The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Before we begin the regular part of our afternoon proceedings, I would like to rule on a point of order raised by the Member for Grand Bank on Wednesday, April 7. The point of order raised by the member concerns comments made by another member on an Open Line show.

Members will note that a point of order, by definition, is a question raised by a member who believes the rules or customary procedures of the House have been incorrectly applied or overlooked during the House proceedings. Comments made by members outside the House on matters discussed in the House do not meet the generally accepted parliamentary definition of a point of order. Therefore, the Chair rules that there is no point of order but a disagreement between two hon. members.

MR. SPEAKER: This afternoon we have statements by the following members: the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair, the Member for Gander, the Member for Grand Falls- Buchans, the Member for Burin-Placentia West, and the Member for St. John's North.

The hon. the Member for Cartwright- L'anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to extend congratulations to Christy Groves, a twelve-year-old Forteau resident and student at Mountain Field Academy, who designed an award-winning poster for the International Art Contest called, "Visa, Olympics of the Imagination".

Christy's artwork entitled, "Making the World a Brighter Place", was selected from thousands of entries all across Canada. Her poster depicted a scene of the world, based on the Olympic theme, "How the Olympic Games help create a better future". Christy was presented her gold award, along with an all expenses paid trip for two to the summer Olympics in Greece, where she will attend four of the Olympic events.

I would also like to acknowledge Heather Trimm, a Grade 7 student from Forteau, and Mandy Halbot and Shana O'Brien, both Grade 8 students from L'Anse au Loup, who were named runners up in the contest and received silver medals.

I ask all members of this House to join with me and offer congratulations to all these young, talented women from the District of Cartwright- L'anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand before the hon. House today to recognize a very special couple from my District of Gander who have accomplished something very rare in our society today. Ralph and Winnie Goulding, formerly of Middle Brook and now living in Gander, recently celebrated their sixty-fifth wedding anniversary. They were married in Gambo and, unlike the lavish weddings of today, Mr. and Mrs. Goulding and their wedding party of six people had to walk approximately four kilometres to get to the church on their wedding day. After they were married, they walked back to their new home for a reception.

I am told that they are still as much in love today as they were in 1938. Winnie still finishes his sentences and Ralph still makes her laugh until she cries for even the smallest mistake he makes. They have twelve children and now have over twenty grandchildren and numerous great-grandchildren.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would ask the members of the House to join me in extending congratulations and best wishes to Ralph and Winnie Goulding on their sixty-fifth wedding anniversary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the many years of hard work and volunteer service by three members of the Buchans Volunteer Fire Department.

I was delighted to attend the ceremony on March 13, at the Buchans Fire Department, where I had the honour of presenting the Newfoundland and Labrador Firefighters' Service Certificate and Medal to William Emberly for thirty years of service, and to Bruce Bursey and James Foster for twenty years of service.

Each of these firefighters also received the Canadian Exemplary Service Medal from the Office of Governor General Adrienne Clarkson.

These are significant milestones in the firefighting careers of these individuals which could not be realized without a tremendous amount of hard work and commitment.

They are to be commended for their dedication and outstanding service not only to the people of Buchans, but to all constituents of the Grand Falls-Buchans District, which was quite evident during the Badger flood.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in congratulating William Emberly, Bruce Bursey and James Foster on recognition for many years of voluntary service and extend gratitude to all members of Volunteer Fire Departments throughout the Province for their service and commitment to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burin-Placentia West.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today and offer congratulations to Ms Mary Anne Drake and Ms Crystal Miller, both of Marystown, on winning their respective speak offs sponsored by the Knights of Columbus Council No. 2436 and the Canadian Parents for French. Both are students of Marystown Central High School in Marystown.

These types of events give our students the opportunity to display their talents in public speaking. As well, it is a testament to the efforts of such organizations to promote and support diversity, both in an educational experience and a language experience. Such extracurricular activities, which are supported by schools such as Marystown Central High, add to the education of our students.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask all members to join me in congratulating Ms Mary Anne Drake and Ms Crystal Miller on their wins and wish them luck as they now proceed to the next level of competition. I would also like for us to offer congratulations to both the Knights of Columbus and the Canadian Parents for French for providing such valuable opportunity to our students.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Next week, Easter week, in Newfoundland and Labrador means different things to different people, anything from Easter bonnets to the possibility of the trees being covered with silver thaw. However, for thousands of people in the Province, Easter week means minor hockey tournaments and I rise today to acknowledge all those who take part in these tournaments and to make them a success.

Mr. Speaker, as with all volunteer activities those who are involved are not motivated by any personal gains. In this case the volunteers are giving of their time for the sake of our youth. Of course the young players themselves are central to these tournaments, but we all know that nothing would happen without the tremendous contribution that is made by parents, coaches and friends who give of their time to do fundraising, arrange billets, get buses, book ice time and all the other details that will make for a successful tournament.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all hon. members to join me in wishing the players well and in thanking the many minor hockey volunteers. We wish them all safe travel and enjoyable tournaments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order by the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to raise this point of order, but yesterday as we were recessing, I believe actually before Your Honour had actually gotten through the doors at the end and we were leaving this Chamber, most of us still here assembled, the MHA, the Member for Lake Melville, standing just about right in front of where the Premier is sitting right now, was addressing me.

The Premier is over there right making fun now, Mr. Speaker, suggesting I am being a bit of a crybaby. He is being very mature about this, as he usually is. This is a very serious issue, I might add to the Premier. He is going to pretend now he has the flu, blowing his nose.

Mr. Speaker, standing just about there, the MHA for Lake Melville did address me in a derogatory fashion, indicating that he thought, in his view, some of my actions were not ones that he would engage in, and in doing so used the "f" word, loud and clear, to be heard by members here and members there. Very loud and clear. As a matter of fact, there were members on both sides who were shocked that he would stand right next to this table, in this Chamber, and use that kind of language with another hon. colleague inside the walls of the Legislature.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it is understood - and I have aggrieved you would rule on this. If that language was used, if anybody used the "f" word in debate in this Legislature you would not need anyone to call a point of order. You would stand yourself and restore order. It has never been used in this Legislature; never been allowed; not tolerated and should never be.

It is also, I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, even if a member was not the recognized speaker with the microphone turned off, and then in some of the banter that does occur here regularly across the floor, that if you, as the Speaker, heard anyone of use using that kind of language you would rise - and the record of Hansard shows it clearly - for less serious language than that. You would rise, intercede and suggest that order would be lost in the Legislature if such language was going to continue. Again, it is unacceptable in this Legislature at anytime, and many of us, like myself, have come to know that it is unacceptable in the public at any time, for public figures. I understand that, Mr. Speaker, and it is certainly unacceptable in this Chamber.

Mr. Speaker, I ask him today, through you, to do the honourable thing.- yesterday he was brave enough to say it. Today I ask him to have enough integrity to admit it, to withdraw it, and to apologize for it, Mr. Speaker, right here in this Chamber.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

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

I am not even going to waste this House's time in responding to that particular allegation, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I do want to speak to that point of order, because I, myself, was here in my place gathering up my material in order to leave the Chamber yesterday, and I have to say, in the eight years that I have been here, an elected member in this House, I have never, ever witnessed that before. The Member for Lake Melville was directly across from me. He walked from this Chamber - in fact, his eye glance caught mine and I heard exactly what he said.

I would be willing to stand and swear honestly and sincerely on a stack of Bibles in this House that he said the "f" word and pointed to the Leader of the Opposition. I said to my colleagues: Did you hear that? Did you see that? Without question, I am honestly and sincerely saying that is exactly what I saw and what I heard. It is disrespectful and I would ask that if he has any conscience for decorum in this House, he should stand and apologize, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, speaking to the point of order.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that I have to rise here today but I, too, was standing here yesterday and I did hear the Member for Lake Melville utter these words, but what was even more distressing was the manner in which he said these words, Mr. Speaker. I have not heard them - like my colleague here from Grand Falls-Windsor - issued in this House before. I, too, would like for the member to rise and withdraw the statements that he made yesterday.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I came into this House in 1996, and it is a pleasure to be here, it is the people's House. It does not belong to a political party. It does not belong to an individual. It belongs to the people.

Mr. Speaker, several times in my responding to members of the Opposition, when I was in government, I said things in this House that I had to retract. The Member for Kilbride knows well of that because he was the Opposition House Leader. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, you yourself, since you have taken over the Chair, has asked the Member for Torngat Mountains to keep the noise down, but I believe that when we use language in this House - and I was standing where I am today. Mr. Speaker, the Member for Lake Melville used the "f" word. Mr. Speaker, he used it, so help me God.

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

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

(Inaudible) some members opposite, I guess. I have been here since 1993 and there have been lots of hot and contested debates after the House closed. I want to emphasize the fact that the House was closed yesterday, to which the point of order by the Leader of the Opposition was saying. I can say with certainty that standing right here yesterday when the House closed, the Speaker was on his way out and the Member for Lake Melville, I think, said to the Leader of the Opposition: Don't be so childish. That is what I heard.

The fact of that matter is this, that there is no point of order, the House was not in session, the House was closed, and what we see here today is more a point of anxiety or frustration or grandstanding, and I think that is what is clearly evident from my point of view today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the point of order, we certainly can't help it if the hon. Government House Leader did not hear it, but we have four persons on this side who have stood here before you today and said that they did hear it. Now, we cannot apologize for his lack of hearing or the fact that he didn't, but we know what was said.

We have heard references here to the House being closed and whatever. We have had several instances in this House in the past two weeks with people making utterances on both sides. It has been done and shouldn't have been done and members have gotten up after and said: Fine, we might have crossed the line, and with all due respect to the House and the Chair and to each other, we withdraw those comments.

Now, the fact that other people may have used the word in other places at other times in other forums; two wrongs don't make a right. If we are going to operate in this House with any basic level of decorum between us these things have to be properly ruled upon and decided. It is one thing to get heated, it is one thing to get frustrated, but there are certain things we ought not say to each other in the confines of this House.

I think it is a valid point of order and I think the Speaker ought to make it clear to all members present that if you do something and you cross the line, do the hon. thing, withdraw it and lets move on and just try to correct ourselves in future and refrain from doing it.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair reminds all members that it is paramount in our parliamentary practices that all members show great respect for each other at all times, both inside the House and outside the House.

The Chair, in this particular case, did receive some notice because a comment, I believe, was made by the Leader of the Opposition this morning. I have had the opportunity to review Hansard. Hansard does not show any commentary whatsoever because the House indeed had closed. The Chair did not hear any commentary on the way out. Therefore, the Chair finds himself in the position of not being able to rule positively on the point of order because the Chair is restricted to ruling on points of order that happened while the House is actually in session.

I find that I have to rule that there is no point of order; however, in doing so, and having checked with Hansard, having checked and not heard anything myself, I have to remind all members that at all times the integrity of members, how we treat each other both inside the House and outside the House, is of great significance. I ask all members for their co-operation at all times to facilitate the orderly parliamentary processes that we all treasure so much.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate your ruling and the circumstances under which you made it. As the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi said a couple of days ago, it may not be a point of order but it is most certainly a point of honour for people who expect to be called honourable gentlemen and women in this particular Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, my first question today is for the President of Treasury Board.

As I indicated yesterday, I know that the minister does provide media briefings. Would he like, Mr. Speaker, to take an opportunity to give us a brief update with respect to negotiations now on a strike that is entering its second week? Also I ask, on behalf of the people of the Province, whether or not there is any reason for hope or optimism that this most unfortunate strike might be coming to a conclusion?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did have a news conference today. It was initiated and I answered to the hon. member before in this House to update people on what is happening on a contingency basis around the Province to deal with the strike. I was asked questions on it and I indicated that I was not prepared to discuss, in a public forum, while negotiations are ongoing.

We have received a proposal from the union, I indicated. We have sent back a response to the union and we are waiting on a response to that. I did not feel we should deal with that in a public forum at this time unless it is made public by the other side. We will be compelled then, obviously, to be able to discuss it then, but we want to follow that particular dealing and do it in a responsible and a fair negotiating manner.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday in this House, the Premier and his caucus came face to face with the building resentment, the anger and the frustration that they have created in the Province. This government's insistence on its all-or-nothing approach is clearly adding to the problem every day. We have seen the results, the unfortunate results, of the hard-nosed, insensitive, new approach to collective bargaining. When, Mr. Speaker, will the Premier realize that the government should use the right approach? - because his new approach, obviously, is not working - show some flexibility, engage in some real, genuine negotiations and try to bring this strike to an end?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome some members of the union to the gallery again this afternoon. As he indicated yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition understands that they have the right to protest, they have the right to speak their piece on the picket lines. I have represented people all of my life and have respected their rights. I still honour those rights and respect them. With regard to trying to reach a negotiation and to reach a negotiated settlement, we are doing just that.

The union presented their offer to us two days ago. We presented our offer to them last night. The minister has had a news conference today to give an update to the people of the Province. I understand that the union has also had a news conference. I do also understand that there is another offer coming up to us this afternoon, to which we will be responding in writing and we will be doing absolutely everything we can to reach a negotiated settlement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is becoming clearer every single day, the people of the Province are finding out and being reminded again, that Tory times are indeed hard times. The people of the Province, Mr. Speaker, are being forced to endure a growing storm of labour unrest in Newfoundland and Labrador mainly because this government, and this Premier, are determined to impose his brand of right-wing conservative medicine on the people of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the government and the Premier's proposed cure is only making things worse. When will the Premier just swallow his pride, take the concessions off the table, and allow this strike to end?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, Tory times in this Province have always followed Liberal times and those Liberal times have created financial chaos in our Province. We are faced with a situation which is a fiscal mess, which we have been told is unsustainable by the Royal Commission, which was appointed by the Leader of the Opposition when he was Premier. But, as an elected Premier I do have the responsibility to try and clean up this mess, as does our government, and we are doing everything we can to try and deal with it. We did not create this problem. We are trying to rectify this problem and we are trying to reach a negotiated settlement with our public sector workers.

Having said that, we are not prepared to bargain in public. That is not what we were doing. We are in the process now of a confidential negotiation. The Leader of the Opposition does know that in the offer which remained on the table until midnight on Sunday, that all major concessions were off the table. Sick leave was off the table, severance was off the table, pension indexing was off the table. He will see, and they will all see with our latest proposal, exactly where those concessions stand right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is pretty clear again that, I guess, the Premier's definition of a concession is different than anybody else's in Newfoundland and Labrador if he thinks they are off the table. Mr. Speaker, the new approach obviously, clearly, is a recipe for continued labour unrest. Not only now do we have 20,000 workers already on the streets, but we have the Province's nurses' union already expressing concern about the government's direction.

I ask the Premier: Will, again, the government abandon this direction, give up the my way or the highway approach, get down to some real negotiations, truly take the concessions off the table so that we do not only have this strike continuing but the specter of a nurse's strike, followed by a teacher's strike, followed by everybody being on strike? When will he take the concessions off the table so we can stop the labour unrest instead of seeing it likely grow and grow and grow?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the Leader of the Opposition wants to prolong this strike. That is obviously his intention. He has been trying to inflame it throughout. He is now going so far as to -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - going beyond the current public sector strike, which we have. He is now trying to drag in the nurses and the teachers. That bargaining process has not even commenced yet. I can only state what we published last week. We published it in the papers all around the Province exactly what our offer was. At that particular point in time our offer was zero, zero, two and three on a four-year agreement. We also stated in print, in public, for the people who are all around the Province, that sick leave was off the table, that severance was off the table, and that pension indexing was off the table. Those are the facts. We have laid it out. It is there in black and white. It is there in print. I just ask you, why are you trying to continue to aggravate this strike and see it go on? I cannot understand your motives in doing so.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, the 20,000 people are on the streets because they disagree and cannot accept the offer made by that Premier. They are not dealing with me, Mr. Speaker. We understand our role to ask the questions.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter again is this, I am not dragging the nurses into anything. There are 20,000 people already out there. The president of the nurses' union and 400 of them met here a day or so ago, last evening, to say: The concessions that they know are still on the table will never be accepted by the nurses. The 20,000 people on the streets today are saying: They will never be accepted by us! We said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, that with a wage freeze with 4,000 people going out the door, two out of three ain't bad, usually.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now if he would complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

If he is not concerned about the 20,000 now, is he concerned about the retention and recruitment issues that the nurses say that the concessions that they know are still on the table would cause, not only for the public servants out there now, but for the nurses of the Province as well?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I have said before. As the elected Premier of the Province, I am very concerned about labour relations in our Province. The people of the Province understand that we have been in power less than six months, that we have inherited a very, very difficult fiscal situation from the previous government. We can only sign and negotiate collective agreements that we can afford, and that is exactly what we are doing. Our affordability, our ability to pay here is extremely limited because we are in a fiscal mess. Our fiscal problems, our fiscal house has to be placed in order, as the Royal Commission has said. Our lending institutions have said the same thing. The banks have said the same thing. Other premiers around the country, the Atlantic Premiers, have looked at me and cannot understand how we can possibly deal with this situation. Everybody is confirming the fiscal mess that we have.

So, we have a responsibility to everybody in the Province, including our public sector workers, including the nurses, including the teachers, to sign and to enter into collective agreements that we can afford, and we are going to do our best to achieve a fair agreement with all these units.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have already had some disruptions in our schools as a result of the current job action, and today is the last day of classes before the Easter break; but, as the schools break for Easter, people understand that school boards are making plans to possibly extend the Easter break if the strike is not concluded within the next ten days. They are expressing concerns because they see no sign of hope and optimism to end the strike, because they also know the concessions are still on the table.

Does the Premier, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the government, have any concerns that in ten days' time we might still see further damage and loss to the education system and the students in the Province if he does not get back to a different approach, the right approach, some real negotiations, stop talking double-talk, get the concessions off the table and get a settlement for the 20,000 workers that are on the streets today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, that is in eleven days' time. We are certainly hoping to possibly settle the strike as early as this afternoon, if we could. We will be receiving an offer from the union. If that offer is acceptable and is an offer that we can afford, we would settle that strike this afternoon if possible.

I would ask for the co-operation of the Leader of the Opposition, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, all members in this House, to do everything we can to try and work together to get a settlement of this strike.

I am concerned about education. I am concerned about health care. I am concerned about the roads in our Province. I am concerned about our valued public sector employees. I am concerned about our nurses. I am concerned about our teachers. We are concerned about it all and we are doing whatever we can to reach a settlement, and we have now entered into a bargaining process whereby they provide us their offer in writing, we respond in writing. There are no misunderstandings. Everything is on paper. So, we are working towards a negotiated settlement. I ask for your co-operation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One final question, again. Yesterday, again, I suggested the notion that maybe the Premier of the Province should cool down the rhetoric a bit, unlike The Globe and Mail, not have a hot temper but have a cool head instead. Stop blaming everybody else, like he is doing again today. It is my fault. It is the NDP's fault. It is somebody else's fault. It is everybody else's fault.

It is his decision to make and take. He was elected to do it. The new approach is not working. Can't we agree again that we should stop that, start mending fences with people like the President of the Federation of Labour, instead of calling them names in public, Mr. Speaker? How is that going to lead to long-standing labour peace in the Province even after this strike will settle? Because it will at some point in time. When are we going to stop blaming each other? When is the Premier, specifically, going to stop blaming everybody else, start mending the fences -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: - start dealing with people with respect so that we can have the proper relationship in this Province instead of what is happening now, a reign of terror that if anyone dares disagree with the Premier he lashes out at them, blames them for everything else and goes on about his business, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious from the questions that the Leader of the Opposition does not want to listen. He is talking about reigns of terror. He is trying to inflame the situation. He is trying to pour gas on a fire. We are doing just the opposite. Cool heads will prevail.

I do want to remind the hon. members opposite, and the people in the general public, that we will not tolerate misleading information. We have an obligation as a government to make sure that the facts are accurately presented, and we will present those facts as accurately as we can. If misleading facts or incorrect facts are presented to the public, then we have an obligation to correct them.

There is no question of blaming here today. I am asking for your co-operation. I am asking for the co-operation of all members within this House of Assembly to bring this to peaceful and amicable conclusion, and also a fair conclusion.

We will all co-operate together. Where you are getting any indication that there is anything otherwise, I am missing something. I just do not see what you are saying.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright L'anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yesterday, the Minister of Health and Community Services and the Member for Topsail abdicated her responsibilities, indicating she would not answer questions related to the health care system and the strike. As she wished yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I will direct my questions to the Minister of Finance and the chief negotiator for the Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear from callers to the Open Line program, various media reports and public remarks by hospital administrators, that a crisis is looming in the health care sector. Essential workers and management staff are trying their very best, but they too are getting worn down. Can the chief negotiator tell me what his colleague, the Minister of Health and Community Services, has done to alleviate this stressful situation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we have put in place is a contingency plan to deal with problems in all areas, not just health care. We have committees monitoring that. They are dealing with the situations. We are getting reports on an ongoing basis. I am getting a detailed briefing on it every single day.

We understand that during labour unrest it is always more difficult to get the level of service you would expect when there is no labour unrest. We acknowledge that. The managers are working hard in many areas. They are managing extremely well in other areas. There are always more pressures on the system depending on the nature of what specific area it is. We don't expect the same level of service overall that you would get when we don't have labour unrest.

I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, where the member is coming from, whether she is implying that we should legislate and get them back to work or we should follow the resolution that you don't want to legislate them back to work. I really don't know what she is saying or where she is coming from. If she could make it clear what she wants us to do, and if she has a proposal that they think is a fair proposal -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: If they feel that have a fair proposal and want to pass over to me what they would consider fair, on behalf of the Province, I would we only too willing to receive it and look at the proposal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me make it quite clear to the hon. minister, that we are not, on this side, advocating that you should legislate these workers back to work. What we are saying though, Minister, is that you should be negotiating in good faith.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: You should be at the table getting these people back to work.

Now, if you don't think that the health care system in this Province is ready to break, then, Minister, you are not in Labrador or Newfoundland, you are in Never-Never Land, because, Mr. Speaker, that is indeed the case.

This is a very serious issue and we are dealing with real people in real life circumstances, people whose lives, Mr. Speaker, are being gambled away at the negotiating table.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to get to her question.

MS JONES: I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker, what has he honestly done to try and bring this strike to an end and to end the chaos that is out there in the health care system today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess there are two options to getting people back to work. One option is the option that my critic there in 1999 indicated, that government believes it is far more responsible to provide pay increases that can be sustained, when she legislated people back to work in 1999. The other option, Mr. Speaker, is to present an agreement. If the member wants to give us what she considers to be a fair agreement on behalf of this Province, what you would do, I would be delighted to see it. Pass it over, we will judge, and then we will make our decision.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: You are making a real fool of yourself.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: We learned that from you last year.

MR. SULLIVAN: You learned something.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking hon. members to permit each other to ask the questions and to give the answers. I am asking members, as well, to keep their supplementaries relatively short because brevity is the enemy of Question Period as we all know.

I go back to the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair on a final supplementary.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the minister was doing his job with tremendous sincerity, in this case, he would not be standing in this House asking the Health Critic to put an offer to the collective bargaining unit.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, he is the chief negotiator and he may be able to spend the next week sending proposals back and forth from boardroom to boardroom but, Mr. Speaker, the sick people in this Province cannot wait.

I ask the minister: What does he say to people like Ms Sheppard, whom I listened to in the media yesterday, and I quote her. She said: My husband is here and really he is going to die if they do not smarten up and get this strike over.

Those are the words, Mr. Speaker, of many desperate and pleading people out there in our Province today. Minister, what solution do you have for them?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I do not in any way challenge the hon. member's sincerity and I do not think she should challenge mine in trying to deal with this situation here. I am dealing sincerely in getting a resolution to this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: What we are doing and what we are taking from the system is advice from people in the system, and managers and people who are working hard - the general public's co-operation, the managers in the system, the non-bargaining people in the system and the collective bargaining people who are members of unions in the system who are working to deal with a stressful situation. I have been told that emergency and urgent cases are being attended to. I have to listen to the professionals out there giving us that advice, not necessarily Members of the House of Assembly or anybody else. I like to take advice from professionals.

We understand, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult in labour unrest. It is difficult and we want co-operation and assistance from people to deal with that, and I am being told that urgent and emergency cases are being taken care of -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: - and I respect their advice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and Labrador Affairs and concern another labour dispute that is occurring in the Province as we speak.

Mr. Speaker, back in January when the harvesters and the processors of this Province were sitting around a table trying to negotiate a price for shrimp, the minister shoved his nose in there and issued an ultimatum. This seems to be very common with this government as of late, Mr. Speaker. He issued an ultimatum that if they did not reach an agreement by the end of January, he would dictate one. Well, Mr. Speaker, he did dictate one. He dictate the hail-at-sea auction system, something that every fisherman and plant owner in the Province knew could not work and it did not work. Now, Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Now that there is another impasse in price negotiations, what ultimatum is he going to issue today?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the Member for Twillingate & Fogo knows, or should know, there were no negotiations taking place back in January on prices and that is the reason why we did intervene at that time. There were no negotiations taking place on implementation of the Vardy Report or the Gregory/Broderick Report and that, Mr. Speaker, is why we intervened at that time. We gave the parties at that time nine days to come up with their plan, and if they could not we said that we would come up with one, Mr. Speaker. At that time we did indicate that we would have a hail-at-sea electronic auction. Three weeks later, both parties came back to me and presented me with a document, signed, sealed and delivered, that said: This is how we propose to go forward with the fishery this year. This is how we propose to negotiate prices. This is how we propose to implement the Gregory/Broderick piece, and we will have it all done for you, Mr. Minister, by 31 March; to which I said: Thank you very much, I will pull the auction off the table and I will talk to you at 31 March.

As the member now knows, the arbitrators rendered their decision under the Final Offer Selection process -

MR. SPEAKER: I ask the hon. the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. TAYLOR: - a couple of days ago, on Sunday afternoon. After that, one of the parties decided they could not live with it. That is what is happening, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When the member opposite was the Fisheries critic, if there was a hiccup in the fishing industry he stood in this House and asked me what I was going to do about it. Well, Mr. Speaker, today there are thousands of people waiting to go back to work, many of whom EI benefits have run out for. Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister again today: When is he going to dictate a solution to the problem we are now facing in the fishing industry?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I guess I would ask the member what he wants us to do. Does he want us to dictate or does he want to facilitate a negotiation?

Mr. Speaker, when we met with the various sides of the industry in January and early February, we were trying to facilitate a process whereby industry and union could negotiate prices for fish. We did that with shrimp, Mr. Speaker, and we are in the process of doing that with crab also. Unfortunately, both parties cannot agree on what the price should be. As the member knows, when I criticized him in recent years, I talked about how he needed to address the policy issues in the Province and how he needed to address the price setting mechanisms for fish in this Province. We have done that, Mr. Speaker. We did that back on January 4 and February (inaudible) -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. the minister now to complete his answer.

MR. TAYLOR: - how he would react to that.

That is what we have done, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, if he has done what he says he has done, I would not be standing here asking these questions today.

Let me ask him this, Mr. Speaker: Now that his government has forced 20,000 civil servants onto the streets of this Province and there are another 20,000 fishermen and plant workers out there without work, is he admitting that he has bungled this whole affair and that he, himself, is lost at sea? When are you going to do something to put these people back to work?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, as the member knows - he certainly knows from his time when he was minister - the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador cannot set the price for fish in this Province. We do not set the price for milk for the dairy producers. We do not set the price of potatoes for potato farmers, and we cannot legally set the price for fish.

We can, Mr. Speaker, set out the policy directions for the government in licensing, in quality assurance and so on, which is what we did. We have embarked on a process that he committed to three years ago and did not do when reviewing fish processing policy in this Province. We have, in the process, established a licensing board so that I, and the people who come after me, do not create excess capacity and overcapitalization -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. TAYLOR: - in the industry like he did when he was there, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Under our time sequence, I will now go to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

Based on the atmosphere in the House yesterday, and what I believed to be a genuine change of tone on the part of government, we all had pretty high hopes for the negotiations that were going to be taking place between the government and the public sector unions, but what we hear today, Mr. Speaker, is that the government's position is worse on a monetary basis than when the strike started.

I want to ask the Premier, sincerely, how he figures that is calculated to bring an end to this strike and to negotiate a settlement as opposed to prolonging the strike?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi has been involved in the process for a long period of time and understands the process, and he understands that right now we are at a very delicate time in the process. They have made their offer. We have responded with our counteroffer. They will be responding with their counteroffer, and that is the way the process works.

I am not prepared to discuss that in public in this Chamber when it has not been disclosed by the other side. That would be unfair and I am not prepared to do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

[Commotion in the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the members in the gallery that they are not to participate or to demonstrate in any way, or to show any approval or disapproval of any proceedings in the House. We welcome you to the gallery. There is a protocol we have, and you are always welcome in the people's House; however, you are asked not to show any disapproval or approval or to participate in any way in the proceedings.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We also hear today that the concessions being sought by the government are, in fact, more onerous than the ones that were sought at the time of the strike. I want to ask the Premier how he assumes that is calculated to bring an end to this strike as opposed to prolonging it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will have to draw his own conclusions when he sees what the proposal put forward by the union was, and ascertain whether that was a reasonable proposal and whether that was, in fact, a dramatic change of position by the union. As well, then, he can look at that from our perspective and look at what our counter-proposal was, but I do intend to respect that process. I do intend to keep it confidential. At such time as the union is prepared to disclose it and wants to disclose it in public, well then I will respect their position in doing that, and we will disclose our position at that particular point in time.

We are doing everything we can, Mr. Speaker, to try and reach a settlement here. That is our goal. We want to do it before the Easter weekend, if at all possible. I am going to respect this process and not do anything to aggravate it, unlike the Leader of the Opposition, obviously.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The thirty minutes allocated for Question Period has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been asked. Any leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been denied.

I do believe we have a point being raised by the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A point of order. I stand to be corrected on this, I am not sure I am on solid ground or not. It is not a major point but I think just in terms of practice.

I understand it is a practice of the House, that members in the House do not greet people in the galleries. If anybody is greeted in the House it is done by the Chair. We have had two days following now where the Premier has risen and greeted people. Just as a point of order, if that is indeed the practice we would ask that everybody here conform with that practice.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier, on the point of order.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if it is improper for me to acknowledge and welcome the members of the union in the gallery, then I will withdraw that comment.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will review the protocol that we follow and consult with the Table Officers, and also look at the practices that we have in our traditions. I will bring back a commentary on that on the next sitting day.

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

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Amend the Emergency Measures Act. (Bill 5)

Also, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Amend the Fire Prevention Act, 1991. (Bill 6)

Also, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Amend the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I ask the visitors in our gallery that you do not participate in any way. We want to welcome you to our House. We are always honoured to have visitors visiting our House. Again, I am asking the members if they would respect the traditions and the processes that we follow in the House and not to participate in any way in the proceedings.

Thank you very much.

The hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I also give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Amend the Municipal Affairs Act. (Bill 8)

Thank you.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I give notice that I will on tomorrow move that this House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions related to the guaranteeing of certain loans under the Local Authority Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 15)

Also, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Amend the Financial Administration Act. (Bill 16)

Also, I give notice that on tomorrow I will move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions relating to the advancing or guaranteeing of certain loans made under the Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957. (Bill 14)

Finally, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, 2000. (Bill 7)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Amend the Corporations Act. (Bill 4)

Also, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Amend the Service Charges Act. (Bill 10)

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Amend the Survival of Actions Act. (Bill 11)

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

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

I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Revise the Law About the Practice of Optometry. (Bill 9)

I also give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, An Act to Incorporate the Newfoundland and Labrador Centre for Health Information. (Bill 17)

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Cartwright- L'anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to - I say to the Member for The Straits & White Bay North, I will tell him all about it in just a minute.

The petition I am presenting today in the House of Assembly is with regard to the Labrador marine services. This is the fifth time, Mr. Speaker, that I have stood in this House of Assembly to present a petition on behalf of the people of Cartwright- L'anse au Clair as it relates to the Labrador marine services.

Mr. Speaker, for those people who have not been following this issue, there is an ongoing dispute as to whether the ferry that was designated for Labrador, for the people of Labrador, that operated between Cartwright and Goose Bay will indeed continue to operate this year, or if this government will make a decision to move the ferry out of Labrador, out of the port of Cartwright and into Lewisporte.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this has been an ongoing issue for some time. The people of my district have been more than reasonable, more than cooperative with this government on this particular issue. Back in the fall government asked for an opportunity to hire a consultant to do a review of the service. They have had a consultant's report in their possession since the middle of February, Mr. Speaker, yet they have still not released that document to the public nor have they made a decision with regard to this service.

Mr. Speaker, there are three vessels that provide marine services in that area. One is the Trans Gulf, formerly the Nada, which is a freight carrier that runs out of Lewisporte, all points north to Nain. No one in my district is contesting that portion of the service. We have always maintained and supported that the people of Northern Labrador, if they wish to use the Trans Gulf to have their freight delivered from Lewisporte, that was their wish, Mr. Speaker, and we support that.

Mr. Speaker, the other vessel is the Northern Ranger, which is a passenger carrier that services the people of Labrador running between Black Tickle, running to Cartwright, Goose Bay and all points to Nain. There has never been question whether that boat should stay or leave. It has always been assumed that it provides the best possible service from the port that it now operates at in Cartwright.

The boat that is in question, though, Mr. Speaker, is the Labrador ferry, the Sir Robert Bond, which is a passenger and freight vessel that operates between Cartwright and Happy Valley-Goose Bay. This boat started operating out of the port of Cartwright one year ago, and in one year the passenger capacity on that boat nearly doubled. That shows the indication of the demand for the service in that particular area.

In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, by operating that boat out of Cartwright government saved millions of dollars. Now, today they are deliberating over whether they will move this boat back to Lewisporte at an additional cost to the taxpayers of this Province and doing an injustice to the people of my district only for political reasons-

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS JONES: - not for economical reasons, Mr. Speaker.

May I have leave, Mr. Speaker, to clue up my comments?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: My understanding is that leave has been denied.

MS JONES: I thank the Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to clue up.

The only thing I can say in concluding my comments, Mr. Speaker, is that the Premier did give us a commitment in the fall that he would look at what was most economical -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order has been raised by the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I understand that the Government House Leader granted some leave but I do not believe the member's microphone is on and cannot be heard by the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I apologize. I was getting mixed signals and I think now leave has been formerly given. I did understand it had been given and I apologize to the member. You are free to rise and continue your presentation on your petition.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Government House Leader, for the record, for granting me leave to clue up.

In my concluding comments, I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier did make a commitment to us in the fall that he would look at that report. He would do what is most economical and most beneficial with regard to that service. We are holding him to his word.

Also, for the record, I would also like to indicate that there has been support from Western Newfoundland, all of the Northern Peninsula, Labrador West and Happy Valley-Goose Bay, organizations and groups in the form of letters, Mr. Speaker, supporting that this service should operate out of Cartwright.

I urge the government to make a decision as soon as possible.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in this hon. House today to present a petition from 1,600 people of Bell Island pursuant to a March 30, 2004 meeting held to discuss critical emerging Bell Island ferry issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne is presenting a petition. We ask the cooperation of the House so we all can hear the prayer of the petitioners and we can listen tentatively to his presentation.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the interest of time, the prayer of the petition is rather lengthy, so I will go through the highlights, Mr. Speaker.

To the Hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in parliament assembled, we the undersigned petitioners of Bell Island, as in duty bound, petition, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly.

Therefore we petition:

(A) Reconsideration of ferry rate increases; (B) Reconsideration of proposals to reduce Bell Island's ferry service and schedule by 20 per cent; (C) Proceed with an investment in 2004 to construct a new provincial replacement ferry; (D) Appeal for fairness for Bell Island in any 2004 ferry service schedule reductions; (E) Seek to renegotiate NAPE strike essential services agreement, which resulted in a cut of 95 per cent of Bell Island's daily schedule; (F) Move to have all sixteen intra-provincial ferry services designated as strike free.

As in duty bound your petitioners humbly pray.

Again, certainly as a Member of the House of Assembly, I have been asked to present a petition on behalf of 1,600 residents of Bell Island. I take great honour, Mr. Speaker, in standing and speaking for those 1,600 people on Bell Island.

MR. REID: Why doesn't the member speak for them?

MR. HEDDERSON: I make no apologies to the other side with regard to my right to stand and speak on behalf of those 1,600. Bell Island is a proud and historic community that has to depend on a viable ferry service in order to be an effective and independent -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not, at all, refute the right of any member to present a petition on any issue, at any time, on behalf of the people of the Province. For clarification, Mr. Speaker, are you aware of any rule which suggests that a member for a riding in which the service is impacted - whether they are a private member or a Cabinet minister - is prohibited in some way from presenting a petition? Because the member who is sitting right next to the person presenting the petition is the member in which the ferry service is actually located. Is there any rule, that you are aware of, Mr. Speaker, that would prohibit the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island from presenting a similar petition herself if she wanted to?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This does not constitute a point of order in that it is not something that affects the proceedings of the House. So consequently, the Chair rules that there is no point of order.

We will go back for about another thirty seconds to the hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The residents for Bell Island look upon the ferry as their marine highway, their link to the rest of the Province. They depend, Mr. Speaker, on this ferry service for their fuel, their food, their medical needs and for transportation, for a huge workforce that cross Conception Bay every day. Hundreds of workers depend on that ferry service to get to and from their daily work. The ferry is their essential lifeline for their welfare, their economic and social survival.

Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has now expired.

MR. HEDDERSON: Just a minute.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there leave for the member to continue?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, continue.

MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, on March 30 a public meeting was held on Bell Island to discuss the pending strike and the ferry service. Following that meeting, Mr. Speaker, a petition was circulated on Bell Island, and in excess of 1,600 names were affixed to that petition. I now present this petition to the hon. House on behalf of the residents of Bell Island.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure today to stand and present a petition, another petition I should say, from the people of my district, as well as into the community of Codroy Valley. It goes up as far as South Branch.

I have 1,200 names on this petition concerning the possible decrease in health care services and facilities in that area if, as anticipated, the Department of Health restructures the Western Health Care Corporation. We all know that the minister asked the corporation how they were going to save $3 million up to March 31, and $21 million over the next four years. Which, no doubt, based upon information that is in the public domain now, will lead to some very drastic cuts in health care services in that area, particularly in clinics.

Now, we heard the word coping a lot in the last couple of days in the context of: Are the health care facilities and services in the Province coping throughout the strike? Well, I can assure the members opposite and the Minister of Health, that the health care services in my neck of the woods, in Southwestern Newfoundland, are coping on an annual basis and have for many, many years. It is not a case of, we have any luxuries, or we have fat to cut out of the system. They are basically coping. What the prayer here is for, we are already down to the bones, so please do not make moves that in a cost-saving measure starts to scrape the bone. There are minimum facilities that people in rural Newfoundland need. They don't live in urban centres where they have Janeways and health care centres.

What we are asking here is that the bare minimum of clinics that these people can go to on a bi-weekly basis and see their doctor without having to incur the cost of traveling to Port aux Basques or traveling into Corner Brook, that those services would remain intact. They are conscious that this might happen, it is in the wind, you know, the old saying, where there is smoke there is fire. Well, there is certainly lots of smoke out there about what is going to happen in the health care system in this Province and in Western Newfoundland in particular.

We would ask that this minister do the honourable thing, do the right thing, and when the time comes douse any flames that exist, get rid of the smoke that is there, and give the people in South Western Newfoundland the assurance that their already bare minimum health care services and facilities will continue.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I say to the Member for Ferryland, notwithstanding the noble efforts of the previous administration to improve the situation, we kept what was there, we certainly didn't slash what was there.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I believe we are moving to Motion 1, which is the move that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

I believe we are going to hear, again this afternoon, from the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, who I believe, Mr. Speaker, if I am correct, and the information provided from your office, has spoken right now directly - because for people listening or tuning into the legislative channel, as critic on this motion she has unlimited time to speak. I do want to point out, a noble effort thus far, that she has spoken eleven hours and forty-five minutes straight; a noble effort, I want to acknowledge. My understanding is that if you speak another hour and forty-five minutes you would have broken the previous critic's record who sits across from you now.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do appreciate the comments of the Government House Leader but my intention today is not to break any records. The only record I am going to break here is telling the people of this Province how this Budget is going to impact on them and inflict the pain that we heard about last week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: I think, Mr. Speaker, it is only proper that I would talk, first today, about the issue that is close at hand, and that is the issue in our Province about 20,000 people being on picket lines all over our Province. That is a great concern to me and I am sure every member of this House.

Tomorrow is Good Friday and Sunday is Easter Sunday. This is the time of the year when you look at hope and encouragement, and it is a very important religious celebration in our Christian society. I cannot help but think what it would be like to have those 20,000 people out huddled around an oil cast with a fire going on Good Friday or Easter Sunday morning when they should be in church or celebrating at home, for the goodness that we all enjoy, celebrating with their families.

I would like to say to the government opposite, up until this very moment I have not seen any indication that we are going to see a break in that strike, and I would say to members opposite, just forget about partisan, forget about politics, forget about everything. Forget about the unusual moves that you have made, and whatever, but get to work and get this settled before the weekend is over, because I think it would be terrible to see those people out there tomorrow, on Good Friday. I just cannot imagine it.

I wanted to let this House know that over the past ten days, I suppose, I have received a lot of phone calls myself, about this strike. People are saying: What is this government going to do about the strike? This one, actually, this is the latest one that came yesterday - no, April 7 - I will not name the person but it does come from the District of Gander, an e-mail. It is addressed to the Member for Gander and it says: As my representative in the House of Assembly, I ask for your help in ending the strike.

Now, I do not think the Member for Gander is listening, because this is an e-mail which I hope he has read: Those of us in the public service made our contribution to the financial well-being of the Province with frozen wages through most of the 1990s, and I am willing to contribute again with the two-year wage freeze.

Now that was a public servant who, after going through frozen wages of ten years, in the 1990s, was willing to go through another two years of wage freezes. It says: If concessions are removed and fair salary increases follow, they will be willing to look after a two-year wage freeze. It says: Please review the e-mail below that I sent to the Premier. This is the one that the constituent in Gander sent to the Premier. It said: Dear Mr. Williams, I have seen -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask for the co-operation of the House. We are hearing the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The e-mail went on - this one was addressed to the Premier - and said: I have seen and I have heard you on the media over the last week suggesting that the majority of NAPE members would vote for your contract offer of March 31 to April 4, 2004. If presented for a vote, I would not accept that offer, primarily because of the concessions that remain on the table. I am disappointed that you omit the details of these major concessions to the media, to the public and to NAPE members.

I do not know if I am allowed to say this, but it says: A lie of omission is still a lie - although I am not blaming anybody. It says: I am willing, reluctantly, to accept the major concession of a two-year wage freeze but with fair increases after, and no concessions. I fully support and trust my negotiating team and Leo Puddister, and I am quite confident the vast majority of NAPE members are like-minded.

I think that probably sums up the sentiments of all NAPE members and probably CUPE members out there today, but I think what we are seeing, and I never thought when this strike started - this is day eight - that it would get to this proportion that we are experiencing today. I think it all goes back - and, you know, I have been riding in taxis all this week, instead of taking my vehicle to work here, out of respect for the picketers, and I have been getting off outside the Confederation Building. I think probably a lot of us respect what we hear from cab drivers, and they generally have an overall position of the general public. Most of them will say: You know, what is the problem here with this strike? Most of them will say: Well, I think the strike, the whole thing got off on the wrong foot. The whole thing got off on the wrong foot; because, as I stated in this House earlier this week, the Premier has been around this House for three years and he was an observer in the gallery prior to, and he had the consultation benefit of colleagues right around him. He had colleagues who had sat in the Opposition for twelve years, had lots of experience, and it is clear to see that he did not accept the benefit of that experience, because if he had, the first thing he would have done on becoming elected Premier, he would have put his Blue Book in his Premier's Office right on his desk and called in all of the groups to whom he made promises. The very first group that he should have called in were the people who ensure the economy of this Province. They are union membership and the leaders who represent them.

We already heard today here about the public sector membership of CUPE and NAPE. We also know that there is the Association of Registered Nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador coming up. We know about the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association. We also heard about fisherpeople. You know, you have the largest group in the Province, of people who are going to generate the dollars that are going to drive this economy.

It is interesting to make a comparison of private business and running government. It is never easy, I know, when you have to look at a bottom line on a financial statement. You can just arbitrarily make decisions if you own a company. You make those decisions, people get their pink slips and they leave, and that is all you hear of them. You do not do that in government. You certainly do not do that in government, because if people get their pink slip in government there are a lot of effects that come from that pink slip. Number one is directly to that person and their family, and it is always the indirect effect of not being able to provide the services.

I do not care what anyone says in this House; if you have five people doing one job and then you reduce it to two people, you are not going to get the same end result. You are going to have people stressed, people are going to use more sick leave, their morale is going to be shot, and they are just not going to be performing at the workplace. I do not think that is any mystery. Anyone who has been in business or has been in any kind of profession will -

[Comment from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I ask members who are visiting the gallery to respect the proceedings within the House, and I ask for their co-operation. Again, we inform you that you are always welcome; however, we ask you not to participate in debates in any kind of way.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

While I do not condone disorder in the public House, we all acknowledge that what we have heard in the past two days is definitely a feeling of frustration that workers out there are expressing. I guess we only need to put ourselves in the position of those workers who have been sitting in our gallery the past two days.

Just imagine if you were one of those workers, and yesterday was payday, and your paycheque was $200 or $210, and you had to make a mortgage payment, buy groceries, pay your heat and light, your telephone, your children have expenses and you have a car payment to make. My goodness, wouldn't that make anybody angry, frustrated and want to vent their frustration even though there are supposed to be rules in this House?

I think what is happening now, after ten days, our health care system is going to break down. It has already started. We are hearing, in the media, that there are cracks in the system. I, myself, had a call this morning from a constituent of mine. Her sister had been diagnosed just two days ago with terminal cancer, and she lives on the Northern Peninsula. She is trying, like everything, to get her sister into St. John's for immediate surgery, and I am doing my utmost. I am trying to help my constituent assist her sister in getting that surgery that her sister needs. These are the kinds of things.... All hospitals and health care facilities can generally cope - and when I say cope - they can just make do for probably four or five days. After that, there are going to be cracks in the system.

We have heard it said, and my colleague, the Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair, said today that she was repeating what she had heard in the media and from people who work at those institutions, that our elderly now are not able to take up the recreation activities that they had. In fact, some of them are confined to their beds because there is just not enough human power to take them out of their beds and sit them in chairs and do all the normal things that they used to do. Even the fact of trying to get their meals on time and having someone to feed them.

Everyone knows today that most families have two people working in a family. How are people juggling that time to actually go to these senior care homes and try to feed and dress and wash and care for their aged parents?

This is day eight and, without question, something has to be done. Something has to be done going into this Easter weekend.

I am wanting to go back now, at this time, on the path where I started. That was asking for the co-operation of union leaders when the time was right, and not expecting it after the fact. If our Premier had to do what he had promised in his Blue Book and in the speeches that he made to the NAPE convention and all the different places that he went throughout the Province prior to the election and prior to the campaign and during the campaign, he would have clearly built up the relationship with union leaders and their membership - a relationship of trust. Now, that trust has been shattered. There is no question, that trust has been shattered.

I was looking over some of the things that the Premier had said. I do not have it available to me right now, but he definitely talked about no job layoffs in the public sector, and he made that commitment to the NAPE annual convention. I think that the membership of NAPE, they bought into that. They certainly bought into that. In fact, the leader publicly expressed that the Premier has been his friend for many years, and he certainly did believe the statement that the Premier had made. He took him at his word and he encouraged his membership to do likewise, but I think - the Premier has not acknowledged this, but he should. He has not acknowledged the fact that there was no relationship of trust and goodwill built up prior to January 5 with the people he would have counted on at this particular moment to negotiate a settlement, bring it back to their members, being the best for their members and the best for the people of the Province. That is what it is all about.

There is an onerous task on union leadership. There is an onerous task, because any union leader serves a membership just the same as we serve constituents. They are tasked with the job of looking for the best package of employee benefits and wages and everything that goes into that package, whether it be severance, whether it be paid leave, vacations, and salary increase has been the key one. So, they are charged with finding the best package, the best envelope they can for the membership that they represent. That is their job.

The Premier of the Province is also charged with finding the best deal that he can for the people of the Province, and that means being able to provide the best services and being able to get the best people to provide those services at a good and fair level of salary and related benefits. Now, it is very difficult to achieve that. If you do not have a good relationship built up going into the bargaining process, it is going to put a big task on the union leader to go back and sell something to the members that he feels, in his own mind, that he cannot accept nor can he sell. Now, if the union leadership had, prior to January 5, the Premier's address to the people of this Province, if they had to have been into the Premier's Office and laid their cards on the table and said: We are approaching April 1; we know the situation in the Province. Is there some cooperation here that we can talk about from both sides? You open up the books now, Mr. Premier, and let us have a look ourselves. We have a relationship that we had built up previously, with the previous Administration. They had gone a long way. They had a new relationship with business, government and labour. I can clearly state - I was the minister in charge at that time in the Department of Labour - we had, for the first time in ten years, built up a new relationship.

You can talk to anybody out there in the business community; things were generally different. We had taken a lot of issues concerning labour off the back burner. We had brought them out to the front burner and we had dealt with them through legislation in this House of Assembly. They were pleased that there was so much action taken on the labour front.

People who operated businesses in this Province were starting to feel that we had crossed many of the hurdles in developing a common relationship because we were all scoring for the same end result, which was for the good of the whole economy.

The Premier is into a bit of a bind at this time. He is definitely into a bit of a bind. He has never - since January 5, when he came out blatantly, arrogantly, and said to the whole world, or to the whole Province, all of the workers, that they were getting a wage freeze.

If the union had been party to that announcement and felt a degree of trust and a degree of co-operation for this Premier, it could have been more palatable at the time, but it was not. It seemed to be arrogant and uncaring. It looked like, to the general public, it was strictly a business decision. It looked like it was strictly a business decision, that the Premier looked at his set of books and said: This is what we are going to do. Of course, the easiest angle through all of that was the most obvious. Most of the money paid out in government goes to public sector workers. This is the age-old tactic that most Premiers will use.

I am proud to say that since the downsizing, or right sizing, whatever was done in 1996, there have not been any pink slips given out in the fall of the year up to Christmas, or any time since.

This is the problem, Mr. Speaker. The Premier of our Province is definitely on a crossroads as I speak today, because with no interaction from the people who matter the most, a business decision was made, clear cut: I will cut this, this, this and this. He was into a bit of a tight spot because he had been out in the general public and he had made commitments that he was not going to cut out public sector jobs. So the problem was, how was he going to get around that obstacle? The way he saw about getting around that obstacle was, well, through attrition. There will not be massive cuts, because if you cut and it is not massive it is not a cut; but it is a cut. Any cut to public service employees is definitely a cut. You can say it any way you want to say it, but a cut is a cut whether it is through attrition or a layoff or whatever. If you do not replace that position that is there -

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I rise on a point of order, or more on a point of information. The member has unlimited time, so I am not eating out of any time that she would have.

I wonder, would the member acknowledge that while she was part of a Cabinet that three years prior to that government losing power, that they actually had a policy in place that, when individuals retired, they would not be replaced through attrition? Will she acknowledge for three years that was ongoing and there was no public statement on it?

I want to provide some evidence of that. In the Department of Forestry, the division of forestry within my Department of Natural Resources, for example, fifty-seven positions over a period of three to four years, what I have been told, individuals retired but were not hired back because of their policy of attrition.

I wonder, will she acknowledge that her government had a policy of attrition in place, just like this one, but the only difference is that this government has told people about it and you did not? I wonder, will she acknowledge that, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To the point of order, which the hon. Government House Leader knows full well is not a point of order, in terms of a point of information, I am not sure if he was asking a question or giving the information but in any case he knows full well that Question Period takes place by us asking the questions and not him.

We would appreciate it again that, notwithstanding the member's unlimited time, it would be greatly appreciate if he did not disrupt her cohesive presentation of the facts that she is giving to the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order; a point of clarification, probably, but definitely not a point of order.

The debate will resume with the hon. the Member for Grand Falls- Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, acknowledge that there is no point of order.

I must say that I was party to what we call regionalization, where we distributed the wealth of government employment and we put it outside the overpass. I must say, in the District of Grand Falls-Buchans we were proud to have a new addition of Fisheries and Aquaculture, where the industry is. We were proud to have medicare, MCP, and we were proud to expand the Department of Labour, and we were proud to bring in the fuel oil commissioner's office there. That is what spreading the wealth all around is about, not leaving it inside the overpass.

I remember at the time, the now sitting member of government pooh-poohed that particular move. In fact, the Member for Windsor-Springdale was against it, and it has brought economic benefit all around our Province that has become the best thing yet.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, to my speech, because I know the object of the interference was to get me off track and not speak about the particular matter at hand which is the strike. The matter at hand, as I said before, it is very easy if you are a business person and trying to make cold, hard decisions. Cold, hard decisions, when you look at your financial bottom line when you are a business person, you do the obvious and you make cuts and you move on, but when you are a part of government - I came from private enterprise myself and I had a great transition to make because my greatest obstacle, when I first came to government, was trying to rationalize, in my mind, how it took so long to get things done. Because, coming from private business, or public business - public and private - you are used to getting things done on the customer's request and providing excellent service. Within government, I had to get used to the fact that it took a long time to get the same job done in government and you had to know your way around the system and have your contacts and then you got things done. Being in business, you look at a business decision month to month, but in the case of government it is generally on an annual basis when it comes time to do a budget. So, it is not the same comparison whatsoever in making a business decision to cut out jobs as being in government and deciding to cut out jobs. If you are the Premier of a Province and you decide a make a unilateral cut in the public service, there are many things to think about. Yes, your bottom line will improve. Yes, you will not be looking at pensions to pay out in years to come, but, in fact, what you might be doing, you may be depriving people of a pension. There are many people who will leave this public service with not the required number of years. They will be getting a partial pension or no pension. Then you have to look at: Will you be able to deliver the services that the general population of this Province have been accustomed to receiving? That is another consideration. Where are the jobs going to be cut? Which sector? Which sector will be least impacted? Are you going to cut the jobs in the schools where our young students are? People in rural communities are going to have a reduced curriculum unlike if they were in a bigger centre. Are you going to cut the jobs in health care where the people are vulnerable and need excellent service, and the best of equipment, and the best of professionals, as they would in a school and education system? Are you going to cut it on the maintenance, the roads and the bridges? Are you going to cut it in service delivery, in government services?

All of these questions are real. Where are you going to cut out those jobs? You might have a rural community that might have two government jobs. Two government jobs in a small community is like having 100 in Grand Falls-Windsor or Gander. Are you going to put people on our welfare system by cutting out these jobs, that normally would not be on our welfare system? There are a lot of people working for the public sector who are receiving low wages. Now, if they are put out the door and cannot find work, are we going to then add them to our social service roles, and have to provide all the benefits that come with being on social services and all the services? That is more costly than if we had them employed. Then you have to think about, none of that money they would be normally getting is coming back into our economy. It is only a drain on our economy if they cannot produce. So, it is not like when you are a private business and you say: Well, I have a decision to make. I have to take twenty jobs out of this system, and that is it.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of mistrust, and I think that is the reason for the position we are in. I was surprised myself to see - after government laid their offer on the table for the public sector - that public sector members, CUPE and NAPE, were willing to actually go with a two year wage freeze. So they, themselves, were buying into the tonic and medicine that the Premier had proposed. But, when it came to the crunch of losing something that the NAPE and CUPE members had negotiated and bargained for, for years and years and years, that was a bitter pill to swallow. That is where the stumbling block was. I am not privy to the bargaining that is going on. What I hear is what I hear in the general public and from people themselves who are affected. I get phone calls from union members, I get phone calls from constituents, and I get phone calls from businesses around the Province that are very concerned about what is going on here today. Any community can accept a few days of inconvenience, and any facility can, but I am hearing now that the people in the Province are concerned and other unions are concerned.

There was a story today in the paper, "Nurses won't cut benefits". It says here, "As if Premier Danny Williams didn't have enough to worry about - and he does have a lot to worry about - the province's nurses have sent a stern reminder that they're waiting in the wings.

"At the call of its leadership, about 400 nurses packed a hotel ballroom Wednesday night to serve notice they're watching and learning as government grapples with one of the largest public sector strikes in the province's history."

I think what is happening now is that whatever comes out of this strike - there will be a settlement some time, every strike ends. The fallout, I think, is what is going to be important, because the last time that our public sector went through ten years of wage freezes they were absolutely demoralized. They were absolutely demoralized! Sick leave was at its highest point in our Province and they didn't feel good about their situations. There was a helpless feeling out there that they were not keeping in line with their counterparts in Atlantic Canada. That is the measuring stick. All the public sector in our Province look at their counterparts and the first place they look is Atlantic Canada. Then they look and see what other professions like theirs are paying. It is only natural that they talk amongst themselves, and if they are not making what their counterparts are making - they still have the growing expenses of running a household that everybody has. They are slipping behind and that is a demoralizing feeling and it is natural that the morale of a group like that would be shattered. That is what happens.

You are going to hear that again from nurses and you are going to hear it from teachers. Teachers put forward a strong argument to the former administration when I was there. They said that even though Dr. Williams and Dr. Sparkes had done their report, what we needed to take into consideration was the fact that the geography of our Province is so vast that - I acknowledge that myself, just flying over our Province and seeing all the communities and all the road systems, all the water systems, all the sewer systems, and the number of people scattered throughout. Providing services to Newfoundland and Labrador is the biggest challenge, I think, of any province in Canada, but what does it mean to rural Newfoundland and Labrador? If you go strictly by a report by Dr. Williams and Dr. Sparkes, you would be playing the numbers game. Based on the number of students, you would apply the number of teachers to match the number of students, and there are plenty of educators in this House who know exactly what I am talking about.

Now, that all looks well and fine in a glossy report and it looks good when you are just basically looking at black and white and numbers, but you try to tell that to somebody in rural Newfoundland who is trying to get a good education, one that when they attend Memorial University they will not flunk out in their first year because they do not want any surprises and find out they have not been doing the courses they needed to do in order to get through their first year and start a foundation on a degree program.

You tell the people in rural Newfoundland that you are going to have to get your education by long distance. You are going to have to look into a computer screen. I am sorry, but based on a certain report by a certain group of professionals who get a good report, this is what it says. We are going to live by those guidelines today and that means the following. That means, based on the new government, the Williams' government, we are going to take almost 400 teachers out of this system in the next two years. Now, how is that going to impact your school board? I do not know how that is going to impact the school board because the half messages that have been put out by this government are alarming; the half messages.

A few nights ago I had the occasion to look at Roger's Cable and I saw an interview done with the CEO for Avalon East. He was being interviewed by an interviewer who was asking the question as to how he figured the outcome of the consolidation of school boards was going to affect Avalon East and Avalon West. Well, he had a very good memory because he had gone through education reform and he had also gone through the amalgamation of school boards after that. He said, the one missing ingredient in this particular exercise that is being undertaken by the new Williams' government is the fact that there has been no consultation. No consultation. He said he recalls, himself, that when the last change was made after education reform and the new boards were put into place, before anyone at all could get down to the business of the day, which actually was dealing with student issues and curriculum, and how they could improve the well-being of students in the classroom and the teachers who were giving them guidance, before they could actually do that, it took at least three years into the system of consolidation.

This new government, called the Williams' government, is embarking on this plan of consolidating school boards. They have not gone around the Province and done one iota of consultation, not one. No consultation, just do as I say.

There is one thing at play here. There was a democratic exercise that elected all of those individual members to those school boards for four years. That is what we are so proud of in our society: democracy. Those members who were elected, democratically, have a four-year term. They are supposed to have a four-year term where they can have the say as to how their particular board should operate. The schools will have the opportunity to have representation through their board members, but what has this new government done? They said: We do not care about democracy; you are out of here.

They are definitely out of here. We have a plan. We are going to consolidate the school boards and, by golly, it is going to be up-and-running for September 1, 2004. Here are your layoff notices; you can reapply for your job. Good luck. That is what we are saying, the new government.

Do you know something? This government did not go out and consult with the people. This government did not go out and consult with the students. They did not go out and consult with the school boards. They did not consult with the community, or the Chamber of Commerce, or any players that make up the vast array of people who would be involved in the school operation of a particular board. They did not do that.

That is the part that is galling. There are communities out there today that have operations in their communities, of school boards. I do not think it is right for a government who has a new approach to come out and leave half pieces of information and then have communities fighting amongst themselves for the scraps. Communities fighting amongst themselves for the scraps, that is what it is all about. It is just tearing the whole economic fibre in half.

Right now they have come out and announced in their Budget that there will be consolidation and we are going to have mega school boards. They have not had the courage or the common decency to come out and say to communities: This is where the school board is going to be and this is going to be the makeup and this is what we can expect. We have done the consultation, we have done our homework, and this is the new plan. Instead of that, they have run roughshod over the people, with no care or concern.

Now, for a Premier who has a right-wing agenda of doing everything with the justification that it is for the generations to follow, I do not think anyone there now - young people - can take much heart from that. If he is making these decisions and the justification of the generations to follow, if I were a young person out there today looking for a job, I would be a little bit concerned. I would be a little bit disappointed and I would be discouraged. I would be discouraged. I am discouraged as an adult, as a parent and as a politician, but I am trying to give hope to the people in my constituency and the people around the Province. I would definitely be concerned because if this is the idea of helping the students, deciding on consolidation of school boards without any input from those who are going to use it the most, what is there in this right-wing agenda that gives any encouragement to a young person who is looking to be employed in this Province today?

Prior to January 5, young people around our Province were ecstatic. They were feeling good; they were involved. There was a group, as the former Administration, an advocacy group of young people advocating on behalf of their peers, independently, providing information to government through non-partisan makeup. Everybody had to apply and they were selected from officials in the department, based on their gender, their geography, and their skills that they could bring. It was a good group and they brought a lot of good information to government through way of their group and also the Canadian Federation of Students. All around the Province, students were genuinely interested in talking to government and letting us know, when we were the government, what their needs were.

Of course, based on our fiscal capacity we made incredible changes in the past three years, so much so that our first budget, under the leadership of our present Opposition Leader, was an education budget. We were very proud of that one, and every student in the Province will acknowledge that.

What does a student have to look forward to today when they know that they cannot apply for a job in the public service? There will be 4,000 jobs gone that will not be replaced. They have been ordered - the two primary public institutions in our Province, the College of the North Atlantic and Memorial University, which we are all so very proud of - to find $2 million each within their budget. That means that either program delivery is going to be decreased or people will lose their jobs. If people lose their jobs, they are not able to deliver programs so effectively.

In addition to that, there is no hope - according to a Doug House report - that rural Newfoundland will be maintained as we know it today. That is a frightening prospect. That is a frightening prospect. It is very well for professional officials to sit in the office at Confederation Building, look into their computer screen and map out what they feel is the be-all and end-all for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I can tell you something now. If you come from rural Newfoundland and Labrador - I suppose, growing up in Carbonear, you would not exactly call it rural. We were only about - in those days - about an hour-and-a-half from St. John's. It is closer now with the improved highway. I understand rural Newfoundland, growing up without indoor plumbing. I understand all of that. I experienced all of that. I have experienced everything since I have been a politician.

I know what it is like to go to the food bank and pick up a bag of groceries for a constituent. I know what that is like. I know what it is like to lobby to try to get false teeth for a person. I know what it is like to try to get home care. I know what it is like to try and lobby to get an apparatus put in a bathroom so a disabled person can be comfortable. I know what it is like to lobby Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to get a piece built on a house because there is a disabled person who needs to put a bedroom there. I know what it is like to go to Value Village and pick up clothing for a constituent in my district. I know all about this stuff.

I know what it is like to be a politician around rural Newfoundland, but I do not know if Dr. Doug House knows what it is like. Because if you can sit down in your office in the new Department of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development and you can map out what you feel is the answer to the economic woes of this Province, without experiencing it firsthand, day to day. He has a twelve-year plan that he had prepared. He had this plan prepared twelve years ago and he was waiting for the opportunity when he could put this into action. Now, his first assignment - and I am not saying anything negative about the man. I am not saying anything negative about the man. All I can say is that his vision of economic development is probably not the same as most people in the Province. He developed a plan twelve years ago which was not, at that time, acceptable to that particular government. He had an opportunity some few months ago to write what we know today as the Blue Book for the Tory Party. He was the author of the Blue Book for the Tory Party, the one that wrote all the promises that the new government now are trying to hide under the desk and wiggle around.

MR. GRIMES: Who was that, the Premier himself or Doug House?

MS THISTLE: Doug House.

MR. GRIMES: Doug House.

MS THISTLE: Doug House.

MR. GRIMES: The unelected minister.

MS THISTLE: The unelected minister.

So, right now the new government are in a bit of a quandary. They are trying to wiggle around everything that is in that Blue Book by coming up with a new legal word. So cuts, unless they are massive, are not cuts in the public service.

MR. REID: If you open half of the hospital, you have opened it.

MS THISTLE: My colleague just mentioned to me, my colleague from Twillingate & Fogo - and I heard him this morning on the Open Line. By golly, he is a politician with a heart. He is from Carbonear, where I am from, and I am proud to say that, and we have another colleague here from Carbonear-Harbour Grace. I can tell you, this colleague from Twillingate & Fogo has a heart. He championed and lobbied to have a new hospital in Fogo, despite, Mr. Speaker, all the activity and the protests and the to and fro of people on the Island. Eventually, it came together and Fogo Island was the recipient of a brand new health care facility. This member here, I can remember when he was lobbying us in Cabinet for that, and he put forward a really strong case. He is a politician that understands rural Newfoundland. He knows his district needed that new facility. We found, as part of the former administration, the money to build that facility. I think it was somewhere in the vicinity of $17 million - was it?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Thirteen million dollars to build a facility on Fogo Island; a brand new facility. Now, everything was going good. The Premier of our Province was out in Gander this week. He was not out on Fogo Island. Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I said the Premier of our Province this week was out in Gander for some kind of a luncheon that someone had arranged, or he arranged. In the midst of that, we heard from the media after that he made a very troubling announcement which was going to affect the people on Fogo Island. He made a decision - I do not know, by himself or on the fly, or somewhere. I do not think the Health Minister knew anything about it. I tell you what else is important, the mayor never knew anything about it. None of the mayors out there on Fogo Island knew anything about it, or any people in the health care, they did not know anything about it. The people in the Province did not know anything about it, his Cabinet did not know anything about it, and his caucus did not know anything about it. He made an announcement out in Gander, when questioned, that the Fogo Hospital is going to open with only half the hospital available to the people on Fogo Island. Now, can you imagine how callous and heartless someone could be, as to come out and make an announcement like that?

I understand that the Minister of Health does not know, and she just left this House. How can a Premier, in the height of the biggest strike in this Province's history, head out in the middle of it for a luncheon engagement? Then to slap news like this on the general population and the people of Fogo Island, and aggravate people like that without having the common decency and courtesy - never told a member, never told his caucus, never told the Cabinet, never told any mayor on Fogo Island, not one, that he was going to do this, and to come out and levy that on the people of Fogo Island. I mean that is callous, that is heartless. What other words can you use to describe it?

It is just like the Minister of Human Resources and Employment and the Minister of Finance in his Budget, they came out and said they were going to close twenty offices of Human Resources and Employment. They never had the courage, they never had the compassion, they never had the decency to come out and give the rest of that announcement. No, they never had the gumption to do it; the soul.

Anyway, there are twenty communities out there somewhere in our wonderful Province that is going to lose these offices. There are also many people -

MR. REID: Probably the one in Fogo.

MS THISTLE: It might be Fogo. It could be anywhere in my district. It could be in members across the way or it could be anybody here. We do not know. That gives rise to the next question. Was there any planning? Was there any consultation? Was there any interaction with the people who use that system? No, I do not think so. That was a decision that was made by one person. Every time the Minister of Human Resources and Employment is asked that question, she does not know the answer. She does not know the answer.

That gives rise to the other question. They are talking about integrating hospital boards. Now, has there been any consultation done on that?

MR. REID: Not a word. Just like they did with the school boards.

MS THISTLE: The same thing as they did with the school boards. There is a big void in this government and it is called connecting with the people. There is a big void in this government. I said yesterday, when I stood on my feet, this very important phrase: the biggest casualty of this government has been the truth.

If you mind to look at any decision that has been made by this government - although I doubt if it is the entire government that is making the decisions. I have seen a lot of members in the nosebleed section here since we opened this House, they have had to look down at their desks. I have seen members in the nosebleed section of the government, they could not look me straight in the face, and they could not look at members on this side of the House straight in the face because they know the medicine that is being proposed for the people of this Province is going to inflict a lot of pain. There has been no consultation done with the people. There is no connection to the government and the people.

Who does the government work for? That is the next question. Who does the government work for? Who elected this Member for Grand Falls- Buchans? Who elected this member?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I ask that the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans be heard. She has been recognized by the Chair and if members would show some respect and allow her to speak.

I call on the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans to continue with her wisdom.

MS THISTLE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

It is clear that the members of the governing side do not take this exercise very seriously. They are laughing in their seats and yet, here they are, they have to deal with 20,000 people who are stood around an oil cast out there today stroking a fire. That is what they have to deal with over Good Friday, tomorrow, and Easter Sunday, and they are sitting back in their chairs laughing away.

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

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

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

It is one thing to stand and have the opportunity to do what you want to do. That is fair enough and that is not for me to judge or not to judge, but, Mr. Speaker, to play to the cameras like the member just did, to say that members on the government side are all laughing when you stood up and asked members, all members, on both sides of the House, to hear the hon. member.

She knows full well that there were a number of members engaged in conversation on both sides of the House. For her to insinuate or leave the impression that government members on this side were all laughing at what she was saying, she knows that not to be true. She is standing right here; she knows it not to be true. Her own colleagues to the left of her were engaged in conversation with colleagues on the other side of the House and the impression is wrong. I ask the member if any of us, at any time, are doing that, fair enough, but not to leave an impression that you know not to be true and try to leave that with the public who might be listening to you.

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

MR. PARSONS: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

This is the second time this afternoon the Government House Leader has stood up. Again, I would submit it is not a point of order. It might be a point, it may be a valid point, but it is not a point of order.

I guess all of us here, from time to time, maybe smile some times when we are not supposed to smile and people make remarks and so on. What he himself, in addressing the issue, has done is exactly what he is suggesting that the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans has done, which is trying to make another side, or someone in this House, feel inappropriate or in some way had done something inappropriate.

I think, again, I would say we have done okay in the past couple of weeks except for some incidents in this House. Hopefully, we are going to get back on the right track, but I think if we keep interjecting at every opportunity just to get one up on somebody in this House again we are going to find ourselves back to where I thought we had moved on from.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair recognizes there is no point of order. The actions of individuals here in this House sometimes are not related to what members are saying in their speech. There is certainly no point of order, but I ask all members of the House if they would be kind enough to allow the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, who has been recognized by the Chair, to speak without interruption. If there is a conversation to be carried out, maybe it can be done on the outside or behind the Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly appreciate your ruling on that particular point of order. There was no point of order and that is about, I suppose - I have not been counting, but I think it is up in the high forties, the number of times I have been interrupted since I started my speech, by a member from the other side. Anyway, that is not going to deter me, not in the least.

Before I was interrupted, I was saying: How did people in this House of Assembly get elected? Now, I am the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans. I did not get elected by a broker on Wall Street. I did not get elected by a broker on Wall Street or Water Street. I got elected by people, real people, in Grand Falls-Buchans. I am proud and privileged and honoured that they gave me another chance to do the work for them for the next term. They have put their confidence in me and I certainly will not let them down. I will be vigilant for their concerns. I appreciate the chance to do that, but the government here in this Province was elected by the people. Now, they are only in government a very short time and if they have not made any connections so far with the people who put them there, they should be worried. They should be worried. They should be really worried, because I have seen members opposite, I have seen the members there who are not into Cabinet, and they have been watching events in this House and they have been concerned. They have been concerned; there is no two ways about it. They show it. They show it - expressions and sometimes expressionless faces. They look down at their work on their desk and they cringe in their seats. They have to go back and report to their constituents as well as anyone else.

It is time that this government look at their past performance over the past few months. I will not get them a rating on their House session. That will be left for the people of the Province to do. They can do the rating on that, but we have on our hands today a very serious situation. I, for one - and I know that all members feel the same way - want that matter cleared up because it is having a huge effect. I saw an article in the paper from the Mayor of St. Anthony. The Mayor of St. Anthony was very concerned about how this is hurting his community economically. I have heard from mayors all over the Province. They are concerned. They were concerned January 5 but they felt that once April 1 came and the matter of the public sector labour dispute was looked after, they would be okay, but we are into day eight and I wonder: Is there any end in sight? I really sympathize with the people who are out there tomorrow, on Good Friday. That is going to be hard to look at. That is going to be hard to look at. I think what the Premier needs to look at is the lesson and the comments that he is hearing in the media. People want straightforward answers and they want to see a sign of compassion. They want to see someone being reasonable, and I think if you go by that and try to develop the relationship, instead of destroy it, you might get a settlement.

I was listening to, the other night, the open line show, and the Member for Gander talked about the hard-core reality the fiscal situation. He said: There are serious problems in the health care which first must be addressed. There is a serious shortage of doctors in his own district, and thousands of people do not have a physician.

Well, you know, I am proud to say that we were an Administration that addressed the shortage of doctors in this Province. We addressed it by providing funding to hire new doctors and also funding to increase the pay scales of doctors.

I understand there is an issue in Gander. He also said that people in his district agreed with the Budget measures that were brought down last week. I wonder, is that the real truth? I do not think so. When we were the government, people from Gander were continually asking for the completion of their hospital. They were asking for the completion of their hospital and, I can tell you, the former member, the Cabinet minister, was successful in attracting some $65 million to that particular health care facility, and for the new member to come out and say that the people now are satisfied and they are going to take their medicine, and they are not concerned about the hospital being deferred, I do not know if that is the real impression of the people of Gander. I wonder, is he really speaking for his constituents? It is hard to say, isn't it? The e-mail that I read out here this afternoon was addressed to the Member for Gander, asking him to get involved.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Then there was another gentlemen from Goose Bay who called in, and he was saying that every since the election it has been a slap in the face for Labrador. He said: I hope that Labradorians will finally see that it is time to go their own way if residents want a fair share of their resource.

What kind of an opinion on Labradorians is out there when an allocation of $2 million for the Supreme Court in Happy Valley-Goose Bay has been given and the school auditorium is not going to be built?

AN HON. MEMBER: The Rooms is supposed to be opened, The Rooms.

MS THISTLE: The Rooms. Now, I can tell you, when we were a part of government, making a decision to put - it started off to be $40 million in The Rooms, and the latest count, I think, from government's commitment, was about $56 million and growing by the day.

Now, there are so many needs for government dollars all around this Province, to make a commitment for a facility like The Rooms, which was an important facility, it needed to be done, I was proud to be part of that decision.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: I said I was proud to be part of that decision.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: I said I was proud to be part of that decision. I said, when you are part of a government and a Cabinet you have to make decisions, but now the decision to not build an auditorium in favour of a courthouse, that is your decision. That is your decision.

MR. REID: The Minister of Tourism says the decisions made in the Budget were not his.

MS THISTLE: Oh, is that what he said?

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't say (inaudible).

MR. REID: That is what he just said. Can you imagine?

MS THISTLE: Oh, I definitely believe that the decisions in the Budget were not the decisions of the Cabinet and the caucus. I said last week in this House that I would expect that the first time the members of the government saw that Budget was when they went to the Budget lock-up. That is the very first time.

Then, there was another caller who said: There is nothing in the Budget for Labrador, apart from a few social workers, and I think that is being questioned right now. He said: Now, how about the closing of the road between Red Bay and Lodge Bay? I won't repeat the next part of it because it might damage someone's -

AN HON. MEMBER: The exhibition centre in Corner Brook is cancelled.

MS THISTLE: The exhibition centre in Corner Brook is cancelled?

MR. REID: That is the only thing that was cancelled in the district.

MS THISTLE: I think that was probably the only thing. I think that was the only thing, because the preference was given in this Budget to the Premier's district only. The Premier ended up with the long-term care facility. The Premier ended up with the only MRI outside of St. John's. He said no to the cancer clinic in my district. He said no to the Grand Bank hospital. He said yes to the Fogo hospital, I would say, in the beginning, and he said no last week, and he is going to open half the hospital out there. He said no to the CT scanner down in Burin. You know, there have been a lot of noes and we know there is only one yes, and that is over in the Premier's own district which is a bit unfair, if anyone was to make a rationale statement.

I think what is the most important telling evidence of this whole entire Budget is the fact that there is a lot of lashing going on and pain being inflicted. Where is the pain inflicted? The pain is inflicted on the people of the Province.

Now, this Premier was elected, in my opinion, for one reason. There may be others who would differ with me, but in my opinion this Premier was elected for one reason. The biggest promise this Premier made - what do you think it was? The biggest promise that this Premier said he was going to do was grow the economy in a new way.

MR. REID: And not lay people off.

MS THISTLE: And not lay people off.

Now, I am seeing in this book how he is going to balance the books. He is going to balance the books on the public sector out there today. He is going to balance the books on the senior citizens who cannot get a subsidy for their heating costs. He is going to balance the books on everyone who is out there trying to license a vehicle. That is his idea of economic development.

The ambulance trips alone have gone up 53 per cent.

MR. GRIMES: Without even consultation with the (inaudible) out there.

MS THISTLE: No, he never called them. In fact, I heard in the media that their meeting for April 12 was cancelled; forget it. Their meeting was cancelled.

Cross country skiing has gone up 25 per cent. Camping, weekly, has gone up and monthly, has gone up. Everything here has gone up. Most of it has gone up about 30 per cent. Firewood has gone up 25 per cent, if you are going to have a fire in the park and a barbecue. The driver's licenses have gone up 25 per cent. Photo ID, 25 per cent. My good Lord! Everything here on this sheet has gone up anywhere from - the lowest, I think, is 5 per cent and it has gone up as high as 100 per cent, 500 per cent, you name it. It is too much of an increase to talk about. That is the Premier's answer, right there, to balancing the books, this sheet of increases.

There is absolutely nothing in the Budget about economic development. The only thing that is in this Budget about economic development is creating Doug House's favorite project. Doug House's favorite project is this thing called Rural Secretariat. Now, for the people out in rural Newfoundland and Labrador today who might be watching television, when there are lots of important things you could be doing on a Thursday afternoon, but if they are watching and they want to know what the Rural Secretariat is, if it is alive or if it is an animal or a product or what it is - anyway, it is a layer of administration that has all the answers on how to bring economic prosperity to our fair Province. That is what it is. Now, where it is going to be or what it is going to look like or what colour it is going to be - well, we know what colour it is going to be; it is going to be blue. No matter where that office is, it is going to be painted blue. I expect that it is going to be blue news too, for the rest of the Province.

Everything that is out there in economic development today is no good, according to the new Rural Secretariat. Anyone who has anything happening now in their communities, forget it. You have been following the wrong plan. The new and improved plan that was on the shelf and in the can for twelve years has now been let out. There is going to be a big announcement when the Rural Secretariat is unveiled. We are going to let that plan come out of the can and we are going to dust it off and that is going to be the answer. Now, that new answer for rural Newfoundland is going to cost - no, it is not going to cost $100,000 or even $500,000, not even $1 million. Guess what? It is going to cost $1.7 million. That is the starting figure, mind you. That is only the starting figure.

MR. REID: For what?

MS THISTLE: For this new thing that is coming out of the hopper called Rural Secretariat. There is a new plan, everybody should get ready. You do not need to hire an advertising firm because I can do that for you here today. It is going to be called Rural Secretariat and it is going to look the colour blue. The biggest thing we are going to notice is the big price tag dangling off the side of that plan.

MR. REID: It is easy for them to throw that commitment away because there will be nothing left to rural Newfoundland by the time they get it running.

MS THISTLE: That is right.

Anything that is being done in rural Newfoundland so far, rural Newfoundland and Labrador, anything that has been done so far has to be thrown out the window. It is almost like the new toothpaste with the whitening that can give you the best smile. Well, this new brand of economic development, that is called a Rural Secretariat - and it comes in the shade of blue. We do not know now if everyone who is going to work in that layer of administration, under the blue plan, what they are going to look like or how they are going to preform, but his answer is the tonic. It is the best thing that came out so far. The new tonic for economic development, hidden at the end of the Budget. We have a $4 billion Budget here.

I was looking today at the economic tiger. Does anybody know where the economic tiger came from? The statement that was made -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

This was like the last paragraph in the Budget Book that was delivered last week. "We are taming the fiscal tiger..." In other words he is saying he is going to dampen the economy. "We are taming the fiscal tiger while at the same time we are preparing to unleash an economic tiger that will bring prosperity and opportunity to communities and people throughout Newfoundland and Labrador."

This new Rural Secretariat, I suppose they will have a tiger on the door of that, will they? The fiscal tiger is going to be on the door of this Rural Secretariat. I can see it now. Everyone who works there, in that Rural Secretariat, is going to have one of those fiscal tigers on their shirts and a hat to match.

This is the Budget the Minister of Finance brought down. He said, "This year's budget is a foundation for optimism." I do not know what optimism school he went to but I would not want to be a student there. "It is a foundation for hope." The foundation for hope. Good Lord! If I wanted to be cheered up I certainly would not read that Budget. It is blue. The Budget is blue, just like the words that are coming out of it. He said: It is a foundation for hope and a foundation for optimism.

Well, you know there has been a lot said and done about economic development in this Province over the past ten years. I can honestly say that we had a good feeling in this Province. We had turned the corner. I would be the first one who could stand here and say how wonderful the attitudes of people had gotten around the Province. Attitude is everything. When people look at success; success breeds success. You can see that when a subdivision starts up. When a new subdivision starts up in a community and people start to build, there is a new interest generated. There is a new interest generated by other people within that same community. As a result of that, you see people wanting to start to build new houses all over the place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask that members on both sides of the House stop their conversation back and forth and allow the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans to be heard. The Chair has recognized the member and I ask that we show some respect for the member to speak.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I certainly do not want to lose my voice at this point. I do want to be able to continue until my time is up.

As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, success breeds success. If a particular community or business is doing well other people take notice and they want to follow in that same vein. I think that is what happened all over our Province, that people felt that good things were happening. I know that the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation would agree with that statement because we have had a steady increase of visitors to our Province since the Cabot Celebrations in 1997.

There has been a lot of good marketing done by the Department of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. Operators in this Province were feeling good about the number of tourists visiting our Province. It is a known fact that the biggest makeup of visitors are ourselves. They are ourselves. You and I, and everybody else in our Province, do a lot of going to and from all over our Province every summer. We also consume a lot of goods. We burn a lot of gas. We stay in hotels and we contribute to every community within our Province. But, if people do not have work and they do not have a positive outlook on their futures, they are not going to visit around our Province. If we are sending a message to the outside world of doom and gloom people are not going to want to come here because you are going to see that if there is no work in a community the tourist operators will dry up. They will not have the same interest in renovating their premises if they know they are not going to expect to receive the same type of visitors that they had around our Province.

I can tell you, in our Province we are developing a wonderful winter tourism strategy. We certainly are. The past few winters we have been blessed with an abundance of snow, almost all over our Province, and that has contributed greatly to snowmobiling and skiing and winter activities.

There is a lot of money spent on winter tourism and summer tourism in our Province, and there is a lot of money spent on fishing, and there is a lot of money spent on hunting, and there is a lot of money spent on all kinds of outdoor activities. Being able to do all these things is paramount to a Newfoundlander or a Labradorian. It is important that we always maintain that right to be able to do these activities on the outside.

If a person in our Province is faced with the prospect of losing their job, that will cause them to do a lot of things that they wouldn't normally do. What do you do if you are faced with the prospect of losing you job? If you can't find another one in this Province, you do the obvious, you head out, you absolutely head out. That is not what we want to see. We don't want to see anybody leaving our Province. We want to see all the people who are graduating now in another two or three weeks - it will be a wonderful sight to sit on the stage up at the Arts and Culture Centre and see hundreds and thousands of young people walking across that stage and picking up their degrees, their certificates, their diplomas. They are full of hope and aspiration that they, indeed, will actually have a chance to make a life for themselves and, hopefully in the future, for their families right here in this Province. That is the plan of any student graduating today.

We were able to foster that plan in the past by making it easier for young people to get an education, actually providing a way that they could have the Newfoundland and Labrador portion of their student loan wrote off. That was a plan of the former administration. We were able to bring in a graduate employment program. We all know that the hardest thing today is to get a job without any experience.

We have three young people in our House of Assembly who are university students and I am sure they would tell you - this is their part-time job here in the House of Assembly and they are doing a good job. It is a wonderful experience for them. I am sure the Pages, when they leave here and go into the real world, will have garnered as much experience, that will teach them about the real world, as they need to be equipped with. They are doing a good job. They will tell you, first-hand, if you are interviewing a young person the hardest thing for young people to do is get a job when they don't have experience.

Employers today, when they look at young people's resumes, look at basically what they have been involved in prior to looking for a job. If they can demonstrate on a resume that they have been involved in a volunteer capacity that would broaden their horizons and show a lot of things about a young person, any young person who volunteers within their community, their church or their school, it says a lot about a young person. It shows that they can manage their time, that they have developed interpersonal skills, that they have gone through the training period, probably Red Cross or some lifesaving safety training that would make them prepared. If they have been involved in their high school in all kinds of activities, it shows that they are an outgoing person and they have the skills they need to be able to interact socially and they are honest and they are trustworthy and they would make a good candidate for a job.

Now, we helped along that process quite a bit when I was in the former Administration because we decided that we would put more money into the process of actually ensuring that our young people were able to get a creditable work term when they were attending university or a post- secondary institution. There was $3 million put into that plan last year. We found that went a long ways because a number of young people find it difficult to get a proper work term related to their chosen profession or their profession that they are studying at university or post-secondary. Making that money available has gone a long way in providing young people with work terms.

There is another aspect of that plan and it provides the salary - half a salary, up to $10,000 - for an employer to hire a first time graduate looking for that job actually in the workplace. That has done wonders because the employer would be able to take on a new person, a young person, without experience, and give them the opportunity to prove for themselves that they were actually capable of adapting to the particular workplace and making progress. In most cases - I had been checking, when I was in the former department, through the officials - employers generally hired that person if they were able to demonstrate that they were able to apply the skills that they have learned through their education into the new job. They were generally hired. These are the kinds of things that make it easier for young people to get work.

Another plan was the apprenticeship program which allowed a young person to actually get hands-on experience - hands-on experience in a manufacturing situation - and see if that particular profession might have been for them. That was another way to ensure that young people had exposure to the workplace and they would be able to gain experience.

Then, of course, there has been all the victories that young people have gained, students have gained, in being able to have interest relief on their student loans, and actually a write-off of a provincial student loan if they met the criteria and did their courses in time. In addition to that, young people were in a position that they had a say; they had a say into the actual policies that were being made on their behalf.

Now, it is fine for officials and politicians to sit in Confederation Building and design a policy that they feel is going to be the best thing for our young people, but if young people are the ones who are actually going to run this Province in the future, wouldn't it be right for young people to have a say in developing those policies?

I witnessed here, just two weeks ago, in the House of Assembly, legislation, Bill 1, that excluded young people from the process. That bill was all about young people. It was called the student loan financial assistance act. It was supposed to be the cornerstone of this brand new government. It was supposed to be a shining piece of legislation that would carry them through this sitting of the House, but what did it turn out to be? It turned out to be political maneuvering, done ahead of time, unnecessarily, and there was a point in that legislation where students could have been included and added to the makeup of that policy. Still, for all of that, there was a new corporation announced that would be called the Student Loan Corporation of Newfoundland and Labrador, that would be entirely responsible for the actual managing and the distribution of the entire student loan package. At this particular time, it is valued at about $220 million.

In other words, what that says is that the students in our Province, both the ones who are currently studying and the ones who have graduated, are in debt. They were previously in debt to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. They are currently in debt to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Now, the new government had an opportunity; they could have included our young people as part of that corporation so they could have a say in the actual policy-making surrounding it, but they decided not to. They decided to have officials entirely look after that Student Loan Corporation. We pleaded with them here in this House. We begged them to include students, but they did not see that as being the right thing to do and they excluded students from that policy-making part of government, which is wrong.

Out of the entire Budget there I did not see anything for students. I saw a continuation of some of the work that we had done. We had been able to bring in tuition decreases by a total of 25 per cent over the past few years. What this new government did, after massive protests - particularly in the Premier's own district, in the Premier's own office, and right here on the Parkway on Prince Philip Drive - they bended, after considerable public pressure and from the people who mattered the most, the students. They had some help. They had help from the union as well. Many public figures attended rallies, gave support to the students, and rightly so. They bended, and they should have. They decided they would go with a wage freeze for the College of the North Atlantic this year - I am sorry, a tuition freeze. There are so many things about freezes in the air today, it is easy to be confused. They went with a tuition freeze at the College of the North Atlantic and also at Memorial University, but they reneged on their Blue Book promise. They did that one day and when the Budget came out - this Budget here, their blue Budget - they said: Too bad. I gave you a tuition freeze but guess what? Guess what, College of the North Atlantic? Guess what, Memorial University? You are going to pay the price. I said in my Blue Book that I was going to give you enough money to offset your operating costs if you provide a tuition freeze, but I really did not mean that, Mr. University or Mr. College of the North Atlantic. That was what I said in the Blue Book, but this is the Budget book. That is blue too, but it is called the Budget book. It is not the blue Tory Blue Book, okay? Get that straight, Mr. University and Mr. College of the North Atlantic. I said that in the Blue Book.

This is the real stuff. This is Budget day, and if you have your tuition freeze we are giving you the gears. Go back. We are giving you the gears. You go back now, Mr. University, and you find $2 million to offset that tuition freeze. I do not care how you find it, but do not come back to me to look for anything else. Now, College of the North Atlantic, you got your tuition freeze; you do the same. Get back - this is the Budget book, not the Blue Book - go back and find that $2 million now, and I do not care how you find it. You are the one who is doing the identification on this, as it was called. Identify $2 million. We asked Memorial University and the College of the North Atlantic to each identify $2 million in expenditure reductions this year. So, whoever is in charge of identification - now, there is going to be someone in charge of identification for Memorial University and there is going to be someone in charge of identification for the College of the North Atlantic. Now this is identification of money, nothing else. So they had a job on their hands. The first thing they had to do was go back and start the identification process.

If you were Memorial University and you were thinking - because you were used to dealing with the former administration when they found $5 million for research and development. Memorial University had found $5 million for research and development from the former administration. That $5 million was expanded by the research and development agencies right across the country, and that $5 million expanded and attracted almost $50 million. That is what that did. Because of that seed money of $5 million that Memorial University had gotten from the previous administration, they were able to go into new programs, hire new people, bring in a whole new set of learning, and new policies and new projects that were only imagined in the past.

I must say that the President of Memorial University has been doing a marvelous job. He is such a forward-thinking person that he has actually brought new life to Memorial University. He has been so successful at attracting international students. Normally, when a population declines in a Province, where do you go to get students to fill up the university? If you have the infrastructure, the buildings there, you cannot keep them empty. You must have students to fill them up and pay for the expenses of keeping the faculty and everything going. Well, this president has been so successful in attracting international students that he has been able to keep up the population and expand the population, and that says a lot.

It is a pretty competitive area in universities right across Canada and around the world today, looking for international students; because, number one, international students generally, if they have had a good experience at your particular university, they will go back and tell their friends and it will naturally develop a market. Not only that, international students pay a little bit more in tuition and so on. It is a source of revenue generation. Naturally, our Memorial University, under the leadership of Dr. Axel Meisen, has been very successful in this area, and I certainly congratulate him for it. In fact, the College of the North Atlantic acquired, some years back, the biggest contract for delivering education outside of our country. The biggest contract ever in all of Canada for delivering education outside our country.

Looking abroad and being able to deliver education outside of our own Province has been done. Everyday we are hearing of a new possibility of being able to provide education, whether it be through the Internet or even in a classroom setting, in the Caribbean, in Vietnam, in South America, Mexico. All over the world people are realizing that we have a very high quality educational product to offer. It has been a mainstay for the Memorial University. The population is where it should be but I do not know any young person who feels good about their situation, and they should. They have been able to get a wonderful education here in this Province. The lifestyle is superb, without question.

I believe that for a new Premier and a new government coming to power the absence of encouragement and hope was glaring. The absence of encouragement and hope for the younger generation of our Province was glaring in its absence. I do not know why this new government did not seize that opportunity. They have thirty-four elected members, and the center of the university is here in St. John's where the majority of the Cabinet members are. There are ten in the Cabinet from urban Newfoundland and Labrador; mostly the Avalon Peninsula. There are four from so-called rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is a mistake, in my opinion. That is a mistake. That is definitely a mistake because who feeds the population of Memorial University? Do you think it is the St. John's population? Not entirely, not by a long stretch. It is the young people from all around the coast of our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Who generates the money here on Water Street and in the retail trade in the Avalon Mall, the Village Mall, Stavanger Drive and Mount Pearl? Is it the people in St. John's and Mount Pearl? I do not think so. No, it is the people from Fogo, Twillingate, Bay Roberts, Burgeo, Grand Bank, Ramea, English Harbour West, Bellevue, Mary's Harbour, L'Anse au Loup, Windsor-Springdale, and all of those places. They spend their money here in St. John's. That is what contributes to the whole Province.

If we are prepared in this Province to go along with Dr. Doug House's plan - are we prepared to go along with Dr. Doug House's plan in this Province? Because, if we do, his plan is that there would be no rural Newfoundland and Labrador. His plan is that there would be two or three mega centres. His plan would be that he would separate the Province very much like it is now, like the school boards are proposed. We are coming out with half of that information, or maybe only a quarter of it, because what he did was, he spoke to the Chamber of Commerce in Bay St. George, according to the newspaper report. I do not know why he spoke to the Bay St. George Chamber of Commerce, because a deputy minister rarely speaks and gives an account of a policy direction of a government without a Cabinet minister making that announcement.

That was the surprising part about it when, in the Western Star, Dr. Doug House had mapped out a new economic development plan for the entire Province, and he was going to announce it. I do not know if he was announcing it on behalf of the minister, on behalf of the Premier, or on behalf of himself.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier.

MS THISTLE: The Premier, was it?

Anyway, that was a surprising thing. I could not believe my eyes when I read it in the newspaper, how the Deputy Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development - a new name - was out in Bay St. George making - it is a government policy. He was announcing a government policy as if he were the minister representing the government. Can you imagine? He was out announcing a new direction for the Williams' government. I do not know if the Premier ever took him to task on that, or did he give him the authority to do it? I thought I would hear about that in the form of a Ministerial Statement in the House one day. No Ministerial Statement coming from the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. No Ministerial Statement coming from the Minister of Natural Resources.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the Minister of Business.

MS THISTLE: No Ministerial Statement coming from the Minister of Business, the man at the top. No Ministerial Statement coming from the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation. Definitely no statement from the Premier of the Province with the office in Ottawa at $350,000 a pop every year to the people of this Province; but, here we have a deputy minister, an official with no authority, coming out and telling the Bay St. George business community: Look, this is the policy of this new government and this is what we are proposing. We are proposing there are going to corridors of economic development over the entire Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. He said: I am here today to announce the very first corridor of economic development for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. It is almost like something Stone Cold would say.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the tunnel.

MS THISTLE: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS THISTLE: Or the tunnel. The tunnel, is it? No, the tunnel was the European one.

Anyway, this is what he came out and proposed. Can you imagine, an official in a department undertaking to announce something that would set the direction for the new government for years to come, if they hang around - if they hang around. Now, he did not consult - the most important one he did not consult with was his minister, and he did not consult with the Premier, but he had this twelve-year policy and he had it in a great big policy tin. It was something like this, see, but it was bigger. Now, he had a twelve-year policy plan for economic development but it was in a big case. It was in a bigger case than my glass case, I guess. It was on a shelf, and every day for twelve years, while he was out of government, he went to this shelf and looked at this case. By golly, he said, I am going to get a chance yet to bring out this policy.

AN HON. MEMBER: As a minister.

MS THISTLE: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: He dusted it off.

MS THISTLE: He dusted it off every day and he said, day by day, I am going to get a chance to make sure that this policy comes into effect. He said, the first start -

AN HON. MEMBER: My own policy.

MS THISTLE: Yes. He said, I am going to get it. My own policy, he said.

MS FOOTE: My own vision will be their new approach.

MS THISTLE: Yes. His vision ended up to be this vision. His vision and that tin - but it was a bigger tin than that, I think - his vision ended up to be this vision. That vision ended up to be this vision and now we have the vision coming out in The Western Star. Now, four visions are all the same vision.

The tiger -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

AN HON. MEMBER: Madam Speaker, we cannot hear her speaking.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

They don't want to hear it. They don't want to hear it.

Anyway, we heard that lovely statement, that flowery statement, about unleashing the fiscal tiger. The fiscal tiger is in that box. The fiscal tiger, Doug House's fiscal tiger, is here in this fiscal tiger box. The first thing he did, he put it in that book and made everyone believe it. Then he talked them into putting it in this book, and after they laid out the road map on March 30, he said: We have to get out and we have to sell this plan. He said: We have to get out and sell this economic plan. He said: God help the one who stands in my way. I am getting out and selling that plan first. That is what he said. He said: Forget about the minister, forget about the government, forget about the Premier, I am getting out. Doug House said: I am going to be the one to make that announcement. I have waited twelve years and I am not letting it slip by; no sir. No sir, am I letting this chance slip by.

He instigated an invitation to the Bay St. George Chamber of Commerce. By golly, he said, this is my chance. According to the paper he was the very first one to speak. He said: I am going to herald some good news. He said: Forget about everything. Economic development comes in a new tin and I have it and I have the answer.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: With that in mind he said: This is my plan and my plan says we are going to have economic corridors and the first economic corridor, let me tell you, is going to be Bay St. George, Corner Brook, Stephenville and Deer Lake. That is the first economic corridor.

MR. REID: Yes, the road to the ferry.

MS THISTLE: The road to the ferry to leave the Province. The first one is going to be Deer Lake, Corner Brook, Bay St. George and Stephenville.

MR. REID: The next one will be going out of Argentia.

MS THISTLE: The next one is Argentia.

We do not know where the next economic corridor is -

MR. REID: Oh, it will be heading for the ferry in Argentia, no doubt.

I am going to say today- listen, I am warning the people in Central Newfoundland, because if you let Dr. Doug House come into Central Newfoundland and open up that economic development tin with the fiscal tiger in it, there is going to be an economic tiger unleashed that is going to look that colour and he is going to be part of what they call the rural secretariat, whatever that is.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hold that tiger!

MS THISTLE: Hold that tiger! The fiscal tiger is going to be let loose. I do not want that fiscal tiger coming into Central Newfoundland if it is going to look like the one I saw in that tin. I do not want that one coming where he is going to name three or four communities that is going to be the corridor in Central Newfoundland. I want all the communities in this Province-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: I want all the communities in this Province to be part of economic development, not just the ones on the Trans-Canada highway.

That is not a plan for the people of this Province and it is like I started out here today, this government is not connected to the people of the Province. They are making their decisions in isolation. They are making their decisions in isolation.

We have smart, intelligent people across that House, as well as there are on this side of the House. There may not be as many, but -

MS FOOTE: Quality.

MS THISTLE: Quality comes first. There is one thing absent and it is glaring and you ought to know it by now because you should be a quick study, there has been enough said. What is absent from this current government -

AN HON. MEMBER: Heart and compassion.

MS THISTLE: - is heart and compassion. You cannot make decisions that affect the people, the very fibre of our Province, you cannot make decisions that affect the very fibre of our Province. The people come first no matter what decision you are going to make as a government. Every decision you make, in government, is about money and people.

MS FOOTE: That is a Liberal philosophy.

MS THISTLE: Yes, I should probably restate that. Our policy, when we were part of the Liberal government, was people and money. From a former career that I came from, as manager of a bank, every decision was people and money.

We are entrusted, you are entrusted, with a very huge responsibility and that is about delivering the best quality services and making the best quality decisions, not for you, not for business, not for industry, but for the people of this Province, the people of the Province who elected you to do a good job for them, not come out with half statements, stuff that will hurt people, not come out and run over people with a steam roller.

What we are seeing now, and it is something that you should not see, you are a fresh new government or are supposed to be - you are supposed to be a fresh new government with new ideas and a new approach. What we have witnessed - I am a politician first, I guess, but I am one of the people of this Province, and I hear enough when I go outside this chamber from people around the Province who feel that they have been steamrolled by this new government. They feel that they have been sloughed off -

MR. REID: Deceived.

MS THISTLE: - and deceived and mislead. They feel that. Now whether you want to accept that it is your choice, but the people of the Province feel that, and if you mind to do a survey of your own people, sitting on your own benches, they probably have the very same concerns if they are honest. There will be a lot of people over there in the backbenches who are jockeying for Cabinet positions, but I will tell you, if you lose sight of the people who have put you there, you will not be able to stand in your place and say what you are going to do in the next Budget Book, the Blue Book.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are already talking about (inaudible) for the Budget. They were talking about that.

MS THISTLE: Yes. How callous! I do not know if they realize it or not, but there are people today who are wondering why members of your side of the House stood and applauded the Budget, when it was going to bring suffering, pain and misery.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Pain, suffering and misery to the people of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

MS THISTLE: They are telling me that they want me to sit down, and I have important words to say. What I will say - I understand that the time is up for debate in this Chamber - but what I will say is: I thank the members on both sides of the House for affording me this opportunity to make the general public aware of the shortcomings of this Budget.

In my job as being the Opposition critic for Finance and Post-Secondary Education, it is my duty to analyze the Budget, show support where good decisions have been made and also alert the general public with criticism if there are areas that need to be improved. I am sure that you will say, if you are indeed honest in looking at and listening to what I have said, there are many areas that are going to be of great concern to the people of this Province.

I would like to thank this hon. House for giving me the time to speak freely. In the days ahead there will be more discussion of this nature surrounding the Budget. We have two more months before we pass it.

Once again, Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for listening.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Before I recognize the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, I would like to inform the House that the new record for a speech in response to the Budget Speech, under Standing Order 46 - as members know, there is unlimited time given to the Minister of Finance to give the Budget, unlimited time given to the critic in reply and, of course, there is also unlimited time given to the Premier and to the Leader of the Opposition on a non-confidence motion. These are the only unlimited times we have in our House. The new record, as I understand it, is thirteen hours and fifteen minutes. It beats the old record - I have a note here - by an hour and five or ten minutes.

Congratulations!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not realize the point that Your Honour was about to make, but I did want to say that when the hon. member rose to speak I knew she had unlimited time. I was afraid for part of the time that she was actually going to try and use it all. We had that experience before with the current Minister of Finance. I was concerned that perhaps the Speaker's stopwatch did not have enough time on it to actually record the amount of time, but obviously I was wrong on that. I do want to congratulate the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans in beating the record and continuing to entertain and rivet the House with her speech for such a long period of time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, congratulations to the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans on establishing a new record. She wanted to keep going, I understand, but we saw the Member for The Straits & White Bay North waving the white flag over here so we asked her to sit down and she graciously conceded and consented.

Mr. Speaker, the Government House Leader and myself have spoken in regard to proceedings here today and I think we have agreed by consent that we would end proceedings at this point in the parliamentary day, with the view to returning here on Monday if necessary.

On that note, I would like to express thanks to the Government House Leader for the excellent co-operation we have had in the last two weeks, albeit sometimes in very trying circumstances. I think we are all on the right track here.

With that, I would like to wish all members here, and their families, and indeed everyone in the Province, and the Speaker and the staff of the House, a Happy Easter weekend.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak for the people of the Province - cannot - because I am sure some of the calls that we have gotten speak for themselves, but I am certainly thankful that the member is finished, and I say that with the greatest degree of respect.

Before I put the motion to adjourn, Mr. Speaker, to all members opposite, certainly, and all members in the House, and to all people in the Province, we certainly do wish everybody a Happy Easter. Obviously, it is a great weekend to reflect upon ourselves and our relationships and the things that we hope for each other.

Mr. Speaker, to my colleague, the hon. Opposition House Leader, and to the Leader of the NDP, we meet every morning, as some people might be aware, to outline the agenda to try to make the proceedings of this House proceed as smoothly as they can in an informed way, and I appreciate the comments that he has made.

With that in mind, Mr. Speaker, I do now move the motion to adjourn and, if necessary, we will be back on Monday.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just want to take the opportunity to, as well, offer my best wishes to hon. members on the enjoyment of the Easter weekend, and also to Your Honour and the members of the public, particularly those who are involved in the labour dispute. We all sincerely hope, I think, in this House, that it can be successfully resolved before we are scheduled to come back on Monday.

I think it is worthy to note that despite the fact that tempers may rise here in this House, that we do have rules and we do have a sense of decorum and honour which I believe was demonstrated well this week. Within the confines of that, we do our best to represent our constituents and those interests that we want to bring to this House. We did have that demonstrated this week, despite the difficult circumstance and situations. I hope that we will continue to do so when we return next week, regardless of what the circumstances might be.

Having said that, I do want to wish all hon. members an enjoyable weekend. Hopefully, next week will be a little bit more calm if we have a successful end to the labour dispute.

MR. SPEAKER: The question is that we would now adjourn the House until Monday at 1:30 p.m.

All those in agreement, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against?

The motion is carried.

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