish to make special mention of our managers who have put every ounce of energy into maintaining essential public services. Without their help, we would not have been able to provide public services even on a reduced level.

Union leaders have made their case to government on several occasions both before and after March 31. Government has listened, comprehended and assessed the requests. We too have made our position known time and time again. As late as yesterday, government met with NAPE and CUPE in an effort to bring the strike to a conclusion. We worked hard, Mr. Speaker, but our ability to come together was not evident. The request from unions would have overburdened our fiscal plan to such a degree that we would be feeling the effects for years to come.

Government made every effort to reach a settlement. We removed all concessions for existing employees and we were prepared to be flexible on many points. No existing employees, temporary or permanent, will have any less benefits at the end of this process than they had prior to the strike. That includes benefits for sick leave, severance and pensions.

Mr. Speaker, we bear a large part of the responsibility for protecting our Province for the future. Having just brought down one of the most difficult provincial budgets in our history, we feel our real fiscal burden squarely on our shoulders. We sought an agreement which was fair and reasonable - but to no avail.

There are no assurances, unfortunately, that the health system can go on coping in the way that it has. Government must now show leadership and discharge the responsibilities entrusted to it by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is why today we will give Notice of Motion to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act to Provide for the Resumption and Continuation of Public Services." With the pressure of the necessity for swift action from the health and community services sector in particular, I ask hon. members to give speedy consideration to the legislation.

While notice has been given, it does not necessarily mean that legislation must proceed. Between now and next week, hopefully, a resolution can be reached.

Thank you.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I believe the statement we just heard reflects a very sad day for the government. I know, from their demeanor, I don't think any of them are very proud of what they just heard read. Unfortunately, it is the latest in a long line of broken promises to the people of the Province, generally, and to the union movement of Newfoundland and Labrador, in particular.

Mr. Speaker, let me make this offer on behalf of the official Opposition, in one last attempt - because we tried to point out through the last couple of weeks how there could be an agreed to resolution instead of coming to this point. Let me make one last offer to see if the government would consider another course of action instead of the one that the President of Treasury Board and Minister of Finance gave notice of in that statement.

Why would we not agree, today, immediately, under our own Standing Order 36, Mr. Speaker, to suspend the normal proceedings of this Legislature to recognize the circumstance that the President of Treasury Board just outlined, that we have a looming crisis, if not a present crisis, particularly in health care, and that we could use the existing law, that we don't need to give any notice of a new law, a brand new act? We can use our existing law, the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, that the Premier, himself, said he would respect and that he would use, and that he would never come to the Legislature and use the power of the Legislature. Why don't we agree to do that today, Mr. Speaker.

We will certainly agree to stay, extend the time beyond normal adjournment at five-thirty, and let everyone who wants to speak stay here now and have a special debate about why we would or would not use the current law, use section 30 of the current law, to declare that there is a looming crisis. The actual phrase, Mr. Speaker, is that there is a strike of employees that is or would be injurious to the health or safety of persons - is or would be. I believe the minister just described that he believes it already is, or certainly would be, so it certainly meets the criteria.

Section 32 then says that the remaining issues - there are only three - could be referred to an adjudicator. Section 35 says that, whatever the adjudicator decides is binding on the parties.

That is what the Premier of the Province said to the NAPE convention, that he would do if he ever became the leader.

The Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker, who was then the Leader of the Opposition, in 1999, the last time that back-to-work legislation was introduced in this Province, in questioning the Premier of the day - which was not me; I was part of the government - he said: If we were the government today, we would not be using back-to-work legislation. We would be sending it to binding arbitration.

I have the quotes right here, from Hansard, from the record of the House. Mr. Speaker, we make the offer in response to this statement. Rather than give the notice, rather than wait for three or four more days to see if there is going to be some miraculous resolution that did not occur last weekend, did not occur yesterday, wait for the situation to deteriorate and then suggest that the Opposition parties are prolonging it, delaying it, and causing a problem, let's have the debate right now, under our own Standing Orders. We would certainly have the House Leaders consult. We have a resolution drafted, that we would present to Your Honour if it was agreed. You could consult to see if you want to have that resolution or another one, and we could have the debate right now. The strike could be over this afternoon, the people could be back to work before midnight, and the issues could be dealt with in a process that the provincial government said they would honour if they ever became the government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

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

I make the offer again, in all sincerity to the government, to resume that debate later today and cancel and suspend the normal Orders of the Day, if they are agreeable.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are now in the twenty-second day of a legal public sector strike, as has been indicated by the minister, perhaps the largest public sector dispute in our Province's history. While he has indicated his judgment and the government's judgment that we do have a crisis, a looming crisis, that public health and safety is at risk, or will be at risk, he is clearly putting the language in the phrase of the existing legislation, Section 30 of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act.

What is being proposed, instead, is that instead of using the existing legislation, which would be in keeping with the legal strike that we have, legislation is being proposed that will somehow make illegal that which is now legal, and order people back to work under new legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I support the statement of the Leader of the Opposition. In fact, I suggested to him that this would be an appropriate course of action today, that we use Section 30 of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act which says that if "...a strike of employees is or would be injurious to the health or safety of persons or a group or class of persons....".

The indication from the minister is that government believes that the health or safety of a group or class of persons is potentially injurious and that we would recognize that it is an emergency, that we would keep sitting until everyone who wanted to have an opportunity -

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

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: - everyone who wanted an opportunity to speak could speak. If we accept what was being said, apparently by letter earlier today to the Premier from the President of both NAPE and CUPE, that they are prepared to instruct their members to return to work on Friday, April 23, 2004, that the strike would be over, that everybody would be back to work tomorrow morning, that a proper resolution to this dispute would have been met, that the existing law which is designed to permit full and free collective bargaining to take place, it has taken place and has resulted in a failure, and the failure of collective bargaining should lead, as the Government House Leader said in March, 1999, at the end of day, collective bargaining is not my way or the highway, which has been the approach of government. That was the government that day. That should not be the approach of any government, and the solution of sending the remaining three items to binding arbitration is one that we believe is appropriate in the circumstances where the government obviously feels that the collective bargaining system has not worked and that the health and safety of people of the Province is as risk. Therefore, we would consent now to proceed to such a resolution and see it to its conclusion today; but, if the government chooses to go another route and make illegal that which is now legal, and seeks to have speedy resolution and speedy passage, that would not be appropriate and would not be supported by me or the Member for Labrador West.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I listened intently to the Ministerial Statement by the President of Treasury Board and I still have difficulty with one question that I would like to ask and have clarified. The question is this: Has the government determined that there is a crisis and emergency circumstance existing in the Province or not?

He used a lot of language talking about difficulties and then said: I will give notice and we will start a debate some time next week, which means it will take then a full week or more to do something about it. I am confused. Could he clarify, or could the Minister of Health and Community Services, in particular, clarify: Is there a crisis emerging or not? What did that statement actually say? Last week the pot was clearly simmering. Has the pot boiled over or not?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The statement says exactly what is written. I provided it to the Opposition about three hours ago, so they had an opportunity up to now to read that and go through it clearly.

It is clear what is stated there. There are numerous instances. I can give them instances of cases. For example: outpatient surgeries before the strike, 700, seventy since; outpatient tests, normally 14,000 a week, 100 now; eighty MRIs per week, only emergencies now; serious heart procedures before the strike, 100 a week, twenty-four now. Obviously, the system is coming under severe stress and the ability to be able to cope with those essential - even with urgent and emergency - is diminishing there, and we give notice today, as my statement said. Obviously, if it was an emergency that we had to have it exactly today, we would ask leave to do it immediately if the system had crashed. The answer is, the system has not crashed today but we give notice because we do not want to be in a position - because the Opposition has said openly -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: - they will not cooperate with that and we do not want to be responsible for a system if we need to act - that we need to act with it.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Contrary to what the President of Treasury Board said, both myself and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, just offered full cooperation to the government to end this strike today, to suspend even this Question Period if they want to and get to the debate that could end this strike today. I take some exception, Mr. Speaker, to the false representation made by the President of Treasury Board.

Mr. Speaker, the question again is this: If we have the circumstance that he just restated of the crisis - because I believe he just said there was a crisis, I think he did, but he is going to wait until next week. Why are we going to wait? Will he acknowledge that the government, under existing law, has the ability to order the workers back to work right now, this very minute, instead of giving notice about a new bill, that they have the ability to do it this instant? Why are we going to take a risk for the next three or four days with a crisis -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

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

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is probably for the same reason in 1999 that my critic opposite stood - the Leader of the Opposition as a member of the government - and legislated back the nurses for the same reason that we are not doing it now. He knows the reason why it was not done and why the reason we will not. He is trying now, in a different situation - when he was put in it, he would not do it. So he wants us to do now what he would not do when he was in the same situation, Mr. Speaker. What do you call that?

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I call that a total abrogation of the new approach - is what I call that, Mr. Speaker - that they got elected for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

[Noise from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Speaker has to remind visitors in the gallery that regardless of whether you agree or disagree with what has been said on the floor of the House, you are not to show any approval or disapproval. The Speaker cannot accept any commentary or any demonstrations whatsoever.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have had this kind of exchange before. The people of the Province, on the twenty-second day of the biggest strike and the longest strike in our history, do not want to talk about 1999. They want to talk about today, tonight, tomorrow, next week, the future.

The question, Mr. Speaker, is this: If government's only agenda is being driven by concern for the health and safety of people in the Province, why is the minister and the Premier and the House Leader, why are they not taking us up on the offer of starting the debate under the existing law, right now, this very minute, so we can have this strike settled today? Is health and safety the only concern or are there other agenda items that are important to this government?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are entrusted with the responsibility to make decisions and sign the cheques on behalf of this Province. That is a responsibility that was given to us and we are obligated to do because there is such a financial mess left there and we do not have the fiscal ability to do it because the problem was created.

We made an effort, Mr. Speaker. We agreed on the sick leave issue. We even said to the union leaders yesterday, I said to them specifically, when they told me that we can get the sick leave numbers down to an acceptable level. We can do that, give us six months. I said if you are so confident, we will give you twelve days and we will retroactively give every new employee back their days in the future, if we can do that. We said we were prepared to put a letter to them on the Warren Report. That is not even in the current agreement now. That is an add-on to government, it is not in the Warren Report. The Warren Report is not in the current collective agreement. There is no obligation. That is a new item. We were even prepared to give a letter to that effect. We were prepared to make a movement on salaries. We were very reasonable and there was no movement, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: There was no movement whatsoever on the other side. We want to get this settled. We made every honest effort to do it right to the very last day, and we indicated that we were prepared to express movement on all three, and it didn't happen. I am one of the most disappointed in this Province that there is not a settlement now, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So we have it confirmed that there are issues other than health and safety that are important to this government, so they are willing to risk the health and safety of the people for another several days so that they can accomplish some other agenda items. Make sure that everybody in the Province understands that, Mr. Speaker. Our record will certainly show that that was the answer.

Mr. Speaker, before I get to the question of what is wrong with the current law, the President of Treasury Board indicated that we have a responsibility. They have a responsibility for the health and safety of the people and they have a responsibility to uphold the current law. What is wrong with the current law that guarantees that they can meet the health and safety requirements and the responsibility for it, beginning in two minutes time if we can only agree to start the right debate instead of reliving the past and talking about other agenda items, like stripping contracts?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition does not hear very well. We are not agreeing to binding arbitration because we are responsible to write the cheques. You were responsible to write the cheques before and put us in a mess, almost a billion dollar deficit. We have a responsibility to do something about it.

We made generous offers, in fact, on all three issues. We want to get this settled. The union leaders would not move. If we settled sick leave and salaries, they would them out on the Warren Report alone. They were not accepting even that one item, basically. I asked: Why, for 3 per cent of your membership, would you put everybody out? That was adamant in their discussion. There was nowhere to go on it.

We were about seven minutes into that meeting and we realized there was nowhere to go. We were so frustrated we came back and stayed another hour or more, put forth different scenarios, and we couldn't get an agreement. I felt they shouldn't put their entire membership at risk just for one item there. We were prepared to move on all three, but we got no movement at all.

The only indication we got where we might have movement would be on wages; a possibility. No offer, other than 8 per cent given to us -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: - and we made an honest effort to get an end to this. It did not happen, and I met endless hours over the past number of times. I met at five meetings last weekend over a period of four days; at least five. There was, I think, fourteen proposals exchanged overall in the process -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: - and we made every honest effort, and we have responsibilities to exercise on behalf of this Province. The very same person had one, when he was Premier of this Province, and did not do what he is asking us to do now. Ask him why.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is clear that the President of Treasury Board and the Premier do not understand the lack of trust and belief in what they say today.

Mr. Speaker, just for information. This is important before I ask this next question. I watched the evening news last night when the Premier said - I was in the company of a mixed group of people, not necessarily politicians but a general public. We offered a letter - signed by me, he said - about the school board issues, about the Warren report. The people I watched the news with laughed because they said he gave a letter to the Metis. That is the problem that they do not seem to understand.

If, in fact, Mr. Speaker, they believe in their hearts and souls that the fiscal circumstance of the Province is as bad and as dire as they continually exaggerate it to be, what could they possibly fear from going to an arbitrator? Why would they ever believe that an arbitrator would award something other than what the government said it can hardly afford to do in the first place? Why is it? Do they not believe their own press releases? Are they afraid that an arbitrator does not believe the story and the myth that they -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

- the story and the myth that they have propagated far and wide in the Province about the dire fiscal circumstance? What do they have to fear from an arbitrator if it is as bad as he wants people to believe it is?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have no doubt about the fiscal state of our Province. What do I have to fear? Maybe it is the same that the former Premier of this Province feared when he forced the legislation with the nurses' strike and he would not do the same very thing that he wants us to do.

Now, I would ask him: Why didn't you do it? The reason we are not doing it is because we want to control the fiscal state of our Province. We want to have a say in where we go in the future. We made every single, honest, effort to settle these three issues. We agreed with two over the past while and last weekend. We moved forward and we got an agreement on these others. We were prepared to move on all three but there was no movement; no movement whatsoever on two significant issues at all. It was not to be entertained. You could give the other two and they were going out on this one. It did not make any difference whether you got down to three, two or one. They were not going to settle on that basis, in spite of an effort that we made.

The very former Premier of this Province gave a letter on the Warren Report, that is not in the contract now. That is why there is a problem there and we tried to address those concerns -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to conclude his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: - that were addressed in that former letter, basically pertaining to it, why there are problems out in school boards with the Warren Report. We want to make an honest effort to try and address these problems to ensure that they are resolved there in a letter form; the very letter that was created by that person, when he was the Premier of this Province, Mr. Speaker, and it was not written into the collective agreement of this Province. That is the responsibility of the person who was in power when that was done.

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

It is unfortunate that the President of Treasury Board cannot seem to see the forest for the trees. He is so wrapped up in his own little arguments that he does not want to listen to anybody else.

Mr. Speaker, the governments that I participated in, and the one I led, answered all of their reasons in Hansard as to why we did what we did, when we did it. That is the past. The new approach that people elected said: Elect us and we won't do what they did. That is the whole issue here today.

Mr. Speaker, speaking of Hansard, I have a question for the Government House Leader. In 1999, as the President of Treasury Board just mentioned, the last time back-to-work legislation was used, the Government House Leader said: If we were in your position today - he was the Opposition Leader then. He had the job that I am now doing, in 1999. He is now the Government House Leader, Minister of Natural Resources: If we were in your position today we would be announcing: sending it to binding arbitration. I ask the Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker: What happened to his position by going fifteen feet across the floor?

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

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

Five years, fifteen feet across the floor and a couple of billion dollars more in debt, I say to the Leader of the Opposition. I will give him the answer that he provided to this House - and let me assure every member in this House, every member in the gallery and every member in the public, that there is not one person on this side of the House who would not like to be in a position to offer six and seven and eight and 9 per cent year-over-year to every member of the general public; not one of us.

If anybody thinks for a moment, Mr. Speaker, that what was introduced here today by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board was done lightly, well then I will ask you to think again. But here is the answer, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition gave to me when we were on different sides of the House. Here is what he said at that time, and he likes to refer to Hansard: Every single one - meaning arbitration - done in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador has given a settlement higher and much higher than proposed by the employer. Every one.

Mr. Speaker, we looked seriously at binding arbitration, but given the state of our fiscal finances, given the state of our ability to pay, it was too much of a risk for us to take. That is the honest answer. That is the straightforward answer. It is a tough one to give, where I am standing here right now, but I can tell you, it is an honest one.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

And it proves the whole point, they have no confidence that they can convince an arbitrator of what was just said; because if they are so convinced that they are right, why don't they go to an arbitrator and talk about the extra $2 billion? Which, by the way, is an exaggeration, Mr. Speaker. But if that is what they want to believe and if that is the excuse they want to use for changing their position, go to the arbitrator and convince the arbitrator, just like he tried to convince the people of Newfoundland and Labrador with that answer.

Mr. Speaker, a different question to the Premier: Mr. Premier, won't you finally admit to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that the government's entire premise of the dire financial circumstance has from the very beginning been exaggerated and overstated, especially by you as the Premier? And, how come yesterday in this House when we referenced reports from the bond rating agencies, Moody's and the Dominion Bond Rating Service, that your Government House Leader did not know anything about it, none of your caucus knew anything about it; they had never heard anything about the fact before -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

- when the reports that were given to this government, both of them, since the government changed, had said that the bond rating for the Province is not in jeopardy, it is stable. Would he like to answer that question?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition was Premier of the Province, he commissioned a Royal Commission of respectable people in this Province, who came back and gave him a report, and gave his government a report. That Royal Commission, which was commissioned by his government, said that his government had to get its fiscal house in order. It also said that the spending practices of his government that had gone on in the past were unsustainable. Subsequently, a report was commissioned that indicated that we were in dire fiscal and financial straits. Our debt was ballooning. We are drowning in our debt. Our debt was heading towards $14 billion to $15 billion. Our deficit was heading towards $1 billion a year. We had no choice but to try and get it under control.

This is not just about a negotiation with the union. It is my job, as Premier of the Province, it is our job as the government, to act on behalf of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian, to make sure that their children and their grandchildren have a future in our Province. That is what we are trying to do. We are trying to negotiate an affordable agreement, something that we can live with, something that we can afford. We are not passing the future of this Province over to some arbitrator, believe me.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am really glad that the Premier made the last statement in particular, because it reflects the very view that he put forward last night when he used language that said: I run and control this Province.

Maybe he might learn, Mr. Speaker, that he has been given the privilege of leading the government on behalf of the people of the Province. No one elected him and gave him Newfoundland and Labrador to run and control as he sees fit. They expected him, Mr. Speaker, to live up to his commitments, one of which was: I would never bring legislation to the House of Assembly to end a strike.

Some words we might be able to believe; very few, obviously, from this Premier. The question, however, Mr. Speaker, he did not answer. Maybe I should ask it over again with a few different words. Can the Premier explain what he meant on March 16, in a press conference, when he was with the Government House Leader and he told the media, in referencing the strike that was coming up, the negotiations that were not going so well: I have alarming correspondence from the bond rating agencies that suggests our bond rating might be downgraded.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to quickly complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

It is the Premier who said it. Will he get up and explain his own words: By correspondence - because we have to be this careful with this Premier, Mr. Speaker - does he mean letters or does he mean something else? If he has the letters, which most people think is correspondence, would he like to table them, finally, so people can actually see what he was told by the bond rating agencies that his caucus heard nothing about?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the Opposition knows quite well, they requested information from my office under the Freedom of Information and we provided that. We had a letter from the fiscal agents which we dealt with in a lot of areas, that we were in the process of trying to get reduced borrowing. We have been very successful in short-term (inaudible), I might add, to get an average rate of 1.99 per cent. In that response on borrowing capacity, the fiscal agents indicated to us - I will read the sentence. They said: However, the only threat could come from rating agencies who will want to see a commitment to balanced budgets over the government's current mandate and that the action plan is front-end loaded.

I might add, bond rating agencies do their regular updates and provide them to governments, and it is made public. It is on the Web site. I think it was provided by my office, or reference made to it, to a member of his office when they requested that. The reason why, Mr. Speaker, there is some comfort level in our credit rating is because we have taken action and laid out a plan to address it. We had a $1 billion deficit going forward that would have put us, eventually, over the brink. We would never let us get in the position. That is why there is a comfort level now in this Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: - because we have taken concrete action to do something about it, something that the former Premier of this Province would not do.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

So, I take it they are not going to produce any correspondence from any bond rating agencies; or else, Mr. Speaker, it is an admission that the Premier of our Province does not know the difference between bond rating agencies and our own fiscal advisors that we pay - that we pay - to advise us; people who advise the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, the question, again, was this. I asked if they would table the correspondence. Obviously, they are not going to because it does not suit their purpose, just like the interim report from Mr. Gourley did not suit their purpose.

Let me ask this different question to the Premier and see if he will, again, answer to the people of the Province about his words, his own words that he is usually so proud of. It did not come from the lips of the President of Treasury Board. On January 5: I have to spend $1 billion to pay interest to the banks, 25 per cent of the Budget.

The same reports that they do not want to table said it is half that amount. Would the Premier like to now explain to the people of the Province why he gave that statement, when the reports that he has had and has not even shared with his caucus show it to be absolutely, totally, dead wrong? He will not answer it.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The former Premier of this Province should know that one of the indicators of government's flexibility - and it is every single year in the Auditor General's report since I came into this House - less debt servicing costs as a percentage of revenue. In the last one, it was 23.9 per cent roughly, over 25 per cent, and scheduled to rise to 29 per cent. Debt servicing costs are made up of more than one component. The Leader of the Opposition conveniently counts consolidated fund service. There are other boards and agencies responsible to government that borrow and have significant debt.

In this past year, there was over $61 million of interest paid out in these areas that he never referenced in his statements, that he did not put out to the public. I do not know why he is not including it. On top of that, Mr. Speaker, there is also in excess of $300 million in costs that have to be accrued for unfunded pension liabilities that pertain to it. That is money that is not there now, it has to be met, and it is a liability that has to be paid out in the future.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to now complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: The Auditor General - and they complied with standard reporting measures under CICA, and it has indicated that 25 per cent of every single dollar of revenue, basically, our debt servicing costs make that up. That is a significant number and you cannot hide from the real truth on that. Anybody who is not trying to play with three sets of numbers, as we have used in the past - we had a cash basis, we had a consolidated cash basis, and we had an accrual basis. He moved to accrual accounting, and he goes back and counts cash in a consolidated fund service to mislead the public again, what they were doing for several years before we got here.

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

There is time in your allocation for one short question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

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

It seems, from the answers we are getting today, even though the Premier does not want to speak with his own words, he wants someone else to try to explain what he said because it is different than what the truth happens to be - the question is this: If the government seems determined to bring in a brand new law sometime next week, if there is a real crisis, even though they described the crisis today, will the Premier now, at least, save some face and make the commitment again that he made to the unions, that he was not going to do it at all, but if he is going to do it, which he seems determined to do -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

What about guaranteeing the people of the Province, today, that he will not create a black mark for himself and this government in history, by putting concessions of actual articles of agreement into his new law, that he is determined to bring? Will he give that commitment today or is he going to create the darkest day in labour relations history the Province has ever seen?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, as I have stood on my feet in the House time and time and time again, we have taken concessions on sick leave for current employees of the table. They will not be put in legislation. We have taken severance for current employees of the table. That will not come back through legislation. We have taken pension indexing and pension issues of the table. That will not come back through existing legislation or proposed legislation. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that, and I can assure the membership of the union that that is the case.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

If the Premier's idea of collective bargaining is to put a wack of concessions on the table and take most of them off, it is not surprising he was unable to reach a collective agreement with the public sector workers.

Mr. Speaker, in the Ministerial Statement by the President of Treasury Board he says: It is clear now that our ability to provide emergent and urgent care is significantly reduced, and quotes the NLMA as saying, our patients are suffering and at risk.

Does he not agree that those statements meet the condition that the strike would be injurious to the health or safety of persons or groups or class of persons, as specified in section 30 of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act? Will he not agree to, in fact, use this act under existing law to get this strike over with rather than destroying collective bargaining in the Province?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We looked at it and we drew a conclusion. Anybody can draw a conclusion. I did not say in the statement that emergency cases cannot be dealt with. That is not in that statement. Their ability to deal with emergent and urgent cases is decreasing - or diminished, is the word. That is my statement. Do not twist the words to read and apply to something that is in an act that is exactly not there, I want to say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. That is not what I said. It is not what is in the statement -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - and it is not the interpretation that you can apply - that is trying to apply now and set a stage for binding arbitration or some other area. That is where he is coming from. He is trying to do it by a backdoor that is absolutely not there. He is reading something into it, Mr. Speaker, that is not there.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister, having now admitted that he has no justification for the legislation that he has proposed today: Will he then agree that what this government is proposing to do - what the Minister of Energy and the Government House Leader called it the last time in 1999 - that at the end of the day in collective bargaining: It is not my way or the highway; which has been the approach of government. Is that the approach of his government, that it is my way, or the Premier's way, or the highway for public sector workers in this Province? Is that what he is telling the people, that he has no justification with this legislation other than to impose his version of terms and conditions of employment on employees?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No, the version and the best approach was to reach a negotiated settlement. The Premier went to the hotel with me yesterday and sat across the table for close to an hour-and-a-half. We moved and we wanted - we tried very hard to get a settlement; very, very hard. We went to great extent - and I must say, there are two people, two groups who usually sit at a bargaining table -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: We moved but we did not get any reciprocal movement occurring whatsoever. You cannot get an agreement when two sides do not agree. One is prepared to move and one is not. It's as simple as that! We made it clear that we did not want to leave that room without a settlement; that we did not get there.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: We tried our upmost to do that. It is regrettable, and I really feel bad for the people who are out there -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: I feel bad for the people who want to go to work, that are hard workers in government and other parts of the health system, and school boards, everywhere in this Province who cannot go to work. I thought we put a very fair and honest settlement. We were prepared to move, but they did not get an opportunity to voice their opinion on that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation Of Public Services." (Bill 18)

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Standing Order 36, and I believe this is the appropriate place to ask leave. Again, as I mentioned earlier in response to the Ministerial Statement and now that the Notice of Motion for the draconian back-to-work legislation has been officially provided by the minister - and the Premier has confirmed that, in fact, they will be stripping the contract in that legislation when we get to see it. He stated that clearly again in this House today, the blackest day for labour relations in the history of the Province, bar none.

I ask leave, as a member, under Standing Order 36(3), that the House consider granting leave to suspend the normal orders for the rest of the day and have an urgent and emergent debate pursuant to this order with respect to putting an end to this strike under the existing law. The statements that I gave again in answer to and response to the President of Treasury Board with his statement as a minister, that we could suspend the orders by agreement. I have a resolution here that I can present to the Chair which would be the basis of the resolution for your consideration, if you deem it to be in order, and that by consent of the House, we could have an emergency debate for the remainder of the day for as long as we want to, by agreement, to end the strike today under the current law; not wait any longer. Send the remaining three items to binding arbitration, Mr. Speaker, and have all of the uncertainty in the Province today come to an end at the end of this debate.

I present this resolution, Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 36, for your consideration, and ask leave that we suspend the Orders of the Day to have the emergency debate.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader, speaking to the matter raised by the Opposition Leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Opposition had every opportunity to put forward the same motion. They did not. Mr. Speaker, today in Question Period, the Leader of the Opposition, for twenty-seven minutes, asked the question both to myself and to the President of Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance on the very matter that he is asking. We have answered the questions.

When legislation is tabled - hopefully it won't have to be. Hopefully there will be something between now and Sunday that would not require such legislation to be tabled. If it is, and when it is, the opportunity to debate it fully will be provided, Mr. Speaker. We will not be providing leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the request for leave, the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, to the issue raised by the Leader of the Opposition, and in comment to the Government House Leader's comments, yesterday, that he referred to, we were told that there were things we could not and ought not to talk about because the negotiations were ongoing. So, don't refer to what we could or could not have done yesterday. We were politely told by this same Government House Leader yesterday that we shouldn't talk about it because they didn't, in any way, want to inserter with the ongoing negotiations. That is exactly why we didn't do anything yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of responding to the President of Treasury Board's Ministerial Statement here today, the Leader of the Opposition asked if we could have such a debate. It wasn't done under this Standing Order 36. He asked in response to the Ministerial Statement, could we do it under Standing Order 36.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the NDP had his commentary, we went through Question Period, we never had any response from the Government House Leader as to whether or not that suggestion was acceptable. Because we did not get a response as to what the government's position was, we could only assume that the President of Treasury Board and the government were not prepared to take the Leader of the Opposition up on his offer to have such an urgent debate. That brings us to why we now have the Leader of the Opposition on his feet asking for a proper official motion made pursuant to Standing Order 36.

What happened yesterday is irrelevant. The fact that they chose not to respond earlier today is irrelevant. The Leader for the Opposition has made a valid motion, as outlined under Standing Order 36, and I believe it says in Standing Order 36.(4), "The Member then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to the Speaker..." - which has been done - "...who, if he or she thinks it is in order and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the Member has the leave of the House."

All we are suggesting at this point, Mr. Speaker, is that Standing Order 36 be followed. I suggest that under subsection 4 that requires the Chair, Your Honourable self, to read out the Standing Order and we move on from there. It is not a case of the Government House Leader just simply standing up and saying we disagree or we do not want to go there. It is not in his hands to say whether we go there, I submit, Mr. Speaker. It is outlined in section 36.(4) where we go from here.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to speak to some of the technical objections of the Government House Leader. Standing Order 36, matters of urgent public importance or emergency debate, specifically deals with a motion, or leave to introduce a motion. What we had from the Leader of the Opposition, in response to the Ministerial Statement, was a suggestion. It was not a formal application under Section 36 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: You just did now. As long as we are dealing with it now, and we are not saying it was already dealt with because it was brought up before, then I will speak to Section 36.

The question the Speaker has to answer first of all is whether it is in order in the sense that it is a matter of urgent public importance. I would submit that it certainly is a matter of public importance, based on the fact that the government has introduced legislation for next week - not for now to debate it, not to debate it now but to debate it next week, some time next week. It is urgent now. It is urgent based on the state of affairs of the Province and the state that we have encountered ourselves in dealing with this matter in the House of Assembly today, and the difficulties that we had. It is also urgent, clearly, based on the statement of the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board that matters have reached the state of urgency within the Province and that they are of significant public importance.

Your Honour has to make that determination as part of whether it is in order. The question also is whether there are other opportunities to debate the matter. Well, Question Period is normally not consider one of those opportunities. If that were the case, Mr. Speaker, any matter could be raised in Question Period and would not be - it would never qualify under an emergency debate because Question Period is always available every parliamentary day. Therefore, that should not be taken into consideration.

I would submit that this is the type of motion that would qualify under Standing Order 36 and, as a result, I urge Your Honour - he may have to recess to make such a ruling - but if you agree that the matter is of urgent public importance, which Section 36.(4) of our Standing Orders requires you to consider, then the question is whether or not such a matter has the support of a sufficient number of members of this House. If objection is taken, which I understand to have been taken by the Government House Leader, then the matter should be put to the House as provided for in section 36.(4).

I would urge you to consider that, and to do so.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the commentary and the request. I have made them in the past, myself. The Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, made a solid point just a moment ago, when he said that Your Honour - you being in the Chair - has to determine whether there is sufficient opportunity, other than right now, for this request. I believe that is what you said. Now, if this request was not made - and I want this to be clear to everybody in the precincts of the House, on the floor and in the gallery, and anybody who may be listening - if such a request were not made, here is what might happen today: Immediately when we move to Orders of the Day, I would stand - and the Opposition House Leader understands this - and I would move a motion on the Order Paper which calls for this House to debate or support the general budgetary policy of the government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: One second.

Everybody and anybody in this House, who has been here, who is now here, understands that when we debate such a policy on finance matters you can debate about anything. Yesterday, for example, the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, when we all learned of the news that negotiations had broken down, used his last twenty minutes to talk about exactly what the Leader of the Opposition is asking for today.

The fact of the matter is this, Mr. Speaker: I have indicated, on behalf of the government, what our view is. I have indicated clearly that there is lots of opportunity to discuss this immediately following it, right after this.

Mr. Speaker, I will leave it to you to judge whether the Standing Order is an order or not, and then proceed according to the rules of the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will hear a short commentary by the Opposition House Leader before we call for a recess.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just to the Government House Leader's commentary, Mr. Speaker, as I read Standing Order 36, which is on the floor here by way of a point of order, the only issue is: Do we or do we not have a matter of urgency? That is to be decided by this Chair -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) leave.

MR. PARSONS: - if leave is given. This is not an issue of -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Maybe the President of Treasury Board, who was -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, you allowed me a few short moments. Maybe if the President of Treasury Board would be so courteous as to stop interrupting me, and allow me to make my point, we might get further here than he did in negotiations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

Back to my point. The point I am making here is: I appreciate the comments of the Government House Leader as to what can and cannot be done in debating the Budget motion. It is not the issue here today, as what we can and cannot talk about in the point of order or whatever he is going to call as the order of business for today. We are not dealing with what he might or might not call. That is up to him as the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: You know what I am calling.

MR. PARSONS: I know what you are calling, but that is not the point. You shall not and cannot give us direction that we are going to discuss this issue of urgent importance in the context of the Budget. We want to discuss, and the Leader of the Opposition has asked to discuss, this issue in the context of Standing Order 36, which he has delivered to you in writing. Do not detract from the subject matter we are dealing with. The request is simple. The formalities have been compiled with, and it simply remains for Your Honour to decide: Is the motion in order? Do we or do we not get leave? There is a process outlined, once you read the motion, Mr. Speaker, to follow here. It is quite simple.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will recess the House and come back shortly with a ruling.

The House is now recessed.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The Chair has consulted and has reviewed the matter raised by the Leader of the Opposition. The Chair refers members to Beauchesne, 6^th Edition, page 113, item numbers §389 and §390. To quote both of them, "The ‘specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration', for the discussion of which the adjournment of the House may be moved under..." - that would be the federal Parliament - "... Standing Order 52, must be so pressing that the public interest will suffer if it is not given immediate attention."; and §390, "‘Urgency' within this rule does not apply to the matter itself but means ‘urgency of debate', when the ordinary opportunities provided by the rules of the House do not permit the subject to be brought on early enough and the public interest demands that discussion take place immediately."

On this particular matter, the Chair, having considered the matter - the urgency of debate - in other words, there would have to be no other opportunity for the House to discuss this matter, and the failure of the House to address the matter would result in irreparable harm. Such debates are very rare. In our Parliament, I am aware of one such debate occurring without leave in the history in our Parliament since Confederation, and that one, I think, occurred in 1978 or 1979. Therefore, the Chair rules that there are other opportunities - for example, the Budget Debate which is before us now - therefore the Chair rules that the request by the Leader of the Opposition for an emergency debate to not be in order.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just for clarification of your ruling - and I certainly appreciate your commentary in reference to the Beauchesne references as to what urgency means. Just for clarification, I guess, the fact that we could not enter this House earlier today, the fact that we have been barred from this House twice this week, the fact that we have the largest public sector strike in the history of this Province, the fact that these proceedings today have been delayed starting by three or four hours because of this issue - for example, strike; for example, back to work; for example, people not working; for example, emergencies in health care - the fact that the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board stood here today and said that he is going to bring in back-to-work legislation, does not fit under the issue of urgency, that is fine, we accept that ruling. However, your commentary about the opportunity - and the Government House Leader raised this earlier, about our opportunity to debate this elsewhere - we cannot, with all due respect, debate this under the budgetary issues before the House.

The rules of the House state that if you have already spoken, you do not speak again. Many of the members here in the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, have already spoken and used our time. There is not an another opportunity for us to speak. Such a ruling, albeit proper, albeit we accept your definition of the word urgency, it puts the Opposition in a position where we cannot get to debate this issue under other issues. This, I would submit, was the proper place in which for us to do it, and I do not know that the fact we cannot do it anywhere else would make any difference to your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair gave consideration to that matter. The Chair recognizes that there is a non-confidence motion before the House as well, and members who have not spoken to the main motion of the Budget Debate can speak to that motion. Members who have not spoken to the non-confidence motion can also speak in this House. There may be other opportunities that might be provided. Today, we also had a Notice of Motion given by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury which will, in time, I am sure, bring forward a debate. Therefore, the Chair is satisfied that the requirements that are met in §390 of Beauchesne are not met.

While the Chair appreciates the clarification request by the hon. the Opposition House Leader, the Chair had considered all of these matters before the ruling was made.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A new point of order. With regard to the Ministerial Statement given this afternoon, notice of intent to enter or probably provide information or legislation to this House, back-to-work legislation, we would like it quite clear to the Government House Leader and to the people of the Province and to government that, first of all, we would like to have zero delay in reviewing and studying that piece of legislation. I know notice has been given today, but the fact that notice has been given, I would assume government has, in fact, drafted or is drafting the legislation in question.

We, as the Official Opposition, rather than have any unnecessary delay, would like to have the bill as soon as possible; because under the rules of our system, as I understand it, the next day, should the government decide to proceed, would be on Monday, under our current calendar. We do not want to delay things and wait until Monday to get the bill to have an opportunity to study it, and then that takes more time, and then the Opposition is put in a position of saying we never had time to study it, and we might be portrayed as having delayed unnecessarily.

We would like to make that quite clear, that we do not wish to have it said that we are holding anything up here. We want to debate urgent matters and get on with them, but we cannot do what we do not have and we have not seen the bill.

Secondly, we would like to make it clear for the record that the parliamentary calendar, according to the Official Opposition here, is irrelevant in this most urgent circumstance. If the Government House Leader decides at any time - any time - between now and Monday, the full Opposition will be available to resume sitting in this House immediately to discuss matters. We do not want it said, and suggested, that we had some sort of calendar that we must comply with or that the Opposition were not available to proceed immediately.

MR. SPEAKER: I wonder if the House Leader for the government would permit the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi to address that matter first?

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

MR. HARRIS: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, if the government intends to introduce legislation, making it available to all members of the House as early as possible would be desirable. My understanding - I do not know what discussions have been had - of the parliamentary calender is that the next parliamentary day is actually Tuesday, Monday being a holiday. Perhaps Your Honour could clarify that before discussion continues. I do not frankly know, but I do know there was a notice sent around by the Clerk earlier this year with a list of all the holidays on it, which Monday was one. Now, whether that refers to the parliamentary calendar or the staff holidays or government holidays, I do not know.

MR. SPEAKER: If I could clarify -

I am sorry, the hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I appreciate the opportunity just to conclude. Let me say to the Opposition House Leader and to the Leader of the NDP - and I believe it is something they already know - that as soon as we have legislation and as soon as we - whether it be the piece that was given notice by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board today, or any other, it will be provided immediately upon us getting it. I cannot give it to you today because it is not concluded. We do not have it finalized. The decision was made late yesterday, reflected upon early this morning on this very piece of legislation, so it is not drafted. I cannot put into anybody's hands, in this House or in the public, a piece of legislation that is not yet drafted. I believe members know, and I believe the Leader of the NDP, the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi knows, and I believe the Opposition House Leader also knows, based upon our conversations everyday, that when it comes to legislation, and in particular, the one that was given notice today, that as soon as that is completed - as the Leader of the Opposition would know and those opposite who were in Cabinet - that Cabinet approval must be given to that. Government caucus must be informed. That is the process that we go through. As soon as all that is done, at the first opportunity it will be provided to all members, immediately.

With respect to the parliamentary calendar; my understanding is that while there is a holiday on Monday, it does not apply to the calendar. I refer the Leader of the NDP, who has asked the question, a situation that he and I found ourselves in, in 1994, when on - I believe it was St. Patrick's Day, that we came back when that was a holiday generally for everybody. We were back in the Legislature debating a piece of legislation called the Electrical Power Control Act. So, when we adjourn today, it is my understanding that we will be back here on Monday.

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the members for their presentations. It was raised on a point of order, but I do believe that it was more of an opportunity to try to seek some clarification from the Government House Leader and presentations on whether we would open on Monday or not - and the Chair is certainly knowledgeable of the fact that in 1994 we did open on a Monday, I think it was St. Patrick's Day, and the Chair (inaudible) to the House and if the House decides we are going to meet on Monday, than we shall.

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

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

It is an unusual occurrence because of the fool up today with Commissionaires not getting in and then we all agreed we would recess until we could them in so that the galleries could be opened up, but it almost time - I would normally call Motion 1, which has been previously agreed upon by everybody, which is to debate the general budgetary policy of the government. But it now being about eight minutes before closure, I am going to move adjournment for the day, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion to adjourn has been put. It is my understanding that the House will sit again on Monday, at 1:30 of the clock. This House is now adjourned until Monday at 1:30 of the clock.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, at 1:30 p.m.