The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
MR. HARRIS: Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of privilege, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a point of privilege with respect to my being able to perform my duties as a member of this House, and as the leader of a recognized party under the Elections Act. It relates to the ability of me and my party to participate in Question Period.
To date there have been eight sittings of the House of Assembly in this session and six periods of Oral Questions. To date, despite repeated attempts to be seen by the Chair, I have not been recognized. Those six Question Periods would have consisted of a total of 180 minutes whereby questions are able to be asked of the government.
As a leader of a recognized political party in the last election, and as a leader of a party that now, with a caucus of two, falls within the definition of a recognized parliamentary group as determined by the Speaker McNicholas on March 2, 1987, it is my contention that I, as a member and as the leader, have my privileges breached, they are negatively affected, by not receiving recognition and being able to participate in Question Period.
We meet the criteria set out by Speaker McNicholas in his March 1987 ruling, and we meet any criteria that exists in the Elections Act with respect to a recognized party, both in terms of the qualifications as a recognized party, and the only other qualification there mentioned, the ability to participate in a advisory committee to the Chief Electoral Officer, which requires that a recognized party can participate as a member of this advisory committee if that party contests one-half of the seats in the last provincial election.
The only statutory criteria that exists we meet, and the only precedent of this House that relates to the recognition of a party we also meet. Given the numbers that are here, even our respective weights, we are not getting recognition and I am not getting recognition as leader.
I canvassed one other jurisdiction in New Brunswick where the numbers are nine Conservatives in opposition, one New Democrat in opposition, to forty-five Liberals in government. I am advised that in the last session of their House, in which there were thirty-three days of Oral Questions, that the Leader of the New Democrat Party, even though she represents only one seat, was recognized for nineteen of those thirty-three days. Not that that is a standard, but it is just by way of example. Given that we have been open for eight days now, and on six of those days we have had our Oral Questions, as the leader of a party and as a member I am expected to raise questions in Question Period on the important issues of the day.
We have had very important issues. We have had a lot of visitors to the gallery who are certainly interested in hearing questions from both parties in opposition, and we have seen Question Period - and that is not a criticism of the Official Opposition. They have members standing. The last two Question Periods there have only been two people asking questions of the government and no recognition was given to our caucus or to me as leader.
I say that this is not a criticism of the Official Opposition. They have the duty, obligation and right to stand and seek to be recognized by the Chair. Just in terms of the allocation of time and the opportunity for other people to ask questions, this appears to have been denied by the operation of Question Period for the last six days of Oral Questions.
I raise that as a point of my privileges both as a member and as the leader of what I contend, based on our precedents and law, is a recognized parliamentary group.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, the precedent the hon. member talks about, Speaker McNicholas', I recall it, I was here in the House. There were two sitting members I believe at that time for the NDP, Mr. Fenwick and Mr. Long. The Speaker ruled at that time that they would be recognized as a parliamentary group for purposes of responding to ministerial statements.
I think Your Honour has recognized that precedent and, in fact, for the eight days we have been open has allowed this parliamentary group to respond in kind with half of the opposition time for ministerial statements. With respect to questions, Your Honour, you are the sole arbiter of the House and you must recognize people who stand in their place to choose to ask questions. We cannot question you in that regard, Your Honour.
MR. SPEAKER: To the point raised by the hon. member, I want to refer members to the 1976 ruling by Speaker Ottenheimer. Our Standing Orders and our statutes are silent with respect to the definition of, and the entitlement of, any parliamentary group.
We have however had two rulings on the subject which have limited application. One was in 1976. Mr. Speaker Ottenheimer ruled that the leader of a parliamentary group consisting of at least two persons could respond to ministerial statements. The Speaker ruled in addition that a member who is not a leader of such a group could exercise the right on behalf of the leader.
In 1987, Speaker McNicholas ruled, citing the 1976 ruling, that recognition as a group did not entitle such members to any privileges over and above those of private members.
The speaking time set out in the Standing Orders are set by our Standing Orders and they do not make any reference to third parties; nor do the Standing Orders concerning committee representation or Question Period make any reference to third parties.
The spokesman of a third party has been accorded the opportunity to respond to the Address in Reply, but this is actually a right shared by all members, although never exercised. It is the practice to allow a response by the Official Opposition to ministerial statements.
As was stated by Mr. Speaker in 1987: It is not unreasonable to allow the leader of a third party or group or his designate to respond using half the time of the Official Opposition, provided the ministerial statement is not so brief as to make this impractical.
We therefore confirm the practice approved by the Speaker in the above mentioned ruling.
As regards to what are entitlements or privileges of parliamentary groups in this House, it is the Chair's opinion that this decision and matter should be dealt with by members themselves.
There is no point of privilege.
Before we begin our routine proceedings for today, the Chair would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the Speaker's Gallery the hon. Flora MacDonald and Mr. Don Harron, who are visiting the Province as the co-chair of the Canada Co-ordinating Committee for the International Year Of Older Persons. They are accompanied by Mr. John Murphy, the Chairman of the Newfoundland Co-ordinating Committee for the International Year of Older Persons. Please join me in welcoming these people to the gallery.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The Chair would also like to welcome today, forty students from the Social Studies class in Grade IX from the Carbonear Integrated Collegiate. They are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Jonas Anstey and Ms Legge, and bus driver Mr. Dan Clarke.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, in 1996 when I was appointed Fisheries Minister, I looked at the fishing industry in Newfoundland and Labrador and I also observed the fishing industry in Iceland. Iceland is a world leader in harvesting, quality and marketing of their products, and I said back then that there is no reason why we cannot be the leader in the fishing industry. So, we set our goals and are working hard to achieve them and to become number one in the fishing industry in the world.
On March 14, I had the opportunity to attend the Boston Seafood Show; and as hon. members know, this seafood show is the foremost show for seafood products in North America.
While in Boston, I had the chance to meet with a number of fish companies and their U.S. brokers and I am happy to report that the response I received about the Newfoundland and Labrador fishing industry was very positive. Local industry representatives and their brokers briefed me on strides we have made in our quality initiatives, and acknowledged our disciplined approach to how we produce and sell our products.
This positive market response is the result of hard work through our Quality Assurance Program, as well as through our consistency of supply to the markets. The world markets are very competitive, and developing and maintaining markets is vital to the future of the fishing industry if we are to derive maximum benefits from our fishery.
I must point out that the very positive response we have been getting is also a result of our fish price settlement pilot project. Participation by the Fisheries Association of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union in the price settlement mechanism last year resulted in early fishery openings and an orderly fishery throughout the entire season. I would like to acknowledge the efforts of these groups to supply the markets with top quality products throughout the season to meet required market demands on a timely basis.
Again this year, both the FFAW/CAW and FANL are working diligently within the price settlement pilot mechanism to achieve price settlements and establish collective agreements that focus on the harvesting and processing of top quality fish products. Prices have been settled for both the crab and shrimp fisheries, and negotiations for other species will take place shortly. As a result of this pilot mechanism to negotiate fish prices, these fisheries will open on a timely basis again this year. This is an important indicator that the fishing industry will provide optimum employment opportunities in both the harvesting and processing sectors.
I am confident that the performance of our fishery this year will exceed that of last year. The value of our fish landings reached an all time high in 1998 at $380 million.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. EFFORD: The export value of Newfoundland and Labrador fish products last year was $700 million. Our fishery employed over 30,000 people last year. The new diversified fishery that we have built is alive and growing. I have every confidence that the fishery will experience further growth in 1999 and for its post-moratorium value to reach a new record. Our fishery remains the backbone of this Province and a vital contributor to our economy.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for a copy of his statement before the House opened. I say to the minister that the world is no longer a big place. Fish processors in Newfoundland and Labrador now sell their product all over the world, and people's buying habits and people's eating habits have changed from what they were. We have a choice, either to change with that or to be left and be passed by. We have elected to change with the world.
When we go into modern processing plants, like the minister visited at the official opening in my district, in Port Union, just a few short months ago, it is a prime example of how much we have changed; a new modern fish processing facility where you don't know if you are walking into a fish plant or a hospital, I say to members opposite. It is a testament of how far we have really come.
I firmly believe - and I congratulate the minister for the part that he has played, but it is not only the minister's part - people have played a big part in the change as well. The union and all workers have come out and agreed, including processors, on a mechanism whereby fishing boats are now out fishing at the opportune time, instead of being tied up at the wharf when they should be fishing, trying to negotiate a price for their catch. This is all behind us now. I think it is a good beginning and it is serving us well in the marketplace.
Mr. Speaker, this is what the minister is hearing when he goes to places like Boston, to the seafood show.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FITZGERALD: It is a reflection of a product that is produced here in Newfoundland, fit for the world, I say to members opposite.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want also, on behalf of my party, to recognize the efforts of individuals and people in the industry with the support and encouragement of the minister and the department in making great strides in improving the quality of our product. Obviously we have had success in the markets as a result of that.
I wonder if the minister would be prepared to consider a proposal put forth by our party in the last election, that the provincial government establish a market research and development agency to improve the type of products that we can put forth so that small producers can do the same kind of things as FPI and others in introducing new products into the market -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: - to continue value-added for our fishery.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, today I am announcing measures to address workload issues for nurses. Time and again, nurses have told us they need additional resources to provide improved patient care and to reduce stress levels in our health system.
In the offer to nurses last fall, government agreed to convert 125 casual nursing positions to permanent nursing positions. Today, I am announcing that a further 75 casual nursing positions will be converted to permanent nursing positions for a total of 200 conversions. In addition, 125 new permanent nursing positions will be created.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: In total, these 325 new permanent nursing positions represent the largest single increase in permanent nursing positions in our Province's history.
By adding 325 to the current permanent nursing workforce, government is increasing the number of permanent nurses by approximately 10 per cent. This will bring the percentage of casual nurses down to approximately 18 per cent of the current workforce. These new positions will benefit both institution and community-based services, enhance the Province's ability to retain nurses, reduce stress on nurses and improve patient care.
Mr. Speaker, these new permanent nursing positions will cost government $44 million over the next five years. Annually, it will cost $7.5 million for the 125 new positions and $1.3 million for the 200 converted positions.
Today's announcement demonstrates government's commitment to address nurses' workload issues. Government has heard, as well, that twelve-hour shifts are more stressful in these challenging times. Government recognizes that nurses themselves decide whether they work twelve-hour shifts. The creation of new permanent positions provides the opportunity to study with nurses and the boards, the practice of twelve-hour shifts to seek ways to reduce stress and improve working conditions. In other words, Mr. Speaker, if nurses want to end twelve-hour shifts, we are willing to work with them to end twelve-hour shifts.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: We are taking these measures today because health remains this government's number one priority. We demonstrated that recently in the provincial budget when government invested $40 million to pay down hospital board deficits, $21 million for hospital equipment, $15 million additional funding for board budgets, and an additional $1.8 million for new drug therapies. Today's announcement is a further strategic investment of $44 million over the next five years in the health and well-being of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am a little perplexed today in this House by the statement, when the Premier stood in his place last week and said, in response to my question, that more nurses are needed because there are sick people who need help, not because nurses want more nurses. He said, it is a collective bargaining issue and not an issue of public concern that should be negotiated outside of collective bargaining. I am glad the Premier sees it my way today!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: I am glad he does, and I look upon this today as an affront, in a certain sense. He had an opportunity last Monday to stand here in his place, through the Minister of Finance, and to tell the people of this Province we care about the sick people and we are going to put new nurses into the system. But he waits until there is a strike to stand today and use this, that he had planned as a bargaining chip for nurses now. To shift public support away from nurses is the plan.
It is a strategic plan, this statement today - nothing more than a strategic plan - because we are on strike, Premier, today in the Province. We are on strike, with certain levels of nurses put there. That is a plan that you tried, and now you are trying to move away from that.
You had an opportunity to show your sincerity, that you expressed during the election campaign, when you are now convinced, you said, that the staffing issue needs to be addressed. It is one I will intervene on personally, you said; you cannot have stressed out people working double shifts. Then, to have your Minister of Finance stand here last Monday and tell us that not one new nurse is going to be hired in this Province - allocated in that Budget!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I agree that this Ministerial Statement today has all to do with the strike, not about taking care of sick people in hospitals. It is a strategic plan to sort of isolate the public from the nurses' strike.
There are over sixty institutions in this Province that are staffed with nurses. I believe that the numbers, even introduced today, will fall far short from providing the type of help that is required in those hospitals.
It is all well and fine to spend money on the buildings, brick and stones and everything else, but I think we have to remember that the most important thing in health care is the human element. That has to recognized by this government, first and foremost.
Florence Nightingale is a name that has gone down in history. She never exactly had her web page on the Internet.
The twelve-hour shifts in the Ministerial Statement -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board has announced their 1999 Call for Bids for the Province's offshore area. There will be ten parcels of land up for bid this year, with two in the Jeanne d'Arc Basin, six in the Flemish Pass, and two adjacent to the Newfoundland West Coast area. This amounts to more than 1 million hectares of land in the offshore that will be up for bid this year.
As you are aware, last year's Call for Bids resulted in record offshore land sales. It attracted total work expenditure commitments of $175 million, an increase from the previous high of $126 million in 1996. This is truly indicative of the confidence and strength of our offshore industry in Newfoundland and Labrador.
The offshore activity in this Province, despite low oil prices, is strengthening and gaining local, national and international attention. This is evident in projects like Hibernia, Terra Nova, further delineation at the Hebron/Ben Nevis complex, White Rose, and more companies are investing in drilling projects each year and for this year.
Companies interested in bidding on land parcels must submit their bid by November 17, 1999 to the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board. Winning bids are solely based on the amount of money a bidder plans to commit to exploration on the parcel during the first five years. Further details on the 1999 Call for Bids are available by contacting the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board.
This 1999 Call for Bids is another opportunity for companies to invest in a Province that has a stable economic base, immense natural resources and development potential, world-class research facilities, and $1.2 billion worth of onshore infrastructure for our offshore oil and gas industry, and a dedicated and competent workforce.
We look forward to a strong expression of interest in this year's bidding process to help raise the funds needed for other initiatives such as those announced here today.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the minister for the advance copy. I am pleased with the announcement of the C-NOPB with respect to the Call for Bids for this year; however, when we hear of and discuss the Canada-Newfoundland Offshore Petroleum Board, of course, we are reminded, in this Province, of the Atlantic Accord; because it was the Atlantic Accord which, in fact, helped establish the C-NOPB dealing with the concept of joint management of our offshore industry.
There are two principles that I think we, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, have to remind ourselves - and particularly government has to remind itself - with respect to this particular industry. I would like to refer to both of them: To recognize the right of Newfoundland and Labrador to be the principal beneficiary of the oil and gas resources off its shores, consistent with the requirement for a strong and united Canada; and secondly, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the equality of both governments in the management of the resource, and to ensure that the pace and manner of development optimize the social and economic benefits to Canada as a whole, and to Newfoundland and Labrador in particular.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We are pleased to see the increased interest in our offshore exploration. Perhaps it is time to start making the bids not on the basis of how much money the bidder plans to spend, but perhaps offer a competitive bid where actually there are some direct revenues to the Province accruing from exploration rights in our offshore.
We would like to see the C-NOPB be far more aggressive in their pursuit of benefits for the people of this Province. We are very concerned when we see places like Nova Scotia building ships for their offshore when our shipyards do not get a look in, because there is no priority given to them.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Premier today. The readers of The Telegram, the local paper, were treated again on Saturday with two full-page ads, while negotiations were going on with the nurses' union, and another full-page ad on Sunday, paid for by the taxpayers' money, presumably to provide the public with critical information on negotiations and government's position with respect to the nurses.
A full-page ad is a huge amount of space to provide information, so it is quite surprising, I say to the Premier, that your ad provided so little information. Yes, there was information on the percentage increases given or offered to various public sector unions across Canada, but that was all there was. There was absolutely nothing on the actual wages the respective provinces offered their nurses, or on the relative benefits offered by provinces to nurses, or on how other provinces maintain, recruit and retain their nurses, or on the number of nurses per capita for provinces with comparable demographics to ours.
If you are going to spend taxpayers' money, Premier, money on an information ad, why would you not take advantage of the opportunity to provide all - and I repeat, all - of the relevant information to the public of this Province?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I know the Leader of the Opposition would note that there have been ads run by the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses Union as well, setting forth the position of the union in these negotiations. As these negotiations involve two sides at the table, both sides seeking to give the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador information pertaining to their position, I do not think there is anything wrong at all with government putting forward its position in an information campaign. Certainly the party opposite when it was in office did so on a regular basis. In fact, not by newspaper ads but by putting brochures directly into every house in Newfoundland and Labrador. So I do not think this is a valid criticism.
Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition is not asking me today - and I think this is what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador would have expected - about the fact that negotiations have now ceased.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, last night, the negotiators for the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses Union put forward a position to the government negotiating team through a conciliator. The people of the Province need to know - it is important that everybody knows - that since the strike started on Wednesday there has not been one face-to-face negotiation between the government negotiating team and the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses Union negotiating team. All dialogue has been through conciliation. The request which had been made by the government for face-to-face discussion has, on every occasion, been turned down.
The last communication we had was to say to government: Here is a wage position which we put to you. If you accept it, well and good, we can settle the other issues. If you do not accept it, we will ask to be released from conciliation.
That position which was put was for a 14 per cent increase in wage and benefits. We could not accept it. The Nurses Union asked to be released from conciliation, and the talks formally ended. I heard in a public statement from the President of the Nurses Union that in fact they left the table not because of the position that we actually had communicated to us, but because of a different one. The President of the Nurses Union said they left because they wanted 7 per cent plus a $2 retention bonus or responsibility bonus, which would equal a 17 per cent wage increase.
Mr. Speaker, to set the record straight - and I accept that is the nurses position, if the president says so - but to set the record straight, the issue that was put on the table was 14 per cent.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: Government said no, and the nurses have ceased negotiations at this point in time.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, obviously collective bargaining has broken down. That is obvious. We will get to that in a few moments. Stay tuned Premier, you will have a chance to answer the questions as we ask them.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Last week the Premier talked about the argument that 7 per cent was the benchmark, and it would be unfair to give any other public servant more or less than 7 percent. Of course, in my view that logic flies in the face of good collective bargaining, which guarantees every bargaining unit the right to work out its own agreement with its employer individually. That logic, taken to its natural extension, means that whoever comes in first and bargains with government, no matter whatever other bargaining unit you are part of, that is what you have to take!
There are many different bargaining units in the Province, I say to the Premier. The reality is, if we take government's settlement with other public sector people in this Province, the benchmark was not 7 per cent. Wouldn't you admit Premier, by your own logic, that the benchmark is not 7 per cent, in view of the fact that you have settled with other health care professionals - namely physicians - for 23 per cent, and you have settled with judges prior to other bargaining units for at least 13 per cent? Which is it?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I hope that those who think carefully about what it takes to make the decisions, to make the choices, and they are never easy, to ensure that a province runs smoothly and that we live within our means are listening carefully to the questions today by the Leader of the Opposition.
The judge settlement that the Leader of the Opposition refers to was enforced by a court. The Leader of the Opposition knows that. He was very much aware it.
I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that he knows these first wage settlements come after a six- or seven-year wage freeze. They are the first settlements after a long period of freeze. He knows the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador said, as we got into these first settlements, that we were setting out a framework of 7 per cent that we thought was fair and within what the Province could afford.
He knows that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador next year is forecasting a $30 million deficit. He knows, because Mr. Austin Deir of the Newfoundland Association of Public Employees has been saying so this morning in the paper, and I am told he was on the radio last night at VOCM, that whatever is given by way of extra entitlement over and above 7 per cent to the nurses he insists be given to the Newfoundland Association of Public Employees. Mr. Deir is already talking about wildcat action to back that up. He knows that other unions have held a similar position, that they want whatever is given.
I want to say this to the Leader of the Opposition this. Every 1 per cent more in wage settlements is worth $16 million. If everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador is settled out at 17 per cent, that is $160 million more per year in wage costs for this Province. That would give us next year a $200 million deficit. That would cost us $800 million over the next five years. We have to be honest in this House and admit that we do not have $800 million more for wage settlements over the next five years.
I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition this. Is he telling NAPE, is he telling the teachers of the Province -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: - is he telling CUPE, that they are not to get one nickel more than 7 per cent, but he is recommending 17 per cent for nurses? Give a straight answer today, yes or no.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: This Premier would not know collective bargaining if it came up and hit him square in the face, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: He wouldn't understand it if it hit him right between the eyes. Collective bargaining is not something that you take out public relation ads on while you are bargaining. It is not something where you try to pit a negotiated settlement and a legal agreement by one former public sector union against the other, and put on the back and shoulders of somebody else: You have to settle, or 30,000 more are going to go out.
Collective bargaining, and the spirit of good faith bargaining -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: I will give you your answer, Sir. We gave it to you in our health care policy, which some of it I understand you are about to follow on health care boards.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Right here in that document where we said that we would introduce the appropriate and proper measures to recruit and retain health care workers in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: The reality is, wouldn't the Premier admit, there is a precedent in the public sector for increasing the pay for a position commensurate with significant increase in the responsibilities of that position.
Will the Premier acknowledge that many of our nurses right now are doing work far different and far more gruelling and onerous today than they did when their pay scales were worked out many - and I repeat, many - years ago?
Will he acknowledge this is because of reductions in staff levels, changes in patient profiles, turnovers in our health care institutions, changing technologies, as well as decisions to place more responsibilities on the shoulders of nurses for health care delivery?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: Would he not admit that he is also aware of precedents even in his own office for increasing pay scales according to increases in job responsibilities, even beyond the 7 per cent benchmark that he has artificially set?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to complete his question.
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has just heard the Minister of Health announce another $44 million over the next five years to convert casuals to permanents and create new permanent positions in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition wants to avoid, and he is doing so again today, the real question. He is not interested in participating in a debate to bring about a responsible end - hopefully a negotiated end - to this dispute. What he wants to do is to stand and grandstand without taking any responsibility or demonstrating any understanding of the position of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition again today - every single member of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, every member of the Newfoundland Association of Public Employees, and every member of CUPE, wants to know whether it is the position of the Leader of the Opposition that we ought to settle with nurses at two-and-a-half times greater an increase than that offered to 30,000 other public servants who settled at the collective bargaining table. Is that the position of the Leader of the Opposition, yes or no?
I would ask him not to do what he did last week, to sit silently in his place and to duck the question once again, because that is the crucial issue in this debate.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: The role we play in the House - I ask the questions and the Premier responds. In about two-and-a-half years I will be happy to answer all of your questions while we are on that side of the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, let me ask him this. He wants to talk about good faith bargaining. Is this how you bargain, Premier, when you sit across from a bargaining union and threaten them: that if they do not accept what you put before the table, you will impose half-a-million dollar fines per day on the bargaining team; that you will impose $10,000 a day fines on individuals; and that for every individual employee who does not agree with the eventual back-to-work legislation that this government threatened, that they would impose $1,000 penalty? Is that how you bargain in good faith, Premier?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I have never sat across the table from anybody and set out those kind of fines that the Leader of the Opposition is referring to.
I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that he has an obligation not to say, I will not give you any answers until some day, some time in the future, when I may become Premier of the Province. He is a participant in the political life of the Province today, and you have to tell the people of the Province today whether or not you are asking the government to settle at 17 per cent or you are asking us to settle at 14 per cent. Do you believe, in good faith, that it is fair for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to settle at 17 per cent for one employee group and impose, and keep imposed, a 7 per cent settlement on every other group?
I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition, there are many other public servants out there waiting for you to give, for once, a straight answer to that question. My position is clear; I have given a straight answer. I have not ducked, like the Leader of the Opposition!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Let me say, Mr. Speaker, again that this Premier does not understand collective bargaining.
Here is what we would do: What we said six weeks ago during the election campaign, we would not be playing to politics and convenience, like this Premier, that we would live up to it today; that if, during the course of negotiations, no settlement could be reached, we would invoke the law of the land; that if an emergency situation occurs - which may occur, because the system cannot go on to the extent that it is right now - we would invoke the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, put in place an adjudicator, as is called for, let the adjudicator make its statement, and live by -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary, I ask him to get to his question.
MR. E. BYRNE: - as the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act says, the judgement would be final and binding.
That is what the position of this party is. We would respect the current Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. Is the Premier willing to commit to do the same?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this is the leader who promised hundreds of millions of dollars, only a few weeks ago in an election campaign, in tax breaks, now being told that the settlement that is being demanded, if it applies to the entire public service - and it would have to apply, by the way - would cost $800 million over five years. When asked the question -
AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.
PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, it is true.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: That has been costed by Treasury Board. That is true.
When asked whether or not that is what is being recommended, the Leader of the Opposition refuses to give an answer.
Mr. Speaker, there is no point in any government standing up in this House and suggesting to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we can afford $800 million more in wage bills over the next five years, because the fact is that we cannot afford it. We cannot raise taxes enough to raise it, and we should not be out trying to borrow it and imposing another billion dollar burden on our children. We have to live within our means.
The easy thing, the popular thing, is to say yes. The right thing is to live within our means, and that is what this Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is doing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: The Premier knows full well that what was proposed in tax cuts during the election represents about one-third of the spin-doctoring that he and the Minister of Finance got on with.
The Minister of Health can shake her head all she wants. The reality is that it was this party and only this party, during the campaign, that said the first call on the public tax dollar will be health care. That was the commitment made by this party here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: It is obvious to everybody in the gallery. The reality is: Will government commit that if negotiations do not go anywhere and we find ourselves in a position that an emergency exists and back-to-work legislation is required, will government commit today - because the Premier did not answer it before - to invoke the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, sections 30 through 37, which deal with such an event, and invoke and put in place an adjudicator and a board to make a decision on what would be reasonable for the settlement of this strike? Yes or no?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not give that commitment. Mr. Speaker, the last time a government went to a binding arbitration process was back in 1990 - events triggered in 1990 - in which arbitrated settlements were put in place which were not able to be afforded by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and subsequently, in two different bills, wages were rolled back.
Mr. Speaker, it is the responsibility of this government that has to set the spending priorities by a Liberal government. It was tried before; it did not work. There is no point having an arbitrator set a wage level that you cannot afford to pay, and having a wage bill that you cannot afford to finance.
Mr. Speaker, this government wants a solution at the table. It is the nurses who walked from the table - regretfully.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
PREMIER TOBIN: The health care system in this Province today, we are told by the health care boards, is continuing to cope, and as long as the health care system continues to cope we will respect the right of nurses to be on strike and man their picket lines.
How many more days that can be sustained, we will sit here in this House available to deal with an emergency only if and when an emergency arises. Until that point, the right of nurses to be on the picket line will be fully respected by this government.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: So there is no commitment to adhere to the principles of law that exists currently in the Province.
Let me ask him this: Are there any other dispute resolution mechanisms that government may look at, such as, final offer selection, which is one that has worked in other public sectors across Canada - in view of the fact that the Premier likes to refer to the rest of the country - that has worked in the settlement of disputes? Are there any other dispute resolution mechanisms that government is looking at or speaking with the union on so that this can be resolved and that health care, which is for the benefit of everybody in this Province, can get on with the job that it was supposed to do?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, any reasonable process that anybody wants to bring forward, be it the nurses' union, be it the Leader of the Opposition, or be it any interested citizen, that has the capacity to bring the two parties to the table and to bring about a negotiated settlement, is one that I would be prepared, on behalf of government, to look at.
The last thing anybody wants is to legislate a union back to work or to legislate a settlement. That is the absolute last choice that anybody wants to make, but we cannot make a choice and say yes to a final offer - and that is what it was, a final offer by the nurses: you accept this offer or we are going to be asked to be released from arbitration - that we cannot afford, that would cost the Province, if it were applied to all of our public employees, $800 million more over the next five years.
The reality is, there were no face-to-face negotiations since Wednesday. Since the strike began - let everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador know - there have not been five minutes of face-to-face negotiations. We have only been talked to through a conciliator. When we have made requests for face-to-face negotiations, those requests were refused. Our last communication was: Take this wage offer - it was 14 per cent, that is what we were told - or we will ask to be released from conciliation. We said that we could not afford it. They asked to be released from conciliation and then went public and said, in fact, what they wanted was a 17 per cent wage settlement.
Those are the facts and we need to know those facts, because I believe there is a perception out there that we have been at the table working hard, talking to each other, hour in, hour out. There has not been one overnight session, not one extended session, and no face-to-face negotiations.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier to conclude his answer.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, we are still ready to negotiate but we have to be at the table with both parties to get there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services.
Friday before last, on March 19, there was a loss of normal power at St. Clare's Mercy Hospital. Such a power loss should automatically trigger a generator to start, and a switch then transfers to emergency power. This did not happen. Consequently, respirators and cardiac monitoring machines in the ICU shut down and staff had to manually bag the ventilators for almost an hour. This failure could have had fatal consequences for people depending on those machines. I ask the minister: Does she feel this is adequate in an acute care institution?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Telephone services were out for approximately two hours, I say to the minister, and the paging system could not be used for emergencies such as 999. If an emergency occurred, a staff member would have to be sent to a specific location - physically sent in a hospital - to retrieve somebody to help apply any emergency medical aid that would have been needed.
I am sure the minister was informed of this failure. I ask her: What steps have been taken to prevent such a malfunction in the future?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Those issues, I am sure the member opposite knows, are not what I would consider the day-to-day operations of what I would be doing in my department. We have been very focused over the last two weeks, two-and-a-half weeks, in fact the last month, trying to negotiate an agreement at the table with nurses. I have full confidence in the Health Care Corporation to be able to manage a generator loss, the day-to-day activities of an operation.
I have been in a situation where that very same incident has happened. It is a very frightening experience. That is why it is important to have contingency plans in place. It is also important to be able to have the nurses, physicians, and other support staff aware that in that incident you do have to actually do manual work until electricity is restored.
I will finish by stating that I have full confidence in the Health Care Corporation of St. John's, and I am sure that they are working diligently to make sure that this does not happen again. I am also quite sure that nobody every intends for this to happen. It does happen from time to time. I will certainly, today, follow up.
As a matter of fact, I am speaking two to three times a day with all of the members of all of the health boards right across the Island and Labrador to get an update on the current situation.
For the member's information, I will certainly raise that at the next conference call and report back on the most recent update on that particular situation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister indicated she is not in contact on those things and now she is in daily contact with people there. I am not sure which is which.
I would say to the minister it is your responsibility. The health of people in those institutions is entrusted to your care because the boards are appointed by you, and you are responsible that that machinery to save their lives - such as respirators - is working. I asked her a simple question. What steps are taken to ensure it does not happen again? That is what I asked. What steps are taken?
I say to the minister, I have been informed that ongoing renovations at the hospital have resulted in the installation of new switch gear. Hospital electricians and other employees were not informed of this and they were not aware of these switches. I understand that when the power went there was a scramble.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on a supplementary. I ask him to get to his question.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In light of the fact that there was a power failure and there was a scramble to find drawings - in fact, they had to find the contractor who did the work to come in and solve this problem - I ask the minister this. Will she confirm that this was actually the case, that the employees there responsible for maintaining those systems in place did not know anything about the new switch gear that was put in the hospital?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I do want to clarify again, because I think the last statement by the member opposite speaks more to his intent than to his question, quite frankly. I want to say that I am speaking to the boards two to three times daily. I am getting reports. I'm not trying to minimize this event, but I am trying to say that on this side of the House we are very much consumed with the current situation as it relates to the nurses and the strike, and trying to find some way to resume a positive outcome, if at all possible.
Mr. Speaker, I am not going to stand here and say that I oversee the electrical construction of the work at St. Clare's, and I won't say it. I will say that I am not speaking out of both sides of my mouth when it comes to boards. I am not saying: Appoint them, elect them, and eliminate them all out of the same side of my mouth.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My question is for the Premier and it relates to the legal nurses strike we have right now, where nurses are obeying and complying with the law. I couldn't believe my ears when I heard earlier today in Question Period the Premier - is this his position? That the possibility of an illegal strike by some other workers is going to be used by him to order back to work, and make the current legal strike by nurses illegal? Is that his position? That he is going to do that, Mr. Speaker, on the basis that there is a possibility there might be an illegal strike by somebody else?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, what I have said is that it is the preference of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to have a negotiated settlement with nurses. What I have said is it is the last thing any government should want to do, at any time, to legislate workers back to work. What I have said is there will be no back to work legislation today because thus far today we have been told, by the health care associations, that the system while stressed continues to cope. As long as that is the case, and for as many days as that continues to be the case, or as many weeks as that continues to be the case, we will respect the right of nurses to be on strike and to man a picket line. That is what I have said.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi-Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier should know that an adjudication board, under the public service collective bargaining act, is required to look at terms that are fair and reasonable in relation to the qualifications required, the work performed, the responsibility assumed and the nature of the service provided.
Why, Mr. Speaker, is the Premier not prepared to look at that in terms of negotiating a settlement with the nurses?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I just answered that question a moment ago, but perhaps the Leader of the NDP was not paying attention at that time. I reminded him that in 1990 there were a series of adjudicated wage settlements provided for in this Province across a variety of unions. They turned out to be more than the government of the day could afford. By the way, it started at that time with a negotiation with the nurses union, and subsequently adjudication with other unions. As a consequence, the government of the day rolled back wage settlements when those adjudicated settlements became more than the government of the day could afford.
What I am saying is we know that next year, based on our current fiscal plan, we are looking at about a $30 million deficit. We know that if we settle at 17 per cent, which is the offer being asked for by the nurses union for nurses - and if we have, and I would hope the Leader of the NDP would not try and suggest to the House we are not going to have, a demand by NAPE and the teachers and CUPE for a similar settlement, we know that will cost $160 million more each and every year, $800 million more over five years.
All I am saying is this. At that stage it becomes academic. We cannot afford that. We simply cannot as a province afford that. We cannot afford to raise taxes high enough to capture that much new revenue, and I do not believe we should borrow another $800 million over the next five years to pay a wage bill that we cannot afford to pay.
What I am saying to the Leader of the NDP and what I am saying to the nurses union is we would like a negotiated settlement at the table, one that addresses the issue of workload through the conversion of casuals to permanent, one that provides for the hiring of new permanents as announced today by the Minister of Health, and one that looks at issues of compensation in a realistic fashion. I do not believe it is realistic to say: It is 17 per cent or we walk. I really do not believe the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador will believe that all other unions should settle for 7 per cent but that nurses are entitled to ask for 17 per cent.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Question Period has ended.
The Chair would like to take this opportunity to welcome to the gallery today the Mayor and Councillors of the Town of Musgrave Harbour in the district of Bonavista North.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have reports to table in accordance with the Financial Administration Act, if I may have a moment. The first is in accordance with Section 49(2) which is a list of all the temporary loans raised by the Province since last year's report. These include treasury bill borrowings on a regular Treasury Bill Program and special treasury bills which we issued to cover temporary cash shortages in managing the Province's borrowings and bank overdrafts. These fluctuate from time to time pending on our cash needs. These are set forth in detail in the third portion of the reports which I will table.
Also, in accordance with Section 55(3) we are tabling the amounts which we paid out in the past year under our government guarantee. I am pleased to say that there is only one guarantee paid out under the Fisheries Loan Act in the amount of $64,000, to be exact.
Finally, for the first time I am tabling a list of guaranteed debt of Crown corporations that are assumed by the Province. These are two. One is the past debt of Newfoundland Farm Products Corporation in the amount of $10.2 million, and the second is of Newfoundland Ocean Enterprises Limited in the amount of $70.9 million, both of which amounts are now being assumed by the Province in accordance with the privatizations of Newfoundland Farm Products and the Marystown Shipyard.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.
MS M. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I will on tomorrow ask leave to present the following resolution:
WHEREAS the shipbuilding industry has long been a core element in Canada's industrial growth strategy creating and sustaining high quality skill driven jobs with world-wide expertise in this vitally important sector; and
WHEREAS the shipbuilding industry has been an important component of our provincial economy; and
WHEREAS other countries have continued to provide financial incentives and maintain significant trade barriers to protect their shipbuilding industry, eliminating the possibility of an international levelling of the playing field;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House strongly endorse a national shipbuilding strategy to be undertaken by the Government of Canada that will provide certain measures in support of a strong and internationally competitive shipbuilding industry as advocated by leaders of this industry.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise again today to present a petition to the House of Assembly, addressed as follows:
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland;
WHEREFORE your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to bargain with nurses in good faith, to be fair to nurses, to provide a better focus on patient care, to address the issue of casualization, to provide a fair and equitable wage and benefits package, and live up to the commitments given by the Premier on the eve of the election to deal positively and constructively with nurses and their issues.
Mr. Speaker, we know of the commitments made by the Premier on the eve of the election. In the paper on Sunday, February 7, the statement is made: The Premier says he is convinced there is a dire need to hire more nurses across the Province. He won't commit to a number - it says - but (inaudible) to be higher than the 125 positions that came in a contract offer last December.
Today we saw the Premier, after repeated badgering by the Member for Ferryland last week, finally coming forward and saying: Yes, it is not a collective bargaining issue; we are going to address that now. After some days and days of questions he finally comes forward and makes a commitment and gives some actual information.
Today as well we saw the Premier standing in his place and saying he cannot change the wage offer made to nurses because it might be different from that offered to other bargaining units. I have to ask the question: What is the purpose of collective bargaining if there is a predetermined maximization placed on a wage settlement? We know that collective bargaining is about the coming together of employees and employers to reach a settlement. That is the very nature of the bargaining process.
So we know the dialogue that has gone on. The advertisements that have been taken out are all designed to create the impression in this Province that we are approaching a crisis. It is a public relations exercise. Why would the government take out an ad within twenty-four hours of nurses having gone on strike last Wednesday morning? We know the ad had to be written beforehand because we know there are deadlines for the people in the newspaper business. Why would that happen? Because it was all part of a predesigned strategy.
While the Premier pretends to be bargaining in good faith we know, from the record we seen thus far, that there is an insincerity. In fact, the whole process we are hearing about makes an absolute mockery of collective bargaining. Because when you go into bargaining you say: Here are the terms you must agree to, but we will bargain as long as you can bargain, take one of mine for one of mine. That is not what bargaining is all about. Bargaining is about coming together.
Then we hear the Premier today saying he cannot go and offer more because we might have some difficulties with NAPE, CUPE, the NLTA or some other bargaining group. The Premier says there could be some wildcat strikes. The Premier knows there are in legislation strategies to deal with that kind of a situation. He cannot go out and say: I can't do this because it might result in a wildcat strike. If you are going to say we are going to have one bargaining session, he should have said to NAPE, CUPE, the nurses and every other public sector bargaining unit: There will only be one session, so boys, you better get together. You better team up. You better have this allied group formed because we are only going to do this once.
That did not happen. NAPE went in to bargain in good faith. They agreed to put forward to their membership a proposal that would be straightened out at the bargaining table. They voted on that, they accepted it, they are bound by it. You cannot go to nurses today and say to nurses: We cannot go beyond that because we are afraid of the implications it might have for someone else.
The Premier knows -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. H. HODDER: - that there is a contractual arrangement with the other groups. He cannot use that as an excuse to not deal fairly with the nurses.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to support the petition presented by my hon. colleague, and to certainly agree with him and to say that collective bargaining in Newfoundland and Labrador is dead, buried, gone.
I do not know if the Premier has ever sat in on any collective bargaining sessions. There is a position laid out by one side and a position laid out by the other. Somewhere in between there is a negotiated settlement. As my colleague has said, what should happen in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is everybody who negotiates with the teachers or with the government should get together - police, teachers, firemen, whoever - and say: What are we going for, what are we going to settle for? At the end of the day here is what we are all going to get. Because there is no such thing anymore in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador as collective bargaining.
When I hear the stories today of people having to negotiate under threat of: Maybe we are going to legislate you back to work, I mean, what a way to negotiate. What a way to have people have faith in your negotiating, or your negotiating team. I do not really know how somebody could even sit on such a negotiating team, to go in and sit around the table and tell a group of people that this was coming.
I can tell you that in the limited time I spent in a bargaining unit, and I spent some time on a negotiating committee, there would be nobody but nobody who would ever come in from the other side and threaten the people I sat around the negotiating table with. We would not stand for it, we would not have it.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FRENCH: I do not know what my colleague from over on the other side is grumbling about because he just nods his head. Whatever is laid out for him he has no other alternative but to accept. I hope there are still some nurses left in the gallery that can hear him, know where he stands on the issue, and that there is no backbone, I would say to the member.
It is too bad, Mr. Speaker, that negotiations in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador have come to this stage. We have seen what has happened to the police, or we are now going to see, or we are going to watch over the next few days, exactly what is going to happen to the nurses union in Newfoundland and Labrador.
As one member who has received a great many calls from nurses in this Province I am prepared to sit here Good Friday and I am prepared to sit here right through Easter. I am one member, Sir, who intends to fight - if it ever is introduced - back to work legislation with every bit of strength I have in my body. Because I think that is one of the most regressive steps this government could ever take. It is not here today, it did not come Friday, but I am sure the Premier and his Cabinet colleagues are certainly considering the back to work legislation.
Why there cannot be binding arbitration, why both sides cannot lay a position on the table, leave it up to an arbitrator or board to say: Here is the one we accept, I don't know. Whether that is favourable to the government or whether it is favourable to the nurses union, at least it is a fair and just manner to both sides.
In this there is no fair and just manner. It is take it or leave it. The threat is there, it is always hanging over your head. The nurses know this. Like I said, I've heard from a great deal of them in the past week, and again today, while going in or coming out of his building. It is no problem to have a conversation.
I tell you one thing. I congratulate the nurses union for the backbone they have, for the fortitude of sticking together. I believe this time the Premier is in for the fight of his life, that he is going to deal with a group of people who have bonded together - they have been forced to do that by this government - and who are not going to back away. There is more solidarity in this union than I've seen in a long time. They will fight, with as much vigour as they can, this government, any legislation that may come down the tubes over the next twenty-four or forty-eight hours, and they are going to fight this government every step of the way.
I believe that enough is enough. I believe that this government has certainly gone too far with the nurses' union in this Province, and I think it is time that we reach a just and fair settlement with them.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I want to remind the visitors to the gallery that they are not to participate in the proceedings of the House by applauding, by interrupting, or by disorder of any kind. If disorder of this nature continues, the Chair will have no choice but to have the galleries cleared.
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, just a brief response to the petition which has been laid before the House today.
I do not know the exact number, but more than thirty bargaining units have settled their collective agreements with this Administration since 1996. So the words from the members opposite to suggest that collective bargaining is dead in Newfoundland and Labrador, it just is not true. We have settled every one of the agreements that we have negotiated at the table with every one of the bargaining units we have sat with.
In fact, on Friday past we have announced two more collective agreements. One was with the Newfoundland Association of Public Employees, covering their employees in the Avalon West School Board, 7 per cent over thirty-nine months.
We announced another tentative agreement Friday, negotiated with the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association - the NLTA - representing their employees in Labrador West. That was for 7 per cent over thirty-nine months.
Those two agreements were consistent with thirty other agreements that were negotiated and settled at the bargaining table. While it is true that all have in common 7 per cent over thirty-nine months, each has their own peculiar contribution, based on the issues surrounding the 7 per cent settlement, that was put on the table by each of those bargaining units.
Mr. Speaker, the suggestion that collective bargaining is dead could not be further from the truth. We are in the middle of a circumstance which is part of the collective bargaining process - a strike. We stay here, and have not moved to legislate back nurses because we want to give every last opportunity, whatever time is available to us, for a negotiated settlement.
As long as the health care system is able to cope - I said the other day that it is coping in a heroic way - we will remain available should there be an environment, an opportunity, to come to a negotiated settlement. Nobody wants to fail at the collective bargaining table, and nobody wants to legislate back employees.
In the case of health care, we have negotiated in good faith; and, quite frankly, on the issue of compensation, we put an offer on the table that gave - substantially new, by way of compensation - more than was put on the table last round, an offer which was rejected 51 to 49.
It is not for me to communicate to nurses - that is entirely up to the collective bargaining team itself to deal with - but we did put new offers of permanents; we have announced it today. We did put new offers of casuals; we have announced it today. We did put new offers on compensation, and the nurses' union is well aware of that.
Nobody can expect government to settle with one unit that comes in last, as important as that unit is, and as valuable as their contribution is; and it is a very substantial contribution to the good of the entire Province by way of the health care system that nurses make. I acknowledge that, but nobody can ask us as a government that has to negotiate with every union with 30,000 public servants, to settle in such a way with one bargaining unit that will cause uproar and chaos with every other bargaining unit that has already settled.
If you are sitting at the table, you have a responsibility on one side to put yourself in the head of the team on the other side. We have to do that, and understand the frustration and so on of nurses, but nurses have to understand the constraints on government.
Government does not take a decision in isolation from what that decision will do and how that decision will impact on every other public servant. You need not go any further than the security desk outside the front door and ask those security officers if they think they should live for the remainder of their contract with the 7 per cent wage settlement if others get a 17 per cent wage settlement. I have asked them and they have said, no.
Government ultimately has the responsibility - and we cannot duck it, we cannot hide, we cannot give speeches in the Legislature to a gallery who is hearing what it wants to hear - to make decisions that will hold up, decisions that make sense, and decisions that we can afford.
The collective bargaining process in this Province is alive and well. It has succeeded in coming to agreements in 99 per cent of the cases, and we hope it will succeed in this case as well.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise and present a petition on behalf of concerned citizens of this Province concerning the nurses' strike, and the way the negotiations have been handled and taken place up to this point in time.
I suppose, as I look around this House, I do not think I would be wrong if I said that I have probably negotiated more collective agreements than anybody sitting here today. It is a subject that I know a little bit about. I have always found that they have always -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. COLLINS: Unlike the Premier, I did not negotiate the deal in Sept-Iles. Like I have said to the Premier before, he is the one studying French, not me.
To get back to the subject of this petition, which I agree with, whenever we start negotiating at final stages in the media, there is always a price to pay for that.
What the Premier and the government have said to the nurses of this Province is: You come into negotiations, and you come in with your hands tied behind your back. We have 7 per cent on the table, even before you get here, and there is no point in trying to talk to us about anything that exceeds that.
In a democratic society, that is not the way negotiations are done. When NAPE settled their agreement - and we hear a lot about this in the news -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. COLLINS: I would like to ask the people across the aisle - I think they missed their calling. They should have been screened when they were selecting the hecklers for The Muppet Show.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, when NAPE settled their agreements with this Province, they did so based on what was good for their members. Other organizations, who represent people in their memberships -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. COLLINS: - should not be bound by what one person or one other group does. Each collective agreement contains much more than monetary - although a lot of the other things may impact on that - but all the issues are different, and that is why we have different collective agreements in place between people with common interests.
After the agreement - according to the Province, according to the Premier - once this agreement was reached with NAPE, that really finalized it. I wonder, if that was going to be the game plan of this government, why did not the government call the leadership of all the public service unions in the Province together and have a good and frank discussion on what monetary bargaining would mean in 1988 and 1999 for those who would be going into contract renewals?
The hon. Premier mentioned the security guards. There is another story about security guards that the Premier is well aware of, and this government is well aware of, and have done nothing to change. That is, each time they change employers, they are brought back to minimum wage again and they have to start building it all up again from $5.50 to $6, only to have the contracts sold again underneath them and go back in.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is incumbent upon this government to honour the democratic process that we have in this country and in this Province, because it is not only good for democracy but it is good for government. There are other people in this society who have to avail of democracy as well. I think that any attempt to legislate the nurses of this Province back to work will meet with public reaction like this government has never seen before in the past. Because, in spite of what they are doing and in spite of what they are saying, the nurses of this Province have support on their picket lines like has never been witnessed before, and it is only going to grow as time goes on.
I urge the government to get back to negotiations, to stop taking out their propaganda pages in The Telegram, and to get down to the real issue. That is, to deal with the people and remunerate them to what they should be for the people who are responsible for taking care of sick people in our Province.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to rise and support the petition so ably presented by my colleague from Labrador West, who knows a great deal about what it means to bargain in good faith. I would suggest that hon. members opposite, including the Premier, appear to have very little idea about what it means to actually bargain in good faith.
The Premier has spent a lot of time talking about NAPE. Well, let me tell you what happened at the end of the negotiations of the NAPE collective agreement. Every member of NAPE across the Province had an opportunity to vote as to whether or not to accept that agreement, yes or no. They had meetings across the Province. They explained to their members what the contract was all about, and they all got to vote.
Well, I have met a lot of nurses in the last couple of days, thousands of them out here on the picket lines, and not one of them had an opportunity to vote on that NAPE agreement, not one.
The question we have here is whether or not we live in a democracy. We have to recognize that one of the aspects of democracy is a right of free collective bargaining. If what we are going to have in this Province is that the first person to reach a collective agreement, of the thirty or forty bargaining units, establishes a raise for everybody else, then everybody else has the right to vote on that from the beginning. If we are going to have one wage rate for everybody and one wage for everybody, we have to have everybody participating in that. The only way you can do that is to have one bargaining unit with everybody involved in it and everybody having the right to vote on it.
That is not what has happened here, and government does not have the democratic right to impose a wage increase on a group of people who had no opportunity to influence, no say, not even any knowledge that what was being done at one bargaining table had anything whatsoever to do with their circumstances.
I asked the Premier today, too, whether or not he was prepared to recognize that one of the obligations in bargaining, as it is the obligation, in the obligation of the adjudication board under the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, if the government acts legally as opposed to contrary to democratic principles and uses the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, is that the adjudication board would have to establish terms and conditions of employment that are fair and reasonable in relation to the qualifications required, the work performed, the responsibility assumed and the nature of the service provided.
Well, what the Premier said today was, no, he was not prepared to do that. What he is saying is: I am not prepared to recognize that the terms and conditions of employment of nurses must reflect the fairness and reasonableness on the basis of the qualifications, the work, the responsibility, and the nature of the service.
That is exactly what this responsibility pay, or responsibility premium is on the table now. I have to say, if the Premier does not seem to understand it, that is a negotiating position. It is a position taken by the nurses. It has been on the table for many months, and the Premier wants to say this is the only position that is possible.
I want to say also that the cost of that proposal is more like $8 million or $9 million, not the $800 million that the Premier is flaunting around. I suppose you could make the number bigger. He said $800 million over five years. If it was over ten, how much is that? It is $1.6 billion. If it is over 100, it is $16 billion! Does he really think the people of Newfoundland are stunned? Does he think they are stunned, that he can, through some clever manipulation of the media he thinks he is a master of, does he really think that the people of Newfoundland believe that to make a settlement with the nurses that really might cost $6 million, $7 million or $8 million, really costs $800 million and will bankrupt the Province? Who does he think he is?
AN HON. MEMBER: Spin doctor.
MR. HARRIS: He is not a spin doctor. That is not spin doctoring; that is self-delusion, that he really believes perhaps somewhere down in his heart he can delude the people of this Province about as well. But that is not going to happen because the people of this Province are supporting the nurses. They understand the responsibility they are taking on. They understand the commitment they have to their patients. They understand that they cannot do
a proper job if they are not properly motivated, if they are not properly paid, and if they are not properly staffed so that they can do a proper job.
That is why these petitioners, and every Newfoundlander, are calling upon the government to bargain in good faith and reach a fair and reasonable collective agreement with the nurses of this Province.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to respond just briefly to the petition presented by the Member for Labrador West, and supported by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, because I have been trying, as the members of the Legislature would know, to make sure we clarify the position of both Opposition parties with respect to this issue over the last few days.
Mr. Speaker, the Member for Labrador West again, as he has done to me for twenty years, bragged about his negotiating prowess, and again conveniently - just to remind the Legislature - did not know anything about the very important negotiations going on in Sept-Iles just a little while ago. You had better keep remembering that.
He did make a couple of useful suggestions though. At least the position of the New Democratic Party is that maybe we should have called in all the major leaders and talked to them about, if we had any wage restrain difficulties and what the parameters might be.
I would have the hon. member know, that occurred some time ago, almost a year ago now, as a matter of fact, because some of those negotiations did occur at that point in time; and the leadership elements of NAPE, of CUPE, of the teachers, of the nurses and others, were told that there was basically a fiscal framework in which they should expect the government to try to bargain, and we would like to bargain their contracts within that framework at the table, and they should bring other issues, other benefit issues, other particular nuances of their particular bargaining unit, to the table, but that government was going to have great difficultly moving off 7 per cent, because we could not afford it.
A good suggestion, and it was taken and done a year or so ago and everybody knew that. Everybody in the Province has known that the fiscal framework for the government to try and run all of the affairs of the Province are based on 7 per cent wage settlements over the next thirty-nine months.
Mr. Speaker, at least the hon. member has been around long enough - he talked about the security guards that were referenced by the Premier. They are employees of the Department of Works, Services and Transportation, of the government, who operate in these buildings. They are not the kind of people who work out in the private sector, that the hon. member got confused with. Hopefully he will not make that mistake again in the future.
Mr. Speaker, the suggestion that you should call the Official Opposition - and it is clear again today that the NDP concurs with the notion that everybody who has gone before has signed their agreement and they should live with it. The Leader of the New Democratic Party said that here in this Legislature today, that everybody else got a chance to vote on their contract. They voted for it, so we can only conclude that it means they have no intention, if anybody else gets more than 7 per cent, of giving it to anybody else.
There are other union representatives in the galleries today who have praised the nurses for having the guts to stand up, because their feeling is that if the nurses get more by having the guts to stand up, then they figure they are going to cash in and get more as well.
It is nice to know that the New Democratic Party position is -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.
MR. GRIMES: - they have signed their contract and they should live with it, because that is the official position of the party.
MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker the member is entitled to argue, but he is not entitled to put words into someone else's mouth and then knock him down. This is the classic straw man argument. You make up something that somebody said, and then you defeat the argument by saying how silly it was, what that person said, when he did not even say it. That is the straw man argument, it is out of order and misleading to this House.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will continue with the clarification. Hansard clearly does show today that the Leader of the New Democratic Party has stated that everybody else had an opportunity to vote on their contract, they knew what they were getting, they signed it, and his intention is that if he were the Premier, which will not happen in my lifetime, you can rest assured - it will not happen in my lifetime that he will be the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, you can guarantee it. The fact of the matter is that his official position, though, is that if you sign a contract, you live with it. That is the official position.
I am pleased to report, as a result of the intervention made earlier today on the previous petition about the same issue, that the official position of the Official Opposition, confirmed again today by the Member for Waterford-Kenmount, is that in fact the other unions have voted for 7 per cent -
AN HON. MEMBER: Waterford Valley.
MR. GRIMES: Waterford Valley. I am sorry about that.
- they should live with the 7 per cent, and that the government should have free and open bargaining on money with the nurses. Everybody else who already has a contract, you should not be concerned about them.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about it, that is their plan. Our plan, because we know that the only way to be fair is to have everybody live in a fiscal framework, is that if we are going to offer more than 7 per cent to anybody, we cannot sustain a lie to everybody else by suggesting to them that the Province could not afford more than 7 per cent and then giving it to the nurses.
Our plan is that if there is more than 7 per cent, it should be available for everybody. The difficulty - and again the Leader of the New Democratic Party says it is only $8 million or $9 million a year.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: It is only $8 million or $9 million a year if they are only going to give it to nurses; so it clearly indicates that is the position of the NDP -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. GRIMES: - that is the position of the Official Opposition. It is not the position of this government, and we will not agree with that type of notion.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have a petition today from the residents of St. John's West. They request that neighbourhood schooling, Kindergarten to Grade XII, for the West End of St. John's remain intact as was agreed upon during educational reform.
When the referendum was called back in 1997, in August, to be voted on early in September, the people of the District of St. John's West and indeed the Province were promised that with school reform they would enjoy optimum programming, smaller class sizes, and neighbourhood schools where children who played together would go to school together. I think that is paraphrased from the ads that the government had out at that time.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS S. OSBORNE: Is it? Anyway, they listened and they believed, and the people in St. John's West voted 83 per cent for school reform. I suppose, like other recent elections, the promises are not being fulfilled.
The parents who placed their trust in the promises made in the referendum, who believed what they were told and voted accordingly for the good of their children's education, are now being faced with the loss of programs because schools will have to accommodate more students than the rated capacity. They are facing classes with students from thirty-one to thirty-five pupils, and they are facing a loss of the high school in the West End. That rating of thirty-one to thirty-five pupils is a far cry from the 14.7 that is touted in the Throne Speech.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS S. OSBORNE: Well, 14.8 is still a far cry from thirty-one to thirty-five. Any time the member opposite would like to visit some of these classrooms and count, if you can count to thirty-five, go right ahead.
Mr. Speaker, before the referendum on school reform, the residents of St. John's West already had things that reform was promising, but they voted so overwhelming in school reform to ensure that what they had would remain. Now they are losing what they voted for and what they already had.
I have a report here from Dr. Khalili, he is a psychologist, and in the report is outlined the amount of stress and anxiety that the children are now exhibiting because they are facing school reform and because their lives are being disrupted to such an extent by what is happening in their schools and in their lives.
From page 17 of this report I quote: Perhaps the most important information for the members of the board and its staff is the degree of anxiety and stress that has been reported.
From a student at Beaconsfield High School, I quote: I feel that the government is not looking at the student, how they feel about what is going on, and neighbourhood does not mean half-way across town.
That is what these children are saying: neighbourhood does not mean going half-way across town, passing the school that they are presently in.
Unlike many areas in the Province, and probably within the Avalon East School Board, St. John's West is a growth area. There are all kinds of new houses being built in St. John's West, and new families with small children are moving in there. It is a growth area. They should not be losing schools; they should be getting schools.
It is okay for us to say, wait for the proposal and see how we feel. I think the Avalon East School Board has the will, actually, to comply with the wishes of the people in St. John's West; however the Avalon East School Board have been sent to buy a week's groceries and they have been given $10 to do so.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS S. OSBORNE: Well, it is similar to that. There is $125 million -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS S. OSBORNE: There is $125 million out there to be accessed; $15 million is allocated for the Avalon East School Board.
I think if somebody were to crunch the numbers on that, they would find that it is not done on a per capita basis - I realize that - but if somebody were to crunch the numbers on that, they would realize that the division is unfair.
Would you like to send the people who live in your district out to Carbonear somewhere? It is the same thing that we are being asked to do. They are being taken from a building that is rated good.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
While my colleague was presenting the petition, I heard the former Minister of Education say that they should be put on a school bus for forty-five minutes. I was appalled to hear that.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. T. OSBORNE: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, it was the Member for Bellevue.
MR. GRIMES: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member has just attributed a remark to me that is now recorded in Hansard. He knows I did not say it, and I would ask him, through you, Mr. Speaker, to withdraw it and acknowledge that I said no such thing.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, anybody who cares to drive through the West End of St. John's will see the number of K-XII signs in the area. For anybody on the government side of the House who does not know what these signs stand for, they mean that the residents of the West End of the St. John's area want a K-XII school system in that area.
We on this side of the House agree with that. There are many new housing developments in the West End of the St. John's area. In my district alone, there is a brand new subdivision over the past couple of years that has been built. There are new subdivisions along Waterford Bridge Road, new housing on the South Side Road.
The residents of the West End of St. John's clearly voted in favour of education reform; however, they voted for what they were promised during the education reform debate, and that was neighbourhood schooling. That was the ability to send their children to a school within their neighbourhood, not to put them on Metrobus and send them all the way across St. John's.
Speaking of Metrobus, the Metrobus Commission has already said that they are unable to support the higher demand of children who will need to us Metrobus if the West End of St. John's does not have a high school system. That has already been stated by the St. John's Metrobus Commission.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen government, through the Department of Education, through the school boards, implement some changes with the reorganization of the school system in the St. John's area, most particularly in the St. John's West region of the city, that have gone without great satisfaction by the residents of the city. They have protested. The number of people showing up to the reorganization meetings speak of this. It is very clear that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with the plans to remove the high school system from the West End of St. John's.
The people who have signed this petition, which I support, clearly want to keep a K-XII system in the West End of the city, and I see no other alternative but for this House, for this Legislature, to ensure that happens.
It is unreasonable to expect families with children, who are unable to afford Metrobus passes, to walk for forty or forty-five minutes. It is unreasonable for the families with children, who are able to afford Metrobus passes, to stand at bus stops when the weather is not fit to be out and send their children, sometimes with transfers, to a high school clearly in the other end of the city, when they have a high school right now in the West End of St. John's that is satisfying the needs of the children and the families in that area. We should ensure that high school and the K-XII system in the West End of the city is kept.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Just a few comments for the record, with respect to the petition. I would just like to remind the Official Opposition that when we put through this Legislature the new Schools Act that supported the whole education reform initiative of a couple of years ago, one of the fundamental features of it was that for the first time in history we would have fully elected locally based school boards, so that those officials would have the same authority base, in terms of being elected by people, as we do in this Legislature.
For the first time in history, now, let's not forget it - before, we had some appointed people, people who said: Would you run, would you sit here, would you sit there, no accountability to anybody - fully elected by the parents and the adults in the area served by those particular schools and serving those particular students, significant.
Mr. Speaker, part of what was happening - to make sure that we had the people closest to the parents and closest to the students making these fundamental decisions, the Official Opposition, the same members that are speaking today in support of this petition, stood in this Legislature and voted unanimously for provisions that said the arrangement of schooling by grade, class and so on is the responsibility of the elected school board. Not the responsibility of the Minister of Education who has just joined us in the Chamber, or myself, who used to be the Minister of Education; not the responsibility of us as provincially elected legislators; but the responsibility of the locally elected school boards.
They are given, by law, approved by this Legislature - all of us, every single one of us stood and said: Let the local school board make that decision as to whether there should be a high school in the west end of St. John's. Let those kinds of decisions that play out on a daily basis be in the hands of the fully elected, fully accountable school board members.
Then they suggest: We have done that but we didn't give them the money to work with. For the record, the facts show this. The operating funds for every school board in the Province, including the Avalon East School Board that operates the schools in and around St. John's, are exactly the same as they were four years ago, not reduced one penny. In that period of time there are 5,000 fewer students, not in the Province, but in the territory and areas served by the Avalon East School Board. There are twelve to fifteen fewer schools -
MR. FRENCH: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say to the former Minister of Education when he talks about money that has gone to the school boards that I believe he should certainly call the Avalon East School Board. Because I have attended one public meeting with him in a school in Manuels and one private meeting with him and -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to take his seat. There is no point of order.
MR. FRENCH: - on both occasions they have said that this government did not give them enough money.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to take his seat. There is no point of order.
MR. FRENCH: They did not give them enough money. That is the opinion of the board.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, I point out the fact that the amount of money the school board has available to it for operational purposes is exactly the same today as it was four years ago. They are trying to provide services to 5,000 fewer students. They are operating a dozen or more fewer schools and they have the same money that they had four years ago to try and have those things done, and almost the same number of teachers.
I would suggest, with all due respect, that while the petition is very well intentioned, and many people understand the sentiments from the people in the area, the petition should be presented at the school board offices down on Water Street. Because there is no role for it here in the Legislature. The responsibility lies with the duly elected school board members for those decisions.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to rise today to present a petition on behalf of some 2,500 constituents of the Baie Verte Peninsula. I will read the appropriate petition:
To the hon. House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of the Baie Verte Peninsula;
WHEREAS a high percentage of the dialysis patients that utilize the dialysis unit at the Grand Falls Hospital are from the Baie Verte Peninsula; and
WHEREAS it is planned to build an extension to the dialysis unit at the Grand Falls Hospital to accommodate the ever increasing patient load; and
WHEREAS patients from the Baie Verte Peninsula have to drive at least two-and-a-half hours to Grand Falls, thus adding more stress to an already tiring day;
BE IT RESOLVED the petitioners of the Baie Verte Peninsula urge the Minister of Health and the government to transfer the monies to extend the Grand Falls dialysis unit to the hospital in Baie Verte to accommodate the patients in that area.
Mr. Speaker, I have been waiting a few days to get this particular petition on, on behalf of some 2,500 names I have here, and more to come in. Basically it is to do with people on the peninsula who have, even publicly in the paper, told their story of what the situation is as it stand now on the Baie Verte Peninsula. It is the story of a family in Fleur de Lys, Mr. and Mrs. Ron Dempsey, whose home I have sat in and discussed their situation with them, and other people across the peninsula who are telling me the same story. Although I am pleased to stand and present this petition today, it is almost shameful that we have to do it.
We have a family here, a man who has worked all his life, and now on a dialysis unit twice a week now at least. It was up to three times a week that he would have to travel to Grand Falls, some two-and-a-half hours over some of the most treacherous roads in the Province, to go on a dialysis unit machine. It was to the point that it was so tiring to the family they had to try to relocate, to move to Grand Falls. We have another family, the Gavin family in Coachman's Cove, who have done just that. We have to split the family so that now the husband stays at home, and an elderly lady had to actually move to Corner Brook so now she can avail of the dialysis machine.
It is actually splitting families. These are not fabricated stories. There is no drama to it. These are stories that are told by these people and how their lives have been affected. What a shame it is. Those are just two. I could go on and on with some other situations. People tell me their stories and say: Go ahead, use my name in the House of Assembly, speak to the media, do whatever you have to do, because our lives are being wrecked because of what is happening now. Stories of people who have worked all their lives and now are at an age where they are relying on a medical service that they believe should be available to them. Some of these, even, would have to drive for an hour to get to the Baie Verte Hospital, over some of the worse roads in the Province. Instead they have to go all the way to Grand Falls or all the way to Corner Brook, some two and one-half hours in wintertime two or three times a week, to avail of this service.
That is why I asked the Minister of Health, I begged the Minister of Health, the Premier, and the government, to reconsider. When the minister sent back a message to these people saying that where numbers would warrant they would look at another dialysis machine, I would say to the minister and the government that what they should be really looking at are the merits of each particular case.
When you have to look at, first of all, the geography of the area, then the road conditions of the area, and the economic conditions of the families themselves, these people are really stuck between a rock and hard place now to find out where they are going to get gas money to go to Grand Falls twice a week. I've had a gentleman from La Scie who is on this dialysis unit and was going back and forth to Grand Falls three days a week from La Scie. The Premier knows the area very well, and to know that you have to drive up there. Do you know what that gentleman had to do? He and his wife got a cabin at Badger Lake. That was the closest they could get where they could afford. They bought a small cabin so now they would just have to go from Badger to Grand Falls to use the dialysis machine.
I say to the Premier I'm not dramatizing this. These are stories where I have sat with the people in their kitchens, one at a time, and let people tell their stories. The story of Mr. and Mrs. Ron Dempsey, who had a story in our local paper last week, they sat down to tell us about it. The Gavin family in Coachman's Cove where now the husband was so sick he stays home and the elderly lady lives in Corner Brook now. They have split up at an elderly age so that lady can avail of a machine in Corner Brook. That is where it has to come into focus. Not to say to people on the Baie Verte Peninsula: Okay, if you get fifty people who need a dialysis machine we will do it. How can you put a number on it? It is not a number. It is human merit. Each case should be looked at individually. What cases are there? Are there twelve cases that substantiate a good reason for putting a dialysis machine there?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: No, I do not say one for every community. I repeat to the Premier again, in the short bit of time I have here, the merit of each individual area of the Province should be looked at to see, Mr. Speaker, what the reality is. If there are twenty families in the Baie Verte area that have lots of money, they are all working, they can afford to do this, then so be it.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SHELLEY: But for every situation, I plead for these people today, for the government to come to their senses on this particular issue and support the people, so that they can get on with a decent way of living, Mr. Speaker.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think it is very important for the people of the Province to realize - and I will say it again because this was another issue that was raised by another member in the House last week, the whole issue about dialysis and the need to have dialysis machines.
In fact, after the last petition was raised I know that we have looked very seriously at the whole issue around St. Anthony. We want to thank the Member for Ferryland, in fact, for raising it. We think it is perhaps of such importance that we would even consider taking capital money, perhaps from roads, and re-directing it in this area. It isn't something we have ruled out, in fact.
The other part of this whole discussion is that we have a population the size of the city of Winnipeg. We have a lot of infrastructure, we have a lot of needs to meet. It costs money. What we have to look at is this. It is not about putting a dialysis machine in the corner and plugging it in. What it means is that you have to have the appropriate staff.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I think it is important for people to listen to have a full appreciation for what is involved, and an understanding, because it is much more than plugging in a machine.
What it involves, Mr. Speaker, is having the appropriate specialists on hand. In fact, for those people who would like to listen I can explain that when we did move forward to put that type of unit in Grand Falls one of the first things we had to secure was that we had the appropriate number of urology specialists on hand to make the type of diagnoses and to do the type of specialist care that was required, and also having the specialist staff to follow.
We have not said, arbitrarily, no to anyone, but what we have to do is take our responsibilities seriously and look at the needs that are required. We know when people are requiring dialysis, particularly peritoneal dialysis, where they have to go perhaps three times a week. It is a very big ordeal for families. It puts a lot of pressure on families and it is something that affects the whole family even though one person is being dialysed, and we realize that. In many cases it affects the community, because we know people have to leave their communities.
As I said, in a province of this size we have to make some very difficult decisions and choices. For example, we only have one cardiovascular unit in the whole Province, here in St. John's in our tertiary care centre. In this Province we only have one neurosurgical unit here at the tertiary care centre in St. John's.
We have tried to meet the needs in Western, in Central and in St. John's, to try to look at the issues around peritoneal dialysis, and we will look at each case on its own merit. We will look at the numbers of people that are requiring that particular service and we will look at our ability to pay.
As I said, the Member for Ferryland made such a passionate case the other day that we will look at the issues around St. Anthony at this time. We believe it is important enough that we would even take it from a roads program if we had to, to put it in health care to address those kinds of issues.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to take a minute or two to add my support to the petition presented by my friend for Baie Verte. I happen to know the people he mentioned in presenting this position. I happen to know all of them. It is not a laughing matter, it is a very serious matter.
No, look, the Premier is right. We cannot afford to put a dialysis machine in every community in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is not the prayer of the petition. We cannot afford to put a hospital in every community of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is not the point of the argument.
The point of the argument is that I think there has to be some kind of an assessment done. While it was good enough - it was never good enough - but while we had to do it, perhaps people had to go to Grand Falls two-and-a-half hours away or Corner Brook two-and-a-half hours away. As the need in Corner Brook and Grand Falls is addressed, can't we start looking at moving out from there? I mean, there is a need in St. Anthony which the Premier says is going to be addressed. We are all for that. There is also a need in Baie Verte and Clarenville and other places. Can't there be a policy of moving out from those larger centres? It is a terrible situation when a person has to, three or four times a day, drive two-and-a-half hours into Grand Falls, two-and-a-half hours back. I do not how long the procedure takes.
MR. SULLIVAN: It takes two-and-a-half hours.
MR. RIDEOUT: It takes two-and-a-half hours. You are a full day. Then you are stressed out because, I understand, this procedure is very tiring and that kind of thing. So a full day goes by when you get up from daylight in the morning until you go to Central Newfoundland or Western Newfoundland and then you get back home. You have families having to decide to move away from own home. You have families who have had to split, the husband going to Corner Brook or Grand Falls and live so they could avail of this medical procedure.
If the government cannot do that over a reasonable period of time, perhaps what government might look at doing through the health care system is some kind of an assistance program, to help people avail of the procedure while government is fighting to get its hands on money to extend the program or the machinery into other parts of the Province. This really breaks people's backs financially, Mr. Speaker, to drive from La Scie in to Corner Brook three or four times a week? It is a significant amount of money. That money has to be taken from a food budget or from some other part of their medical budget. There are only so many dollars those people have. Obviously many of them are not working because of their medical condition. Perhaps some consideration should be given to trying to put in place a program that can help those people.
The other thing that really gets to me is this. When I hear the minister admitting that we are taking older equipment out of this Province and sharing with some parts of the world that are less fortunate, on principle I have no problem with that; but if we can utilize that equipment that the taxpayers of this Province and this country had bought and paid for in our own Province, if there is a need for it in our own Province, surely to goodness we are going to take care of that need first before we send it outside the country. I think that would make sense.
The minister says that you have to have specialists to operate this equipment. In places where there is an institution, as there is in Baie Verte, there is a part of a hospital still left in Baie Verte, there is first level care medical treatment still provided in Baie Verte. Surely in places where we have an institution, and the staff is already there, surely they can be trained to handle and perform with this equipment.
If there is no institution there then that is a problem and obviously you cannot say what I am saying now, but that does not apply to Baie Verte, where there is a hospital of sorts. It is not the type of hospital that was there ten or twelve years ago, but then again, all health care facilities have changed dramatically in this Province over the last number of years.
There is an institution there. It is a first level care institution. People are admitted and treated there. There is nursing staff there. A piece of equipment could be installed in that hospital. I am sure the staff could be trained to use it. People would at least be no more than forty-five minutes, an hour, or an hour and a half's drive away - thirty minutes or forty-five minutes from La Scie, maybe -, people would be that much closer to the vital medical procedure that they need.
I think it is something that I commend to government and I hope it is something the government will give the appropriate consideration to.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, Order 2, Bill 2. I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Supply, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to once again participate in this debate with respect to the granting of interim supply, Bill 2, a bill which allows this government to essentially run its time and to tide things over from a fiscal point of view till year end. Of course, we see total expenditures in excess of $1 billion with each department being allocated.
The debate in this Legislature in the past number of days has essentially revolved around labour unrest in this Province, primarily with respect to our nurses. We have seen nurses in the gallery during the last three or four days, we have seen nurses gather on the steps of Confederation Building, in the lobby of Confederation Building, and certainly demonstrating their disapproval of the existing circumstances in front of all hospitals and provincial health institutions in the Province.
That is perhaps the single issue today which has grabbed the attention publicly in this Province, and certainly, as I've just indicated, has taken up most of the debate in this Legislature. It is certainly the issue which requires and demands this debate on a regular basis, until of course some resolution is reached and our nurses can feel they have been treated with fairness, and they can return to work willingly, with morale raised, and in a position to do the work they are mandated and obligated to do.
It is not only nurses, unfortunately, who find themselves at the present time in a situation of some unrest. Obviously today the members of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary's position is uncertain, their status is unclear, simply because what was recommended - having gone through the process of an independent arbitration - is simply not being adhered to by government members opposite. Therefore their fate remains unclear and remains unknown.
I guess a third group in this Province today, although in a different category, would be the plight of our public service pensioners, a group of individuals who - not only in this session of the Legislature but certainly, and in particular perhaps, the last session of the Legislature - voiced their concerns on a very regular and ongoing basis. Their fate remains uncertain and unclear as government, in a very general sense, other than recognizing just the poorest of the poor, but in a very general sense doing absolutely nothing to help remedy the circumstances they now find themselves in. The public service pensioners have brought forward on a repeated basis numerous petitions. The issue was raised and discussed repeatedly as the subject matter of Question Period in this House, but it has all gone on deaf ears, I say. This government has refused to pay attention, has only paid lip service, has paid no attention to their particular circumstances and to the fact that so many of them live below the poverty line and are trying to make ends meet as best they can.
There is an area which perhaps has received little attention. I spoke to it briefly in debate last week and I think it is worthy of attention and presentation once again. That is the fact that so little resources, it seems to me, and so little effort is being given to certain aspects of our justice system in the Province. It remains a fact that when we look at the circumstances with respect to legal aid, when we look at the very obvious lack of resources that are being attributed to helping young offenders in our Province, amongst other issues - but these two in particular I would like to refer to very briefly.
We have seen certainly at the provincial Youth Centre in the past number of weeks repeated examples of concern, and I speak briefly of the tragic suicide of several weeks ago. We have also had the history of escapes, and we have also had, sadly, allegations of abuse. It seems to me there is a bigger problem, and this government fails to recognize exactly what that problem is, despite the fact that it is addressed repeatedly by many professionals and many experts involved in the criminal youth justice system. I refer specifically to, simply, adequate funding for young people who require the assistance early on in life. When a young person at the age of fourteen or sixteen finds himself or herself incarcerated at the Whitbourne Youth Centre - for perhaps a break and enter, perhaps stealing an automobile or for perhaps repeated offenses with respect to shoplifting or drinking underage or whatever -, when a young person finds himself or herself in that particular facility, that is a signal that the system has failed.
Because it is the practice of our judges in our provincial courts in this Province to only incarcerate as a last resource. It is the practice of our Provincial Court judges to only send a child to the youth facility in Whitbourne when that particular child has committed an offence for a third, fourth, eighth or tenth time. It is very rare that a young person is sent and is incarcerated after a first or a second offence.
Therefore, the question has to be asked: What has gone wrong? Where were the resources that ordinarily ought to have helped that young person? Where were they, that allowed that young person to be a repeat offender?
While that young person, having committed a first offence when being placed on probation, if the resources and the expert personnel were put in place to offer assistance to that young person, the likelihood of that young person re-offending is minimized and, I would say, Mr. Chairman, minimized significantly.
What we need to help our young people, and what is absent when we look at the heads of expenditures, for example, on Bill 2, or even when we read page by page, word for word, the Budget that was delivered some ten days ago - a week ago, I guess it was - what is missing, and what this government fails to recognize, is the ability to ensure that the funds and the resources and the personnel are put in place to help those very young people who are sadly going through the misfortunes that we hear about in the media on an all-too-frequent basis, I say, Mr. Chairman, in the past number of weeks.
If the resources were there, if probation officers had the resources and could rely on professional personnel and professional expertise with respect to counselling, for example, if these people were put in place, we would not need the type of facility certainly to the extent to which there are sixty or seventy or eighty on an ongoing basis in Whitbourne.
Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate that this government has not seen the absolute requirement and necessity to help our young people who find themselves in these unfortunate circumstances. As I have just mentioned, and experts will agree, all it takes is the willingness by a government to allow and attribute the resources to be applied in the assistance of these young people.
The second area that I wish to refer to very briefly is the area of legal aid. The legal aid offices in our Province play a very useful role in assisting people who find themselves in circumstances, whether it be criminal law or family law, and simply cannot afford the services of a private lawyer. They, by necessity, must resort to the legal aid system in our Province.
We have solicitors who are quite competent and do a good job in their particular field but, again, their hands are tied. Their hands are tied because the resources are not been given to the legal aid system in our Province to allow these people to do their job properly and effectively.
I will just give a couple of examples. We have seen situations in the past number of months where people who have been charged with a most serious offence, namely murder, must rely on a staff solicitor from the legal aid pool.
I say, Mr. Chairman, that if the resources were given to the legal aid system, there would be what is known as simply a right to counsel; that a person charged with a very serious criminal offence would be given the right to counsel, the right to pick his or her solicitor, having been charged with a particular offence. Because the resources are not there, it is necessary then for the legal aid office to deny that person the right to counsel and to simply offer the services of a legal aid staff solicitor who, by the way, may be the choice of counsel in any event.
It seems to me that if the resources were applied where they ought to be, a person who is charged with a serious criminal offence may have the choice and can select counsel of his or her choice. In these somewhat unusual - because it is only a rare circumstance that would apply, nevertheless it would be the delivery of justice to people in this Province who need it.
Obviously, we have to deal with other aspects of the criminal justice system, namely restorative justice and victim services and so on, and that is another aspect which can never be overlooked, but the right of an accused to pick his or her counsel in certain circumstances, having committed certain serious offenses which can be outlined and designated, seems to me to be a right that ought to be afforded to any individual.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
CHAIR: By leave.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Chairman, just briefly to conclude on this particular point with respect to the legal aid system.
We have a situation now where the legal aid office, again by necessity, through no fault of its own, has put in place a conflicts office. In other words, the legal aid office recognizes that a conflict may exist and has established a conflicts office.
For example, in the case of a custody battle, or in the case of a matrimonial dispute, one party would be represented in one legal aid office and the other party represented in another legal aid office.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that is simply a result of the fact that there are inadequate resources, and that it is incumbent upon this government to once again assess certain aspects of the department where funding is essential, where resources are essential, to ensure that the people of this Province are best served.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It was brought to the attention of the House earlier today, during Question Period, an ad that had appeared in this weekend's paper. I would like to bring further attention to this particular article that was put in and paid for by the taxpayers of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The article brought no real information to the people, other than some information to sell government's side of the story on the nurses' negotiations; actually, even inflicting the negotiations that are happening between government and the nurses.
The article says that if government gives more than 7 per cent to nurses, to be fair we have to give more than 7 per cent to our 30,000 other employees.
Mr. Chairman, government did not take that same attitude when they gave an increase to water bombers. Government did not put an article in the paper saying that, if we give more than 7 per cent to water bombers, we would have to give more than 7 per cent to the other employees that they are going to be negotiating with.
Government did not use the same argument with judges, that if we give more than 7 per cent to judges we are going to have to give more than 7 per cent to the general service public employees in this Province.
Government did not use that same argument with physicians. When government gave an increase to physicians in this Province, they did not say that if we give an increase of more than 7 per cent to physicians, we will have to give more than 7 per cent to the other public employees that we are in the process of negotiating with. In fact, government said that in order to retain our physicians, we have to pay them more. In order to attract physicians to this Province, we have to pay our physicians more.
In fact, perhaps nurses could use the same argument, because our nursing students are leaving this Province in droves, because other areas of Canada are paying more to our graduated nurses. They are moving to the States, and they are moving to other areas. Even Nova Scotia is paying far more to nurses than this Province is paying to our nurses.
In order to be fair, as this article sets out to try to sell the public of this Province, the government used a Robin Hood approach. They robbed from the people of this Province to pay for this article, to convince the people of this Province that they are being fair to nurses. In order to be fair to the other 30,000 employees that have already negotiated contracts, they are going to hold back on nurses. Yet they did not hold back on physicians, they did not hold back on water bombers, they did not hold back on judges.
Mr. Chairman, the article goes on to say that every 1 per cent more in wages for public employees costs the taxpayer $16 million annually. We are all aware of what this article means, because we are in the midst of the debate. We are very aware of the debate that is happening on nurses, but for many people in the Province to read that - every 1 per cent more on wages for public employees costs the taxpayers $16 million annually... That does not say every employee on payroll, even the ones who have already settled, even the ones who already have their contracts, the 30,000 other public employees who have already settled. It does not say that these 30,000 employees have already accepted an offer from government and their contracts are signed.
The Premier has said in this House that we are threatened with wildcat strikes from the 30,000 employees who have already signed, but it does not address the issue that nurses are leaving this Province, that the retention rate of nurses is affected.
We heard an announcement today by the Minister of Health that will somewhat address this issue, but it does not fully address the issue that nurses are leaving the Province. Many of the graduated nurses leave the Province because the pay rates in other areas, even in Nova Scotia, so close to home, are much, much higher.
They go into talking about the RNC. For example, government recently received a recommendation that the RNC get a 14 per cent wage settlement. They go on to say that 14 per cent more for everyone would cost $112 million more per year. It is not everybody now that is at the bargaining table because most of the government service, 30,000, in fact, other public employees, have already settled, including judges, physicians and water bombers.
It goes on to say that we do not believe the people of Newfoundland and Labrador want us to do either. I would say that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador do not want our nurses leaving. They do not want their health care system in crisis. They do not want the people in his Legislature to be unfair. They are talking about fairness in this ad. I would say the people of this Province do not want this Legislature to be unfair to the nurses. They do not want us to be unfair to our health care system. They do not want us to be unfair to the people of this Province who are going to have to rely on our health care system, perhaps, someday.
The issue here is fairness. Government, in full fairness, settled with the judges, the physicians, and with water bombers, for more than 7 per cent. Knowing this, other unions have settled for 7 per cent; but does that mean that every union in the Province has to settle for 7 per cent? Does that mean that from here on in, every union in this Province that sits down to the negotiating table with government have their hands tied behind their backs and are going to have to settle for 7 per cent? We would certainly hope not.
What makes a nurse any less essential to the health care system than a doctor? Why did doctors get 23 per cent and nurses are being told they are only going to get 7 per cent? Are nurses any less essential than doctors? That is the question. Are nurses any less essential to our health care system than doctors?
There was another full-page article that appeared in Saturday's paper as well, that says that 7 per cent is as good as, or better, than public service wage settlement across the country. In fact, it is not; because in Nova Scotia they are offering 1.9 per cent for 1988. We have offered 2 per cent. Nova Scotia is offering 1.9 per cent of a much higher salary; so, in fact, are we being fair at 2 per cent?
In Nova Scotia in 1999, they are getting 2.2 per cent. In Newfoundland, we are getting 2 per cent. The fact of the matter is that our nurses here in this Province are making far less than nurses in other areas of the country and certainly far less than graduating nursing students from this Province have been offered in many areas of the United States.
Mr. Chairman, I, as a taxpayer of this Province, as well as a member of this Legislature, but as a taxpayer of this Province, was insulted to see two full-page ads in Saturday's paper with government propaganda on trying to sell the public on an issue on which government know the nurses have very strong public support. I was insulted when I read this, knowing many of the details that maybe the public do not have at their disposal, and to be shown a chart showing percentages in every other Province of Canada, to be shown percentages of what government services or public service employees have been given, and showing that these public service employees have been paid certain percentage increases in what they have bargained for across the country but knowing that there is still an inequity in this Province, in the amounts being paid. We are not talking about just percentages; we are talking about (inaudible).
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would just like to take advantage again of this opportunity by making a few comments on this very important Interim Supply debate, to again point out for the record in Hansard that it is becoming clearer, as each one of the members opposite make their representations, of what the position of the Official Opposition is with respect to the issue that is front and centre in the Province today concerning the nurses in the health care system. Also, that the New Democratic Party delightfully today, for the first time, came off the fence in a real way and declared what their position is; because it will be critically important in the next few days as it unfolds to know what the official, real, actual position is for each of the parties represented in this Legislature.
The hon. Member for St. John's South, in making his representation, suggests that government should not take unilateral action and suggest that something like 7 per cent should be for everybody, and that is not the way you should negotiate or bargain.
Obviously I saw some of the work that was done by the parliamentary channel. I watched himself and his mother being interviewed and followed around the campaign trail, as an example of a family involved in politics. I looked at how they were dedicated and committed to the PC Party from way back when, when Premier Peckford and others were leading this Province.
MR. J. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, in this House of Assembly we are supposed to refer to members by their district. The Minister of Mines and Energy has been here much longer than I have, and many members in this House of Assembly. At least three times today I heard him refer to the member here, and his mother. Please refrain from doing that, Mr. Chairman, and advise him.
CHAIR: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I was saying, they were proud to say - both the Member for St. John's South and his mother - on television, for everybody in the country to see, not only in Newfoundland and Labrador but everybody in the country who watches the parliamentary channel - I happen to be one of them. I enjoy it. I enjoy this Legislature. I am foolish enough to watch City Hall sometimes here in St. John's. I even watch the parliamentary channel. Mr. Chairman, I enjoy it and I saw the program. They were proud to declare that they had been strong supporters of the Conservatives since Confederation.
I know that the Member for St. John's South is not old enough. He was not around then but I suppose the other member, who happens to be his mother, was certainly around at that point in time - proud, proud to be supporters of the Conservatives back in the days of Frank Moores, back in the days of Peckford, back in the days of Mr. Rideout, who was there for a short period of time, back in the days of John Crosbie, went to provincial conventions, went to national conventions.
Having said that they strongly support all those people and all their policies, and worked for them, they turn around and come into the Legislature and say: We do not think it is really right for anybody to suggest that everybody in the public service should get the same wage offer. That is not real collective bargaining.
He forgets that in an address to the whole Province in 1984 - the date is here on the document, I believe it is February 29, 1984 -, a few short years ago, the speaker, being the premier of the day, Premier Peckford, supported by the Member for Lewisporte who was a member of his Cabinet at the time, said not that we are bargaining or negotiating, but: We are announcing, I am announcing as the Premier on behalf of the government, that government has decided to implement a new wage restraint policy. Not 7 per cent, but there will be no increase for anybody in the public service for the next two years.
Then he said: We welcome every group to come to the bargaining table to deal with issues relative to their particular agreement, but the salary increase will be zero-zero for every group for the next two years.
Here they are proud to be on national television, supporting the leadership that made that kind of a statement. By the way, I was president of a union at the time and they made it stick. We signed for zero and zero because we understood the plight of the government of the day and we knew they had no money. The unions knew they had no money. In 1984-1985 all of the unions came to the bargaining table, did significant other things at the bargaining table through the collective bargaining process, but signed contracts for zero and zero.
So you talk about people then all of a sudden coming in now because it is politically expedient saying: We do not believe it is fair for a government to stand up and suggest, just as a policy statement, that we did, that the absolute ability of the government to pay is limited by 7 per cent over the next thirty-nine months. There are many other things that we know you want to negotiate, so come to the bargaining table and negotiate all those other things.
The Official Opposition is saying: No, you cannot do that for starters, but if you are doing it - and what they are encouraging now is to let the nurses have something different because they used three examples.
They say: You did not make the doctors take 7 per cent. Dig out Hansard, because a year ago the Official Opposition and the lone NDP at that time - which has now doubled and swelled its ranks all the way up to a grand caucus of two, so much so that the leader has additional responsibilities. I would not doubt some time we will probably hear something along the lines that his additional responsibilities might even require more pay or something, because that is what he is supporting for nurses. I would not doubt sometime I might even hear him say it about himself, because of the additional responsibilities of having a second member in that caucus.
A year ago the same members, the same speakers in the debate, would say: You must find a way to take care of the doctors because we do not have any. They stood up day after day and said: Do whatever you have to do. We do not care what it is, make it your number one priority, and for goodness sake, government, come to your senses and do whatever it takes to get us some doctors.
We listened and we did what it took to get some doctors. It took a 23 per cent increase so that we could retain a few doctors in some isolated regions of the Province, and hopefully attract a few more because we had whole communities, whole regions, whole facilities out there with no doctors in them. Hopefully it will not happen again, and hopefully with the support of the Opposition it will be successful.
Then they say: You cannot make the nurses take 7 per cent because you let the water bomber pilots have something else. There is one small problem. At the point in time when we made an arrangement with the water bomber pilots we did not have any. Not a shortage, not that there weren't enough, they weren't any; no water bomber pilots. The Opposition was saying: What if we have a fire? We are going to destroy the whole of the timber stands for Newfoundland and Labrador. Down go the pulp mills, down goes the saw mill industry, no more domestic wood for people to heat their homes.
They say: Fix it, whatever you do, government, please listen to us. Do not be intransigent, stand up and fix it, do what it takes. Guess what we did? We listened to the Opposition and we fixed it. Now they say: Sure, it is because you did what we asked you to do that you have to turn around now and make sure that the nurses get whatever they want.
The good part is that they finally, both groups today, the fourteen and the massive two, are common in terms of their approach. They have said repeatedly, and all of them together: Give the nurses whatever they want and let the rest of them suffer it out with 7 per cent.
That is what everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador needs to know. It is as clear as a bell. I did not think anybody was going to say it any more clearly than the Member for Ferryland, but the Member for St. John's South said it best of all. He did not hedge, he did not hesitate, there were no wishy-washy words. We have seen wishy-washy over there before. There was nothing wishy-washy about the potential leader for St. John's South. He knows where he stands. He spoke for the Official Opposition: Give the nurses whatever they want to settle this and then let the rest of them suffer it out. Because he says that is not his version. The rest of them knew what they were doing, they signed their contract and it is on the record. I am delighted to have it there, Mr. Chairman.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, yes. Because the Minister of Mines and Energy is misleading this House, and in fact misleading the people of this Province by saying I said something I did not.
First of all I did not say: Give the nurses everything they want, and secondly I did not say: Let the rest of them suffer it out.
What I said is: This article is very misleading because we gave more than 7 per cent to many other groups.
CHAIR: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. GRIMES: By leave, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!
CHAIR: No leave.
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I stand in my place to day to say a few words. I wasn't going to. We have a list here of the order of our speakers and I was last on the list. When I heard the Minister of Mines and Energy up with the pile of claptrap that that minister gets on with I had to get and say something about it.
He is over there saying that back in 1984 or 1985 a previous administration brought in by zero per cent, but (inaudible) buts, did he?
AN HON. MEMBER: He forgot about Clyde.
MR. J. BYRNE: He forgot about Clyde. I will get into that in minute, Mr. Chairman. It brought in zero per cent across the board for everyone, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy. That is what happened there, but that is not what happened in this Province today, is it? It is not for everyone, the 7 per cent. No, it is not.
What happened back in 1990 sometime? What happened when there was binding arbitration put in place. The premier of the day agrees to go for binding arbitration, and when (inaudible) comes out that he did not like he brings in legislation to abolish it. At least we can say that the previous administration prior to that, back in 1984 and 1985, were honest, upright and forthright, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy. That is not what is happening in this Province today. By the way, when a few groups negotiated the agreements and decided to sign the agreements I do not believe they were told at that point in time: Whatever you sign for is going to be for every civil servant in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi made a good point today. Most people, the nurses that were here in the gallery, outside this past week or so in the lobby, did not have a say in that, what they were being forced to take today.
The Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the PC Party, is asking questions of the Premier of this House of Assembly and he is not getting the answers, of course, as per usual. It is a big show time. I have to say, though, the Premier in the past couple of days has been behaving himself to a certain extent. He is not giving the answers but he is behaving himself. You can almost put him on a stopwatch, I say. When he gets up to speak and gives an answer he starts out mild and meek, then he gets one arm going like this, one arm going like that. Then he gets a little bit more intense. Then he gets the two arms going like that, and (inaudible) up straight. He was not into that today and the day before.
AN HON. MEMBER: Who?
MR. J. BYRNE: The Premier.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, I believe that the Premier and this government are not bargaining in good faith. We have heard it from many speakers in this House of Assembly. We are not hearing from that side of the House, of course, but we are hearing it from this side of the House. We are hearing it from the nurses, we are hearing it from the nurses' executive, we are hearing it from the president of the nurses' union.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Minister of Fisheries, he is trying to distract me. I know what I am and what I am not, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. I do not need you to tell me, I can guarantee you that, because I had over 4,000 people in my district tell me on February 9 what I am; 2,028 votes more than my opponent.
By the way, speaking of that, I remember when a certain individual was sitting in the gallery here last year and the Premier said: We have the guy to take you on this time. We have the fellow who is going to beat you in the next election. Did he have a lesson to learn?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, there he is! I did not know that the Premier was sitting on this side of the House. I will tell you, that is where that man should be, on this side of the House. He knows it, and he loves it on this side of the House of Assembly. He loved it in Ottawa, when he was in Ottawa. He loved being a rat packer. He loved it. He enjoyed it. Now he is over there answering questions. No, he does not answer questions.
MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) fastest growing caucus. He wants to be (inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, wishful thinking.
Anyway, Mr. Chairman, back to this situation we are in today with respect to the nurses.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, he is going to get used to that. He will not be around long enough to be sitting in Opposition. That is the problem.
With respect to bargaining in bad faith, the very first day the strike was called, what did we see? We saw the Premier on the evening news trying to divide and conquer. I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy: Take notes because I know you are going to be on your feet again in a few minutes.
MR. EFFORD: Jack, the whole world is listening. Slow down and (inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Can you believe this? Can you believe what you just heard, I say to the members of this House of Assembly? We have the Minister of Fisheries giving me advice on how to talk - the man to tell me to slow down! Well, that will tell you where his priorities are.
Back to bargaining in bad faith. The Premier is on the evening news trying to divide and conquer, saying that he was shocked that the nurses walked away. He did not know anything about it. He did not know anything about this, what was happening. The conciliator was informed of what was happening with respect to the negotiations; then, also saying basically that they had an agreement. He thought they had the basis for an agreement.
Here we are, almost a week later, no talks, no negotiations, and we are very, very close for the basis for an agreement. I do not know who we should believe. We have the Premier of the Province saying one thing; we have the Prime Minister of the country saying something else.
Here is a point I want to make. The Premier has said he has not yet legislated, or brought in legislation to order the nurses back to work. Why, why, why, is the question? From my perspective, here is the answer.
PREMIER TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, let the record show that, now that I have come back from that side of the House, I can report with certainly that the hon. member makes no more sense looking at his face than he does looking at the back of his head.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Here we are in the people's House, the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, the Premier of the Province, who is suppose to show decorum and present order and be reasonable and respectable, is the worst in here for showing disrespect to the Chair and the Speaker of the House of Assembly.
He is over there now making jokes. This is a very serious issue, I say to the Premier. Why have you not legislated them back yet? He is trying to give the perception out there - we all know the difference - that he is bargaining in good faith. He is trying to give the perception that he is bargaining in good faith. If he brought in legislation - I know why he hasn't, because he had those big ads in the paper and on the evening news, but he is trying to give the perception that he is bargaining in good faith. If he is bargaining in good faith, and if he brings in legislation to order the nurses back to work, where does that leave him? Where does that leave the government?
Now he is going to say, we will come to a point in time when we have to bring in legislation because there is a crisis in the health care system within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
The question has to be asked now: Who is going to decide when there is a crisis? Is it going to be the Premier and the Cabinet? I would say they are going to have a fair say in it. Is this all public relations? That is what we have to decide. Is this a public relations - I will not say fiasco, like they did with Bouchard up in Labrador last year when he came down and the Innu and the Inuit put a stop to that.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Well, we have the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs lining himself up, big time, behind the Minister of Mines and Energy, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Tourism, the Minister of Fisheries, the Minister of Health, the minister, the minister... I do not see any backbenchers over there lining up yet. I forgot the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: I do not know. Not a problem here - solid, solid, solid.
Within two-and-a-half to three years, according to the Premier's schedule, the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Kilbride, is going to be Premier of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: This is March 29. Hansard is recording my words.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. J. BYRNE: By leave?
CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.
CHAIR: No leave.
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to conclude the few remarks I was just beginning to make in the last little while and maybe recap again. I know that the written record of the Legislature, Hansard, will show that my only intent and purpose here is to try and make sure - because we cannot quite get the Opposition parties to state their position on a very important matter. I am listening intently to everything that is said by every one of the speakers, to make sure that we understand their position.
Again, in short order because there are a couple of other points that I wanted to make, they indicate we should not take unilateral action, about 7 per cent for everybody, even though they were proud to support the Premier a few years ago, when they were the government, who took unilateral action and gave everybody zero; never mind 7 per cent, but zero.
Then they talk about, well, the 7 per cent does not have to apply to nurses because it did not apply to doctors. I have covered that ground. They understand why it did not apply to doctors. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, they begged us to make sure that it did not apply to doctors.
The other unions - here is a very important piece in this that they ignored - the other 30,000 public servants who have signed for 7 per cent signed after a round of bargaining, knowing that the government of the Province had made an exception for doctors because they agreed with it. The unions agreed with the exception. They did not say: We are not signing for 7 per cent because you gave 23 per cent to doctors; because they live in communities in Newfoundland and Labrador where they know there were no doctors, and they applauded the government for taking the urging of the Opposition parties and finding a way to make sure that there are doctors in rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador.
They signed their 7 per cent after they knew that the 7 per cent did not apply to doctors. They signed their 7 per cent after full, free, open and complete collective bargaining because there were other issues other than 7 per cent that they wanted to deal with and they did deal with at the table. They signed that 7 per cent after they knew that we had taken care of the water bomber pilots on a different basis, because they did not want to risk losing the pulp and paper industry in Newfoundland and Labrador. They did not want to risk losing the sawmilling industry, which is still growing in Newfoundland and Labrador. They did not want to risk the wood stands that they use for domestic heat supply being gone because of the fact that we had no protection. They knew that the government had not asked water bomber pilots to sign 7 per cent. They went through full, free, open, complete rounds of bargaining and they signed for 7 per cent.
Then, out of complete desperation, the opposition parties bring up the judges. Everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador, including the Opposition, knows for a fact that this government did everything it could humanly and possibly do to not give the judges - we tried everything in the world to not give the judges more than 7 per cent because, compared to other groups, they make significant money. We hoped that they would understand the government's plight and agree to 7 per cent.
One of the key defenders of the judges - even though the government here were saying: No, we are not giving in to the judges - was the Opposition Justice critic, the Member for St. John's East, who jumped up daily and said: You know you have to give the judges more than 7 per cent. He was the only person in Newfoundland and Labrador who repeatedly took the position in this Legislature. Read Hansard. Find the quotes. Despite his urging - because I am not even sure that his caucus agreed with him; that is the one where I believe he was the Lone Ranger - I don't believe his caucus agreed with him, but he knew he sort of had to be everybody's friend. So on behalf of the Official Opposition, as Justice critic, he had to get up and say: Well, I have to say something about the judges. I might be one, one of these days. I have to get them a big raise and so on.
What happened, of course, was that the government did everything it could to say no and the judges, being what they are, astute in their knowledge of the legislation and so on, turned around and said: We will find a way to make sure that we take the government to court.
They took us to court in another province, out in Saskatchewan or some place, and the court ruled that the judges - another judge in another Province ruled that the judges had to get a raise of more than 7 per cent.
Today, more clearly than the Member for Ferryland ever said, because he tried to sit on the fence and be everybody's friend, the Member for St. John's South said, crystal clear - and I will not try to put words in his mouth - he said the crowd that got 7 per cent, they got 7 per cent; but the government should not try to make nurses take 7 per cent just because everybody else got it. They are bargaining. You should bargain with the nurses.
So the position of the Opposition is: Let the nurses get whatever they can at the bargaining table. Let the rest of them keep 7 per cent. It is on the record by three of their members now. The Official NDP Party, through both their members today, talked about the money. They said: Oh, it is not what the Premier said. It is not $160 million a year. It is only $7 million or $8 million. Because that means they are only planning on giving the money to nurses only. Sure, you can describe it as $5 million, $6 million or $7 million, if you are only going to give it to nurses.
It is clear that today the Leader of the NDP Party, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, finally got out of his shell, finally had a chance to speak on behalf of nurses, and he finally said: I will give the money to nurses and not to anybody else. Because the only way he could describe it as a $7 million or $8 million bill instead of a $160 million bill is if he is only going to give the money to the nurses.
We have the position of the New Democratic Party, the great party of the unions of Newfoundland and Labrador, saying: Too bad gang, too bad 30,000 of you, you got sucked in just like I did as a member. You were stunned like I was because I voted and signed for 7 per cent, just like you did. Now the rest of you are really stunned but you have got to stay there. You have to stay there, 30,000. Do no ask me, the Leader of the NDP and the great voice of the unions in Newfoundland and Labrador, to suggest that all the rest of you should get more than 7 per cent. You are signed up. We like the process, we defend the process, and the process gave you 7 per cent. I took 7 per cent and you will keep it because we believe the process is more important than anything else.
The Official Opposition has finally made it abundantly clear today, better than ever, through one of their future, potential leaders, the Member for St. John's South, because if he makes everything as clear as he made that issue today he has a great future.
I note when the Member for Cape St. Francis was suggesting that the Member for Kilbride, the current Leader of the Opposition, might be premier in three or four years, the Member for Lewisporte did not pound his desk, I can guarantee you that, because I was watching. The Member for St. John's South did not pound his desk, because I was watching. The Member for Bonavista South did not pound his desk, because I was watching, and the Member for Ferryland was upstairs making phone calls to check on some other people because he is going to get even for the stabbing in the back that he got, one of these days, you can rest assured.
All of these things are becoming abundantly clear as the debate goes on in interim supply. I know the people of the Province want to hear more from the Opposition parties. They might make it even clearer than I have heard it so far. I hope they do, because we want Hansard to clearly record it, because this is going to be very important over the next few days.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Hear, hear!
CHAIR (Smith): The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I had to rise for a few comments. I wasn't going to but listening to the Member for Exploits - I am sitting here all day trying to figure out what is in the Member for Exploits? Where is his head? What is wrong with him? All it is is the sunshine and knowing he could be on a golf course somewhere now. He is bored to death. He gets up on every issue, he gets up on every petition. If somebody wishes somebody a Happy Birthday he is on his feet. If there are condolences sent he stands on his feet. He is stuck, but he does not want to end up in Florida this time when the call comes out that the leadership race is on. He does not want to call that 1-800 number to come back.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SHELLEY: He is not going to be in Florida this time, so what he is worried about is getting his phone call in -
MR. GRIMES: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, I was in Mexico.
CHAIR: No point of order.
The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Mexico, Florida, Chile, Cuba, what is the difference?
Mr. Chairman, that is all we can figure out over here. Because everybody comes in the House, and whenever I walk out of the caucus room I ask who is up. The Member for Exploits again, he is up on a petition. He is the verbal - I cannot use the other word. He is up every day, so he is bored, he has to get out of here, but he has to wait.
I agree with him and the Premier on a couple of things. First of all, that the Member for St. John's East will be a judge someday, a fine gentlemen. I just hope the Member for Exploits does not have to stand before him, and remembering the things he is saying here today. I agree with the Premier. You cannot make any more sense than the member makes all the time, no matter if you are behind him or in front of him. He always makes sense when he stands in this Legislature and makes some very good points.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: The Member for Cape St. Francis, Mr. Chairman. Whether you are on the side of him, behind him, in front of him, he always makes a lot of sense, a lot of points. As a matter, the Member for Exploits is always taking notes when the Member for Cape St. Francis is up. That is where he gets all his good points. That is what he is all about.
Besides that, for the rest of the day, as the clock ticks down, we will ask that the Committee rise, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise and report progress.
On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Port au Port.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Chairman, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters that have been referred and have directed me to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
On motion, report received and adopted, Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.
MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to announce the Select Committee of the House.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave!
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. EFFORD: I move that a Select Committee of this House be appointed to travel to Ottawa to present the concerns of all of the Members of the House of Assembly and the people of the Province to all political caucuses and to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans with respect to the seal fishery.
I further move that the following members comprise this committee: the Members for Port de Grave, Burgeo & LaPoile, Baie Verte, Bonavista South, Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. EFFORD: - Twillingate & Fogo and Torngat Mountains.
I ask immediate passage, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The House has heard the motion.
All those in favour, `aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!
MR. SPEAKER: Against.
Carried.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I move the House adjourn until tomorrow, Tuesday, at 2:00 p.m.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Tuesday at 2:00 p.m.