The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Statements by Members.

This afternoon we have notice of two statements by members: the hon. the Member for Bonavista North, and the hon. the Member for Lake Melville. I am not aware of any other statements. If there are, I will call them in sequence.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 34, on a point of privilege.

Although our Standing Orders do not elaborate on the issue of privilege, it is well documented, of course, in other parliamentary authorities such as Marleau and Beauchesne, it is the responsibility of the Speaker to act as guardian of the rights and privileges of members and of the House as an institution.

Whenever a member brings to the attention of the House a possible breach of a right or a privilege, the responsibility of the Speaker is to determine whether or not a prima facie breach of privilege has occurred. Of course, when the Speaker has ruled regarding the matter of a prima facie question of privilege, and if it is so determined, it then goes before the House for consideration.

In order, of course, not simply to just raise a point of privilege or a breach of a right of a member, it is necessary for the person raising the issue to present facts in support of that, and then the decision as to the existence of a prima facie question rests with the Speaker. The Chair shall take into account the extent to which the matter complained of infringed upon any member's ability to perform his or her parliamentary duties, or appears to be a contempt against the dignity of Parliament.

Mr. Speaker, it is also incumbent upon the person who raises the point of privilege to provide the relevant provisions and references to the Chair, as well as to bring it to the attention of the Chair at the earliest opportunity.

I refer here to the breach being comments by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, albeit made outside this House yesterday. We would submit that there has been a breach of the dignity of this House by deliberately making statements contrary to the process of debate which was established here in this House yesterday by his own House Leader, the Official Opposition through myself as the Opposition House Leader, and the Leader of the NDP.

The fact I refer to is a statement made by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board yesterday at 6:00 p.m., approximately, on the NTV newscast, when asked about how quickly Bill 18, which is the back-to-work legislation, could proceed through this House. The minister responded that it was up to the Opposition as to how fast this proceeded, or how fast the Opposition allowed it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) could have been done today.

MR. PARSONS: He said, it could have been done today if the Opposition had allowed, Mr. Speaker.

That was the fact that he stated on NTV. There are some other facts that the Chair needs to be aware of as well, Mr. Speaker. One of those is that Bill 18 was tabled in this House, and only tabled in this House, yesterday afternoon, Monday, April 26, about four hours before the minister made his statement to the news media.

Bill 18 had been presented to myself and to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday morning by the Government House Leader at approximately 10:00 a.m., as a courtesy, so we could review it before coming to the House where it would be tabled. Under the normal parliamentary rules, Mr. Speaker, the only thing that would have happened yesterday, the first day that this bill was tabled, would have been first reading.

Also, the Official Opposition publicly stated last Thursday, April 22, that we would make ourselves available to the government at any time that Bill 18 was ready to proceed, including last Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday. That was well known because it was publicly stated, and known by the minister, and we would be prepared to debate that bill at any time.

Also, Mr. Speaker, it is totally within the control of government as to when a piece of legislation is called in this House for debate. That is not within the control of the Opposition. It is government's prerogative as well to limit debate if they choose to do so, at any stage of a piece of legislation. They can invoke Rule 47, if they wish, called closure to stifle debate, if they so wish. In fact, we had notice of closure yesterday given by the Government House Leader with regard to the Committee stage of Bill 18.

The Government House Leader and myself, as the Opposition House Leader, and the Leader of the NDP had unanimously agreed yesterday to the timetable for debate and process of this bill through this House. That information was known to the hon. Government House Leader and, I presume, to his colleague, the Minister of Finance. At no time also - and this is very, very important - did the Government House Leader ask and the Official Opposition to proceed with Bill 18 yesterday in debate. It was made quite clear that we only got it yesterday morning, we would take some time to read it, and we would start the debate today. Knowing all of these facts, Mr. Speaker, the President of Treasury Board and Minister of Finance made the statement that we could have had Bill 18 passed yesterday if the Opposition had allowed it.

Mr. Speaker, that statement is very misleading to the people of this Province. It suggests and congers up the image that the Opposition are in some way infringing upon the health and safety of the people of this Province because we are being obstructionist when it comes to Bill 18. To make such a statement, Mr. Speaker, knowing all of these facts, which existed before he made his statements on NTV at 6:00 p.m., is nothing short of contentious of the privileges of the members of this House and of the rights of this House. It takes away from the dignity of this House when there is an agreed to process, adopted by the Government House Leader and the Opposition, and yet we have ministers of the Crown who make these misleading statements to the public.

I submit, Mr. Speaker, that these facts, without question, establish a prima facie case, that the President of Treasury Board has deliberately and knowingly breached the privileges of every Opposition member by suggesting that we are delaying passage of Bill 18. It infringes upon the dignity of this House when a minister of the Crown makes public statements contrary to what he knew or ought to have known was the process agreed upon between his own House Leader and the Opposition.

I anticipate, Mr. Speaker, that the Government House Leader will use Beauchesne, and references therein, to suggest that a statement made by a member outside the House cannot be used as the basis for a question of privilege. In fact, that citation is referenced in Beauchesne. Mr. Speaker, that general statement in Beauchesne does not settle this matter conclusively nor does it deal with all factual situations. There have been many cases cited in Beauchesne, as well, where advertisements and pronouncements made outside the House have been held to establish a prima facie case for a breech of privilege and to be contemptuous. The role of the Speaker, of course, is to decide whether the facts cited here in this situation establish such a prima facie case. Even if it does not provide a basis for a question of privilege, it certainly provides the basis for a question of contemp for this House, and we would ask Your Honour to consider these facts and submissions.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Since my name and role was included in the question of privilege, I do want to set the record straight in terms of what was brought to my attention yesterday. I did not see the NTV News last night but I know that the Minister of Finance has a habit of playing fast and loose with the facts.

The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that this leader was never, at any time, requested by him, by the Premier, by the Government House Leader, or by anyone else on that side of the House, to consent to the passage of Bill 18 yesterday. I will add, Mr. Speaker, that if I was consented I would have refused. If I was asked to consent, I, on behalf of my caucus, would have refused and make it clear to the House and to the minister that what we would have consented to - which we would have done on Thursday or Friday or Saturday or Sunday or yesterday - would be a resolution of this House which could be passed in half an hour under section 30 of the Public Sector Bargaining Act which would have ended this strike.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: That is the only way we would have consented to end this strike pre-emptively because that would mean that the matters under dispute would go to binding arbitration, which is the preferred route to go.

So, whatever the minister said last night about passage of Bill 18 yesterday was absolutely incorrect. At no time was there ever any request by the Government House Leader, who will confirm this, to have consent to go through various stages of the bill yesterday. That was never under consideration. In fact, what we discussed was what steps the Government House Leader would have to do in order to get passage of this legislation. That does certainly reflect on this House and the operations of this House, and reflect upon the abilities of this House and House Leaders to actually conduct business, have discussions, and to try to have an understanding of how things will proceed. If the Minister of Finance is going to interfere with that process, well that process cannot occur, and that will interfere with the ability of this House to operate.

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

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

Any matter of privilege, whenever it is raised, obviously is taken seriously. First of all, let me set for the record as well, that in my capacity as Government House Leader, the Opposition House Leader and the Leader of the NDP, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, know full well that in discussions about the legislation that are before us and the issues which are contained in that legislation, that there was never any request or attempt by government to try to take away any time from any member in this House, according to the rules governed by the House, and according to the rules, Standing Orders and otherwise, that we are all governed by.

First and foremost, late last week when the decision was made to give notice on this piece of legislation, I made a commitment to both parties that as soon as we had it, or that I had it, they would have it. Legislation was finalized late Sunday evening, and I was actually in contact with the Opposition House Leader late Sunday evening. He said he was just on his way to bed, I believe, by the time we just had it done, and I had left a message for the Leader of the NDP. The legislation was delivered first thing yesterday morning to everybody. There was no request made yesterday to any party in the House to: could we get into debating the legislation? With the full understanding - given the circumstances and given the environment that we are in - that it would be appropriate for all members to take the opportunity to review the legislation so that when debate began today in second reading and in Committee, that it could be done so from a more informed way.

To the point that the Opposition House Leader has raised. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe it is a point of privilege in the parliamentary sense, in terms of the law that we operate in. It may be a pont of order; it may be a point of grievance against the government; it may be a point that they fundamentally disagree with what the Minister of Finance said in answer to a question from someone in the media, but there have been - and I am not trying to diminish anything whatsoever, but let me say this - I will quote Joseph Maingot Q.C., who is the authority on Parliamentary Privilege in Canada. He is one of the individuals who has defined and codified what privilege means in terms of members and officers of the House. It is a long-standing precedent in parliamentary law and in parliamentary history. I will just read it for all members concerned: A complaint that a minister of the Crown has made a statement outside the House rather than in the House or that the government provides information only to its supporters in the House may well amount to a grievance against the government, but in the absence of an order in the House - meaning our Standing Orders - forbidding such activity, there is no personal or corporate privilege that has been breached in the doing and neither does it constitute contempt of the House in the privileged sense.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that there is no point of privilege, from my point of view, and I do not believe at all that a prima facie case has been established on this point. I think that, upon review, when you look at what a prima facie case really means, is that, on the face of it, have individual members' privileges, as members, not as ministers, not as members of the Crown, but as private members - in order for privilege to be breached and in order for the Speaker to find a breach, because that is the Speaker's role, and if he ever found a breach, then it is up to the House to determine what the penalties are. In this case, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, no breach has occurred.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will review the information that has been submitted by the hon. members. The Chair wishes also to consult with references in Marleau and Maingot and Beauchesne.

The Chair would like to say at this time, however, that the Chair is not party to any negotiations that might occur between the House Leaders and has no knowledge of these particular matters. The Chair's only role is to determine whether or not a prima facie case exists for a point of privilege.

I anticipate being able to bring this matter back to the House later in the afternoon, following recess, and after I have had an opportunity to review the matter with the House Officers.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer support to a young resident of Wesleyville, Mr. Kris Mullaly. Mr. Mullaly is the Manager/Curator of the Bonavista North Regional Museum and Gallery in Wesleyville.

On May 1 and 2, Kris will walk the ninety kilometer distance from Gambo to Wesleyville to raise money to enhance the heritage and culture of Bonavista North. The walk will re-enact the traditional "Sealers Walk" of years gone by when hundreds of sealers would leave their homes in Greenspond, Shambler's Cove, Safe Harbour, Pool's Island, Valleyfield, Badger's Quay, Brookfield, Wesleyville and other communities in the area and walk to Gambo to join the train that would take them to St. John's and a berth to the ice. Some of the members in this House may know that many of our Province's famous sealing captains came from Bonavista North.

The money raised by Mr. Mullaly in his walk will be used to purchase and restore the old historic building in Wesleyville, known as Wesley Hall. Wesley Hall served Wesleyville and area for many years as a church, a public hall, a schoolhouse, a theatre, and a forum for public debate. In fact, Mr. Speaker, it was at Wesley Hall in 1949 when Joseph R. Smallwood stirred a large audience with his famed speech "Presentation of the Children to the People".

Mr. Mullaly will be joined on a trip by several of his friends and associates who are also actively involved in the development of tourism in Bonavista North, namely: Steven Perry, Jeremy Chippett and my son Jamie.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. HARDING: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in offering support and encouragement to Kris Mullaly and his friends in this very worthwhile undertaking. Anyone who wants to donate to this project may do so by forwarding their donation to the Bonavista North Regional Museum and Gallery in Wesleyville.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I am indeed saddened today to rise in this hon. House and to inform this hon. House that indeed Labrador has lost one of its daughters. Beatrice Watts, a well-known teacher in Labrador, died Monday at the age of seventy-two years.

Beatrice was born in Nain, and became the first Labrador Inuit to qualify as a teacher in the 1950s. She taught in most Labrador North Coast communities and in the Upper Lake Melville area. For the past two years, Beatrice worked as a land claims negotiator for the Labrador Inuit.

Beatrice received an honorary doctorate from Memorial University in 1992. She was a strong advocate to protect and to promote the Inuit language. She was proud of her culture and her heritage. She was a working participant in the Ratification Committee of the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement.

Mr. Speaker, we have lost a daughter of Labrador; and to her husband, Ron, and to her family, I am sure I offer all hon. members' condolences at this particular time.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment.

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the organizers of Nipavut, the first retreat to be held in Nain, Labrador, for Aboriginal women.

Nipavut, Mr. Speaker, is Inuktitut for "our voices". Not only is it the name given to the retreat; it is also the name of a women's organization that was formed about three years ago in Nain. The members of this group work to build self-esteem and encourage empowerment among the Inuit women of Labrador. Several women from the North Coast of Labrador and the Upper Lake Melville area participated in the retreat this past weekend. It was an opportunity for them to gather and discuss specific issues that Inuit women face in Coastal Labrador communities. This would include health care, elder care, women's place in decision-making, and violence.

Women elders also participated in this retreat and provided guidance and insight on how women have dealt with women's issues in their communities. The elders discussed the importance of maintaining cultural traditions, language, foods, and being out on the land as a fundamental aspect of building women's leadership, self-esteem, and maintaining mental health.

I am pleased to inform my hon. colleagues that the Women's Policy Office, on behalf of this government, provided $10,000 to fund the workshop. The participants report that it was a tremendous success, and contact has already been made with national Aboriginal and Inuit organizations as a necessary step in having the women of Labrador connect with their counterparts across the country.

Again, Mr. Speaker, congratulations to all of those involved, and I am pleased that my office and government are able to support this extremely important grassroots effort.

Thank you.

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, and I thank the hon. minister for a copy of her statement today. I say to her that last year I was able to participate in one of the first Pan-Labrador Women's Conferences to be held in Labrador in almost two decades. Certainly, the women of Northern Labrador played a tremendous role in that conference.

I also want, at this time, to say to this House that the Member for Torngat Mountains has spoken in this Chamber many times on the plight of the Inuit people and the women of Northern Labrador, and the challenges that they have had to undertake.

Mr. Speaker, it has been an ongoing struggle for native women all across Labrador. The Inuit women, themselves, have battled many challenges. In recent years, we have heard of Inuit communities that are faced with some of the highest suicide rates ever to be record in North America today.

Mr. Speaker, the Inuit people of Northern Labrador have had to deal with a failing fishery -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS JONES: Just a few minutes to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS JONES: - and very challenging social conditions within their community. It is forums like this that allow them to have their voices heard and to be strong in numbers, to move forward with the issues that face women.

Today the Member for Lake Melville mentioned Beatrice Watts, and I have to acknowledge Beatrice because she is one Inuit woman, amongst many in Labrador, that have pioneered and represented Inuit women all over this country, not just in our own Province. She has made great strides for those women who will follow in her footsteps when it comes to protecting the rights of women and our culture and our heritage. So, as the Inuit people move forward with a new land claim negotiation, I wish them well. I give my support to the women of Northen Labrador, as I am sure the minister will in her portfolio.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advanced copy of her statement. We, too, Mr. Speaker, would like to acknowledge the positive development that is taking place on the North Coast of Labrador. It is not that long ago in this country, when women anywhere in the country did not have any input into decision-making, but in isolated areas and in the North Coast of Labrador, in our native communities, it is much more difficult.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. COLLINS: The only advice I would give to the minister, Mr. Speaker - as recent as yesterday the Member for Torngat Mountains talked about services on the North Coast. If there is any one person in this House who knows the North Coast, it is him. I would say to the minister, listen to the Member for Torngat Mountains, because on many occasions in this House he raises legitimate issues that have long been neglected on the North Coast.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear to everyone in the Province that this government misled the people prior to the election, prior to the strike, throughout the strike, and continue to do so, even yesterday, as the draconian back-to-work legislation is being introduced here.

The point of privilege that you will rule on later, Mr. Speaker, the President of Treasury Board made misleading public comments on yesterday's evening news and again this morning on an Open Line program restating the same information. That it is the Opposition that might be delaying this legislation that could have been passed yesterday - he said last night - and today he said this morning.

The question for the Government House Leader, Mr. Speaker, so we can clear this up: Would the Government House Leader like to spell out for his own colleagues on that side, for the rest of the Members of the House and for the people of the Province, what the expected or likely timetable is for passage of this legislation that you will vote for and we will speak and vote against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I can only advise the Leader of the Opposition that today we are doing second reading. Today, also, there is intent to do committee. If there is anything else other than that, myself, your House Leader, and the Leader of the NDP are getting together after to see if we can facilitate - or if tomorrow, for example, being Private Members' Day, which is government's day: Would the Opposition allow government to use it as a government day as when we were in Opposition, allowed you to use that government day on back-to-work legislation for nurses? So, the rules are pretty clear. If there is any facilitation, that is in your hands not ours.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

To a different issue, I just hope that he would inform the President of Treasury Board a little more about his plans in the future to prevent from making false and erroneous and misleading statements in the public.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Premier if an employee would be fired under section 63 of this bill; this unbelievably, punitive back-to-work legislation, if they were sick on the day they would return to work. As usual, in this Legislature, he gave no answer. But, outside the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, in addressing the media, the Premier stated: There would have to be some individual considerations. Would the Premier like to now tell the members of the Legislature, who are going to debate this bill, what those individual considerations might be, and whether or not we can expect amendments to the bill to spell out some of those circumstances in the legislation instead of just waiting for the Premier to tell somebody outside the House what the legislation really means?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the legislation is what it is and the words speak for themselves and debate will clarify that. We will have an opportunity to discuss it and that is what debate is all about.

I would like to inform the House today, and the people in the galleries, that even though there have been comments made that this is what it was all about, it was all about getting back-to-work legislation in this Chamber and we had no intention of ever trying to reach an agreement. I would like to inform hon. members opposite -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: If they would just give me an opportunity to give them some very, very important information.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A question has been asked and the hon. the Premier is giving an answer. We would indulge the members of the Opposition and also the visitors in the gallery to permit that process to proceed.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On Thursday past the continuance and resumption of services legislation was introduced in this House. On Friday night past I had an extensive discussion with a union leader with a view to still trying to reach a collective agreement. As a result of that conversation, I understand that there was a meeting on Saturday between union leaders at -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: This is very important, Mr. Speaker. I would appreciate it if I had some liberty here to give a good answer. If not, I will just sit down and wait for another question.

On Saturday there was a meeting of union leaders whereby -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The normal sequence is that we would have about a minute to make an answer. The Premier has asked if he could have some extended time and I can only do that if we have agreement to do so.

I do not see that we have agreement for the Premier to continue beyond the one minute allocation, approximately. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition if he could facilitate this process by a supplementary question.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the Premier wanted to make a speech about what transpired last week then he could have made a ministerial statement, just like the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women did a few minutes ago.

Mr. Speaker, now we have, again, a conflicting answer. Outside the Legislature, just outside those doors, the Premier stated to the public of the Province on television that there would have to be individual circumstances. When I asked him the question today he says the legislation speaks for itself, and it says nothing about individual circumstances.

The question is this. The fear is that the Premier does have some individual circumstances in mind, that those who did not speak out against him will be okay, but those that he can identify who did speak out against him will deal with certain circumstances for sure. Let me ask the question again: Are we to expect amendments that will spell out certain circumstances under which people will not be fired if they do not show up or, as he just answered, does the legislation speak for itself in which it says: If you don't go back to work you are fired, end of the statement? Just like he said yesterday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, at 2:00 o'clock on Saturday afternoon the union leaders had a meeting to discuss the conversation that was held between myself and the union leader late Friday night. As a result of that, government waited for an approach from the union to see whether there was any point in pursuing and continuing to pursue collective bargaining. Last night, at supper time, we received a new offer from the union. We are presently involved in a negotiation of that offer. We are moving forward. We are doing everything we can to try and reach a collective agreement.

This legislation is before the House, it will go through its normal course, but if we can achieve an agreement on behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador with our public sector workers for the betterment of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that is affordable and agreeable we will work to do that. That is my commitment.

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, I think the people of the Province have heard the old adage, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me, and we have fallen for that before. However, I always wish the parties well if they can come to a mutual agreement. If that means the Premier is finally about to see the light and take the concessions off the table, that he says still aren't there, there might be some hope.

Since he says we have to deal with the legislation anyway, Mr. Speaker, which he just said, this will pass through the House in its own due course. Yesterday, the Premier again, outside the door, just outside those doors right there, a few feet away, bragged about the fines being the largest and the most extreme in the history of the country, bragged about it, and said, if they have to be meaningful people have to take it seriously and they must go back to work. They are admittedly clearly excessive and intent on breaking the unions.

The question for the Premier: Can we expect -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question quickly.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Can we expect a return to sanity and rationality rather than the current punitive, vindictive approach in this legislation, and will the Premier stand and commit, right now, to amendments to lower these punitive fines to some sensible, sane, reasonable levels in this legislation?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the previous highest fines in the country were the fines that were imposed by that previous government when they were in office. Those were the previous highest fines in the country.

What we have done in this particular matter is, we have taken the advice of the Department of Justice. We have checked other legislation around the country, we have seen that fines have increased.

Let me make one thing clear, we cannot belittle the importance of what is going on in our Province. We have to make sure that, as a government, we can provide services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. A breach of legislation that provides for the resumption and the continuation of those services to our Province is a very, very serious breach. It cannot be treated lightly and it, therefore, warrants a significant fine that prevents that from happening, and that is the deterrent factor that is a standard principle in all fines.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think everyone understands the answer was no, so I will ask the question again slightly differently.

Morale is already at an all-time low, as the so-called valued public employees see the very dark side of their vindictive little Napoleon. The labour relations climate has been poisoned, probably for years to come. The question again for the Premier: In order to start turning that around and restoring some sensible - sensible - labour relations climate in the Province on the road to recovery, and showing respect for the public employees of Newfoundland and Labrador, will he again, I ask him, at least start by agreeing now to amend the penalties down to some reasonable, sensible, level instead of the vindictive punitive levels that he bragged about yesterday and says now he thinks are right?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Again, Mr. Speaker, as I rise day after day and comment on how the hon. gentleman opposite can be so hypocritical when he and his government, and the members opposite who were part of that government, created this financial mess, this financial nightmare that we find ourselves in. We are only in government six months. We are trying to correct this situation for the betterment of all people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

When I was on Open Line last week, I indicated that it is very, very unfortunate -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - that myself and the hon. minister, and Mr. Lucas, Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Puddister, find ourselves in this terrible, terrible situation. The reason that we find ourselves in this terrible situation is because it was caused by the hon. gentleman opposite, as Premier of this Province, and his government who put us in a financial mess. That is exactly why we are dealing with it right now.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One last topic, a new question that I would like to ask the Premier, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Premier, through you, Mr. Speaker: Why is there no separate section or clause in this back-to-work legislation, in Bill 18, describing the purpose of the legislation? Why is there no clause in this bill describing the purpose?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The purpose of the legislation is quite obvious. It is for the resumption and continuation of services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. We, as a government, found ourselves in a situation where we had absolutely no choice. We had to act. The reason that we had to act -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - is (inaudible) two-fold. We had a health care situation which was very serious. As well, there was a realization by both parties - when you are trying to reach an agreement, if one party does not want to reach an agreement you do not have an agreement. If two parties cannot reach an agreement you do not have an agreement. When you do not have an agreement, we had to come up with a solution because we had a situation that was presented to us last Thursday from health care officials that said we had a very, very serious backlog in our Province. That has to be dealt with. It is the people who were not getting into the system, who were not getting diagnosed. They had to be dealt with. We were not prepared to risk the lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, and we moved forward.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: As well, Mr. Speaker, I must emphasize that we were unable to reach an agreement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to finish his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are still trying to reach an agreement. We are negotiating right now, at this very moment.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I take it that the Premier confirmed, with that answer, that the purpose of the bill is to provide for the resumption and continuation of public services.

I ask this question, Mr. Speaker: Is that the sole agenda and the sole purpose for this bill, or is the government also determined to punish people who stood up against him and to strip their contracts? Is there a sole purpose or is there more than one purpose?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There was never an intent to punish people throughout this process, absolutely not. What we have done is, there were concessions on the table from the very beginning, we took those concessions off the table. We took off sick leave for current employees. We took off pension indexing. We took off the severance issue. We reached agreement on job evaluation. We reached agreement on other pension issues. We did everything we could to work towards an agreement, an agreed settlement. There is nothing punitive about this legislation - it is not intended to be punitive - but we have a responsibility as the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to take care of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and that is what we are doing to the very best of our ability.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Justice.

Minister, I assume you had some input into Bill 18. Given section 2.(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the fundamental right of "freedom of association", how can such despotic, oppressive and tyrannical legislation be foisted upon the labour unions in this Province? Minister, are you concerned about the constitutionality of Bill 18?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the format of the legislation follows very closely the legislation that the hon. members opposite brought in, in 1999. So, if there is any concern about the constitutionality, it was the same concern then.

Mr. Speaker, while I am up, I would like to answer one of the questions put by the hon. Leader of the Opposition concerning the firing of employees. The dismissal provision in the legislation deals where an employee breaches Section 4, and Section 4 requires our employees, where applicable, to continue or resume the duties of his or her employment. The terms and conditions of the employment are set out in the collective agreements.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer quickly.

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

The terms and conditions of an employee's employment is set out in the collective agreement. With respect to an employee who is sick, the same sick leave applies to all current employees -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. MARSHALL: - that applied under the old collective agreement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Minister of Justice, perhaps if he could confine his answers to the questions I ask, and not choose the questions he would like to answer, we might get somewhere here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, the Premier, in Question Period yesterday, commented that other pieces of legislation in this country permit for large fines, and referred to environmental laws and poaching type offences, both of which are quasi-criminal offences. Our Criminal Code here in Canada only permits for a maximum fine of $2,000 for summary conviction criminal offences, and we are dealing with summary conviction offences in this act, Bill 18, if you refuse to go back to work.

Now that government is turning upstanding citizens who happen to be unionists into criminals, is the minister concerned about the validity of $25,000, $250,000 per day fines, and dismissal? Are you concerned, Minister, about the validity of such a bill?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, in the nurses' back-to-work legislation, the fines were the highest in the country at that time, for a union that is much smaller than the unions that are out of work at the present time. The penalties are relative, and the penalties are there to induce our employees to resume and continue their contracts of employment.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the minister, perhaps he should go back and research because there is no precedent in Canadian history for back -to-work legislation with fines of this nature. I would have him know that there was no punitive type inclusion in the nurses' legislation that would fire them, like this government is doing.

By the way, just about everybody over there who was a member at one time, Mr. Minister, stood on this side of the House and proclaimed that back-to-work legislation was draconian and oppressive and never should be. Maybe the minister should go back and read some of his colleagues' earlier statements in this House during the nurses' strike.

Mr. Speaker, Section 6.(3) of this act states that an employee who fails to comply with Bill 18 will be dismissed - fired. We had a similar Tory hammer back in 1981 in the Essential Health and Services Act, but at least in that act in 1981 there was a provision in Section 11 which provided the employee an opportunity to give a reasonable reason and excuse, grounds, for why they could not comply with the back-to-work legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question quickly.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

No such reasonable grounds of appeal or process exist in this Bill 18. You fail to comply and you are fired.

I ask the minister: Aren't you concerned about this, as a Minister of Justice, that it makes government the prosecutor, the judge, the jury and the executioner, without any recourse by the employee?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. T. MARSHALL: I will correct the hon. member, Mr. Speaker. The employee is not dismissed for not complying with Bill 18. The employee would be dismissed for not complying with Section 4 of the bill. That means compliance with the terms and conditions of his employment. It is exactly the same as before this legislation came into effect. Under the old collective agreement -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. MARSHALL: - if an employee did not resume or carry out his terms of employment, the employee was liable for dismissal.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Premier.

In his attempt to assert his own right-wing agenda on public sector workers, the Premier has claimed that sick leave is being abused. He is trying to paint everyone with the same brush by saying that public sector workers use up all remaining sick leave days on the eve of their retirement. He knows full well that when a worker is off, being sick, they have to get a note, after three days, from a doctor.

I ask the Premier: Does he realize that, in making this self-serving claim, he is not only questioning the honesty of the workers but also the professionalism of doctors?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can confirm for the hon. member opposite that the union leaders have actually acknowledged that there is abuse in the system, of that nature.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, as you can see, that is another play on words as we have become accustomed to in this House.

The Premier now admits that he has publicly insulted the public sector employees and the doctors by suggesting that both are defrauding the system. Premier, can you tell this House how this is going to foster good labour relations in the future?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, there has been an acknowledgment by both parties that there are problems with the system, that there is abuse in the system. That word, unfortunately, has been used. There is an acknowledgment that there is abuse in the system that has to be corrected. You can see from even the union proposals that were presented to us that they did acknowledge that and they were looking at a joint task force to deal with those very problems of abuse.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Another example of what the Premier says in this House and what he then says on Open Line.

Mr. Speaker, on March 16, the Premier claimed he had alarming correspondence from the bond rating agencies and that is why he needed to change the sick leave provisions. I ask the Premier: Is this phantom correspondence just another example of how his government is misleading people to achieve his own right-wing agenda, or can you now produce this bogus correspondence? If so, will you table that today, Mr. Premier?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: No, he can't!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have been in contact with bond rating agencies. We have been in contact with fiscal agents and as late as Friday -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A question has been asked and the minister is attempting to give the answer. I ask members to co-operate and permit the minister to give whatever answer he deems appropriate.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have had ongoing discussions with bond rating agencies, with fiscal agents, with major banks; we have read reports. We have $2.7 billion worth of debt put on this Province since 1999 over and above -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: We currently have debts that are unsustainable on the current path. We have to the correct that. We have serious concerns, Mr. Speaker, about potential increased cost of borrowing, and we do not have any intention whatsoever of reneging on our responsible -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to complete his answer quickly.

MR. SULLIVAN: - to make decisions in the best interest of this Province and we are not going to be goaded into doing anything by that side who put us in this fiscal mess in the first place.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is truly a day of mourning for collective bargaining in the public sector in this Province when the Premier has destroyed collective bargaining in the public sector and the prospect of true collective bargaining during his term of office.

Mr. Speaker, my question is: How does this Premier expect to properly operate public and government services in the Province when 20,000 employees will be on the job under legislated threat of dismissal and under terms and conditions of employment imposed on them by him?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

When I gave a statement in this House, and notice that we were going to introduce a bill here, I indicated that we are open to continue negotiations and get this settled without having to go through any particular legislation. Nobody takes pleasure in doing that. We did have a proposal, yesterday actually, that was received from the unions. I received it yesterday evening at about 6:45 p.m. and I have spoken today with Mr. Puddister of NAPE. I will be speaking with him later on today and we have discussed the three outstanding issues there. I just hope - and I do not want to build up any expectations by anybody. I am hoping -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - and I have never tried to build it up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The minister has about fifteen seconds to complete, if he desires.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I said that I don't want to build up or dampen any particular hopes out there. We are sincerely interested in getting a resolution to it. I have had a very honest discussion today after lunch with Mr. Puddister, and we will have a follow-up there. A preferred solution is to get a negotiated agreement, Mr. Speaker, and not one that is legislated in this House. While there is any hope of doing that, I am going to pursue it while there is any hope whatsoever of doing that.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, to the Premier. Does the Premier not realize that he cannot legislate what is really needed in the workplaces of this Province, co-operation, good will, loyalty, respect for the employees, dignity of workers as achieved through free collective bargaining, all of which he has destroyed with this legislation on the Table of this House today, and continue to be debated, regardless of whatever discussions are going on?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Nobody knows better than the hon. gentleman opposite, of the loyalty and the respect that I have with my employees, and I have always had all my life, because he worked with me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, the Chair asks all members for their co-operation and all visitors to the gallery for their co-operation as well.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. gentleman knows because he worked with me for some time. We worked together in a law firm. We worked in partnership. We worked with employees and we had a good relationship with our employees, and I also commend him for that. He also knows what my private sector background is with regard to my employees at Cable Atlantic.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I always had a good relationship with my employees Don't ever accuse me, sir, of having a bad relationship with my employees. We inherited a mess here and we are trying to deal with it. When I spoke on Open Line on Friday -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

I expressed sympathy for Mr. Puddister, Mr. Lucas and Mr. Reynolds for finding themselves in the situation that they find themselves and I find myself. It is due to the hon. gentleman opposite and his government, and the mess that they have left us with.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are talking about imposing terms and conditions of employment on people through legislation under threat of dismissal and nothing else.

Will the Premier not, in fact, Mr. Speaker, reach - which I am sure he can do because it has already been said - an agreement with the two public sector unions on the monetary issues and put the two concessions that he has still on the table to binding arbitration under section 30 of the Collective Bargaining Act? Is that a way, Mr. Speaker, that he can feel he has not turned the chequebook of the Province over to a third party? Can he not do that, because he knows that no union can agree to those concessions that he has put forth?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, first of all they are not concessions. The Warren Report is an add on. Secondly, we are talking about future employees.

Having said that, we are, in fact, trying to achieve a collective agreement. We have been working since last Friday to do this, we had conversations. We waited the weekend and gave the union time to try and put their position together, which they did. They presented it to the hon. gentleman, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, last night, I understand, at 6:45. We discussed that through the night with our officials. The minister has gotten back to Minister - Mr. Puddister -

MS THISTLE: Minister Puddister!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Would the Member for Grand Falls not be so silly. This is a very serious issue.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!

The Premier has about twenty seconds left to make a response.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I can tell the hon. gentleman opposite, and all hon. members opposite who want to listen, and there are none only the two members of the New Democratic Party, that we are doing everything we can and we sincerely hope, without building high expectations, that we can reach an agreement prior to this legislation having to be passed in this House of Assembly.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. MANNING: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move the following Private Member's Resolution:

BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House encourages the government to protect the Province's children and grandchildren from a massive and unmanageable burden of debt by resolving to do a better job of living within our means.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Labrador. I will read the prayer of the petition, Mr. Speaker.

WHEREAS palliative care patients do not have the capacity for getting home other than by air ambulance; and

WHEREAS stretchers cannot be taken on the commercial airlines serving Labrador.

Many patients are critically ill and air ambulance is the only way to return them home, and they are asking this government to introduce a change in policy that will ensure that patients under palliative care will have the opportunity to be returned home to their loves ones at the first opportunity.

Mr. Speaker, living in Labrador and in other parts of this Province, the only alternative for patients to be able to return home is via the air ambulance. We understand, because the minister and I have had discussions on this, that the primary responsibility of the air ambulance in this Province is to respond to emergency cases, but it is equally important, Mr. Speaker, that when the air ambulance is not being used in that capacity that the air ambulance be used to provide the only opportunity for people to be able to return to their homes.

In a lot of places in this Province, Mr. Speaker, people may be able to travel where their loved ones are, in the hospitals, particularly here in the St. John's area, but that is not true for people who live in more remote and farther away areas of this Province, where the only way to travel is by air, at substantial cost that many times families cannot afford.

Mr. Speaker, people who are under palliative care need to have peace of mind. They do not need the further pressures that are on them with the knowledge that they may not be able to return home. The current process is that once a doctor releases a patient and says there is no further treatment we can give you, the patient and the family is told that if the aircraft is dispatched to your area, then we will take you at the same time that we go there responding to an emergency. That is, quite frankly, not good enough. People have to have the knowledge, they have to have the capacity, to be able to be returned home with their loved ones. The other process could take a week or a day. It could take a month.

I have talked to the Minister of Health and Community Services, I have spoken with the Minister of Transportation on this issue, and I have done that about twelve times in the past five years. Each time we were able to get the aircraft put on to bring people back to their homes, but we should not have to go through that process. It should be a standard policy by this government that says, once a person is released from a hospital, the doctor has informed them there are no further treatments that they can conduct and that they should be going back to their homes, then at the earliest opportunity the people should be transported back so they can spend their remaining days with their loved ones, rather than spend their remaining days in a place far away from their homes where they do not have any family or friends to comfort them during what, in most cases, sadly, is probably their last days.

Mr. Speaker, I encourage this government -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I encourage this government to make the necessary change in this policy, to show a bit of respect and dignity to the people of the Province who find themselves in this unfortunate position. I ask them to do the right thing, not have MHAs calling their offices taking two or three days to arrange for the air ambulance, but do the right thing. Make the necessary change in policy that will allow people the respect that they should have.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a petition today from the students of Millcrest Academy in Grand Falls-Windsor. I will not read the prayer because I know it will take up my very important time, but I will be tabling this petition.

Really, what the students of Millcrest Academy are asking for - and it is signed by 183 students - they are saying that: We formed a union of students because we do not think the strike is necessary.

You know, out of the mouths of babes is always the truth. Here are the reasons: Our school is dirty. It is not fair to students who have to sacrifice after-school activities. People have allergies, and the dust is affecting them. There is no busing, and people cannot get to school. We do not have any canteen for recess or lunch. We cannot eat in the gym, and our classroom is really dirty. We miss our secretary, because she does everything. We feel that the workers should have their rights and you guys should come to an agreement, but not legislation. It is not fair and we think you are abusing your power as Premier. The workers should not lose their work time and their sick time, because they have a family to take care of. We know the Province is in debt but it cannot be fixed overnight.

I think the most important thing they are saying is: Please be fair and compromise. Please be fair and compromise. Millcrest Academy is a school of 300 students. These students are ages eight to eleven, Grade 4, Grade 5 and Grade 6. What does the school secretary do? Well, she is a sympathetic ear. Anything that goes wrong in school, the school secretary looks after it. She provides Band-Aids, she calls their parents when they are sick, she provides medications, she looks after fundraisers; and, we all heard Mr. Fred Douglas, the President of the NLTA, say: What would a school be if we did not have a secretary there when you entered the door?

We talked about hours of work and taking the concession off the table, but do you know something? When you look at the concessions on page eighty-five, hours of work is clearly included. It is clearly included in the current collective agreement and it should remain there.

What does a janitor do? We have a full-time janitor in Grand Falls-Windsor, in Millcrest Academy, and a part-timer who works five hours a day. Right now, we have fifty children out with asthmatic conditions. They have to be kept at home. So, why do we need janitors? So, those fifty children and many more like them in the Province can go to school every day. Our janitor cleans the library, the computer lab, the breakfast room, the science lab, everything, but do you know something? I think there is a motive to what this government is trying to do. I think you are looking at privatization. When you walk out around this Confederation Building, you have our cleaners here, who are privately employed, making $6 an hour, no benefits, and you want to continue it! You want to continue it!

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. E. BYRNE: Laugh all you want.

Mr. Speaker -

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

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

We are not going to sit down here and listen to a former minister who was the one who privatized janitors out in this building, to point at this government that, that is where we are. Who privatized provincial parks? Who privatized Works, Services and Transportation? Who tried to privatize Hydro? It was you, Minister, not this government! We are not going to sit down and take that nonsense!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, to the -

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) lies whatsoever.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, maybe if the -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair clearly heard the Government House Leader use a word that we all recognize to be unparliamentary and I ask him to withdraw it.

MR. E. BYRNE: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the Government House Leader withdrawing that remark. It is most appropriate to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think we have a point of order here at all. What we have here is a very sensitive Government House Leader. Maybe they are getting a bit thin-skinned and a bit frazzled after their work efforts in the last twenty-six days or so.

Mr. Speaker, we have no problem at any time dealing with the truth over here, if that is the concern of Government House Leader. We are always prepared to deal with the truth. Now, we had some questions about some other cases or whatever, but I tell the Government House Leader not to be worried and not for anybody in the public to be worried. When anyone over here speaks, we will only give the truth. We will not use any weasel words or anything else.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order. A disagreement between members as to the interpretation of facts and statements that may differ in their interpretation does not qualify as a point of order. So, there is no point of order.

Now, as members know as well, when points of order occur while an hon. member is speaking to a petition, the time for the petition continues to go on. So I would ask leave of the House to let the minister have her thirty seconds she had left to finish up her petition.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised further by the hon. Member for Labrador West.

MR. COLLINS: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

The janitors of this building were mentioned here by the previous speaker. I want to say that the issue of janitors in this building, being paid minimum wage contracted out, was never raised until I brought it forward to this House yesterday, and that is not something that happened recently. That is something that has been going on too long. I have approached members of the government here to see what they can do to change that because it is inherently unfair. The janitors who clean these offices deserve better than that. I do not want them being used as an example by anyone in this House to further their own gains or to further their own arguments. What is happening is unfair, and it is more unfair to use them to try to get another point across.

MR. SPEAKER: To that point of order. I think the point of order falls in the same category to one on which I just ruled. There is no point of order. There may be differences of opinion between hon. members but does not constitute a point of order.

The thirty seconds remaining to the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for being so fair.

I know that they intentionally try to take my time but I thank you for restoring it. There is no point of order.

The point I was trying to make was that by the attitude of this government, the coming out and saying that they are laying off 4,000 people and imposing fees - what are they going to be doing next? Are they going to be privatizing? That was the point I was making, but you could not listen to it. No, because you are getting to antsy today from sleeping in a sleeping bag up here afraid to come in through the door.

Mr. Speaker, what I am trying to say is that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Now the hon. member's time has expired.

I do believe I saw the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi rising first.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, have a petition from students of Millcrest Academy in Grand Falls-Windsor. I do not know if it is similar to the previous speakers because she did not read the prayer.

It says: We, the students of Millcrest Academy, are opposed to the strike and to the legislation. We want the strikers back at work but not with legislation. We would like you to compromise and negotiate a solution.

This is from students in various classes at Millcrest Academy in Grand Falls-Windsor, obviously showing a lot of wisdom for young people, Mr. Speaker, recognizing that there has to be a reasonable compromise to be made. They have written, as well, a letter to the Premier saying: We formed a union of students because we do not think the strike is necessary, so we feel that workers should have their rights and you guys should come to an agreement, but not legislation. It is not fair, and we think you are abusing your power as Premier. The workers should not lose their work time and their sick time because they have a family to take care of. We know the Province is in debt but it cannot be fixed overnight. Please, be fair and compromise. Sincerely, the Millcrest Student Union.

That is a letter to the Premier, accompanying the petition, Mr. Speaker. I want to urge on hon. members opposite the wisdom of these young people recognizing that fairness and compromise is an important part and the role of government in dealing with people who are exercising their legal right to strike to achieve a fair collective agreement under a collective bargaining regime that is set in legislation and has been operating in this Province for over thirty years.

Mr. Speaker, this is an important part of democracy. Many people do not see collective bargaining as a part of our democracy. It is the way that workers have some say over their terms and conditions of employment. Sometimes it is called industrial democracy that the workers collectively can negotiate their terms and conditions of employment. What we have in this legislation is the imposition of terms and conditions in employment.

The Minister of Justice, a little while ago, talked about the collective agreement and what is in the collective agreement. Mr. Speaker, there are no collective agreements under this legislation. What this legislation says is those things attached to the schedules are considered to be collective agreements under the act. They have to say that because they are not collective agreements. They have not been signed and they have not been entered into.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, the legislation has to go so far as to say in order to make them considered agreements and be considered binding, the collective agreement listed in Schedule A and the amendments to them contained in Schedules B and C are binding on the employers and the unions to the same extent as if they had been entered into by them and on each employee. Mr. Speaker, these are not agreements at all. They are imposed terms and conditions of employment.

These students, Mr. Speaker, in their young lives, have recognized that basic principle of freedom and have asked this government to be fair, to compromise, to recognize that there must be a fair negotiated settlement -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: - and not legislation in this House.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure for me today to rise in the House to present a petition on behalf of the Newfoundland and Labrador association of retired public servants. The petition is signed by members of my district, people within my district, within my constituency, and people within the constituency of Trinity North.

We all know what happened on January 5, and the presidential address to the Province in terms of - and the kinds of concessions that this government had on the table. They were going to rob pensioners of $5 a month; going to take away the small pittance of money from pensioners.

I look down through this list, Mr. Speaker, of people who have given thirty, thirty-five years of service to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I see some of these people here who operated with the Department of Highways when there wasn't any plows and there wasn't any equipment or what have you. The most they had was pick and shovel. Today they are living on a very, very small pension.

This petition was presented to me a few days ago - the hon. Government House Leader, I wish he would stay quiet so that I can represent the people in my district and the District of Trinity North. The Government House Leader for some reason is over there babbling off on something. I do not know what he is talking about. They wanted me to present this petition, to represent their point of view, because I indicated to them at the meeting I had with them in Clarenville - that the Member for Trinity North did not turn up to. On that particular day this concession came off the table. So when I got the petition I called the people and I said: Do you still want me to present the petition in the House of Assembly? They said: Oh, yes, because we don't trust this government. We don't trust this government! When we see what has happened in the last twenty-six days, I can understand why they do not.

I do not know if people can remember or not, we are talking about pensioners. When Mr. Peckford left this Province to go to British Columbia, and when the PC government was at the end of its term, the top executives within the provincial government were allowed to buy pension service that they did not work, at 1 per cent premiums.

We are talking about a government now that is going to take the rights away from the people who worked hard with the picks and shovels in Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

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

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

I wasn't asking the Member for Bellevue, I was just wondering. I didn't hear what the prayer of the petition was and I was trying to find out what it was. That is all it was.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: No, I don't. I will have a copy of it, but let me say to him, that once you table it I will have a look at it. I only asked.

Mr. Speaker, Orders of the Day: Motion 8, to move, pursuant to Standing Order 47, that Bill 18 now begin debate.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to raise this point of order, that we in the official Opposition, other than our next speaker, will be leaving the Legislature while the President of Treasury Board and Minister of Finance introduces this bill.

We have had occasions where he has had to apologize twice in the Legislature for false statements in the last few days. He is being challenged on a point of privilege today. We don't find anything he says to be credible. With our own sanction - I don't know what you will rule, as the Chair, later, but our own sanction, as the official Opposition, is that other than our next speaker, which will be the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, we will register our own protest and give our own judgement as to what we believe about what this minister says in this House by leaving the Legislature, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. It is entirely within the prerogative of the Leader of the Opposition whether he sits in the Legislature or not.

The Chair recognizes the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise to introduce Bill 18, and I would like to preface that by saying, in this House, at any time, any piece of legislation can go through every single stage in one day, within one minute by agreement. In this House, on the 29^th of March, the Opposition agreed to move a bill that I presented through the House in twenty minutes.

I made a statement, and I said it publicly, that has no bearing on any privileges, a point of nothing as far as this House is concerned. I made a public statement yesterday and I made one this morning on VOCM Open Line that with the co-operation of Opposition we can move a bill without debate in ten seconds in this House and pass it. That is factual. They know that, Mr. Speaker. I am sure you know that, and I am sure every member of the House knows that. That, to me, is unfair, it is grandstanding. We have co-operated in the past with them.

[Comments from the Gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Visitors to the gallery are asked not to engage in any dialogue, to comment either positively or negatively, in any way showing approval or disapproval for any statements that are made on the floor of the House. That is a parliamentary tradition and right. We welcome all visitors to our gallery. It is an honour to have you here; however, we ask you for your co-operation.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have, in the past, when we were in Opposition, co-operated with government on some very important legislation that we moved through in a matter of minutes in this House. Anybody who has participated and understands the proceedings of this House knows that a government can get legislation through without any debate, at any time, with the consent of Opposition.

The question I have been asked, and the saying has gone, and it has come from both sides, that government decides when a House opens, Opposition decides when it closes. That has occurred since I have come into this House, Mr. Speaker. If the Opposition want to drag it out to the limits, it can go on for a number of days. If they want to have it ended within five minutes, that can end. That is a fair statement, it is an honest statement. In no way should it reflect on anybody's stand and make anything other than that. If not, they are not telling the truth, Mr. Speaker. That is the honest truth, and the rulings of the House in the past can bear truth to that.

Mr. Speaker, in this legislation here - and nobody takes pleasure in introducing back-to-work legislation for the resumption and continuation of public services. It happened in 1999 here in this House, and I stood and I did not agree. I did not agree at the time. Since 1999, we have gone through a period where we have added $2.7 billion worth of debt. I am speaking with people, not daily but close to it, regarding our fiscal situation, the concern for the future of our Province and the services that we want to provide to the people of our Province.

I am concerned. We have heard reports that the PWC report was phony. They said our debt for last year would be $827 million. We closed off at the end of March at $959 million; $132 million worse than they had predicted it would be in the Province. There was one extenuating thing that did not even account for all of that.

It is no secret, Mr. Speaker, none to me, none to the officials of my department, and none to the former government who got advice from these very same officials, on any of these numbers. I can tell you, it is a stark reality there and we might as well tell the truth to the public on that. I cannot control whether the public believes what I say, but I can tell you that anything I say, I sincerely believe to be the truth on the best advice that I am getting from the figures that are provided to me by very respected officials in my department, and former officials in my department, a former deputy minister who retired at the end of December and who has been here for thirty-some years and served many governments in a very honest and a very fair way.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation is brought in on a variety of reasons and backgrounds. We do not want to see people out on the streets. I read a news release that was put out just last week by the President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association. Dr. King said, patients are suffering, patients are at risk, and every day that goes by only adds to the anguish that our patients are feeling and the anguish that we, as physicians, are feeling.

It is important that we get stability back in the workforce. It is very important. It is very important that we get back to work and get stability not only in the health care sector but in all aspects of the Province. We tried very hard to get an agreement, I can assure you. This is the first time I have been involved in negotiating on behalf of government, in trying to get a collective agreement.

Mr. Speaker, what we see here, during the local negotiations, there are seventeen collective agreements that were in place with the bargaining units. These copies that each member received are copies of those agreements. In Schedule C of this bill - and the bulk of this bill is Schedule C - there are seventeen of these agreements under which numerous issues have been agreed to. In Schedule A of that bill are the seventeen units that comprise those agreements. There is one part of this bill, there are four sections in Schedule B, four areas that we initially had difficulty, of which two we got compromised. So, everything you see here and put forth in this House today, in all these seventeen agreements, they are ones that have been agreed to by all parties in the process.

There were five outstanding issues, five issues of concern, as we went through the process. Until, I think it was April 16, when we got back together after an absence, we had waited, I think, for eight days, to get a response to a previous proposal and I phoned the President of NAPE to try to get things back moving again. They had asked, they had made reference in the public forum. I personally called and we got back together from the sixteenth, seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth on five different meetings during the course of that four days. We made exchanges of proposals and wordings back and forth. There were five proposals exchanged over that period of time. We agreed to a wording on job classification. The evaluation system and classification system, we agreed, is an outdated system and things need to be improved in that particular system. We came to a compromise wording to allow that to happen so people can be put on a certain scale that can better reflect the conditions of today and not thirty years ago or forty years ago when this system came in. We got agreement.

We got agreement on all aspects of the pension. We said earlier, before we came back, that indexing was off the table. We had initially indicated that by paying 1 per cent on indexing we were enriching a plan that had a $2 billion unfunded liability and we did not think it was healthy, but we agreed and before we even got back we took that out of there. We said: We will take it out of there.

Now we are putting, on behalf of the taxpayers, $60 million a year into the Public Service Pension Plan to help that unfunded liability. Twenty million extra went in as a result of the last agreement. We took the indexing out. We said: Leave it there. Let people get an opportunity to get their indexing or their enriched plan even though we have a severe unfunded liability. We will withstand the cost of that, the $20 million, and absorb that. Let's move on to other pension indexing on joint trusteeship.

I was approached by people - and I have said it publicly - who are retired, who did not want us to move forward on joint trusteeship. They met in my office, the president, before we even brought it to the table, and other officials representing different groups, and did not want us to come forward with joint trusteeship. They felt, and I will say it publicly, it was better to have it in government hands so we would be able to accept ultimately some liability for that, where there is not enough money to pay it. They did not want a pension plan that was unfunded to a tune of $2 billion going out into a joint ownership that we only had 50 per cent control. They have told me that.

They had some comments in the public since that, that may or may not have reflected that, but I had officials there and I had a group of people and I had another president of a group on the telephone that day, before we even went to the bargaining table. In spite of that, what we did, we did, and I compliment Mr. Lucas and Mr. Puddister and Mr. Reynolds, who sat at the table during the last while with me, representing CUPE. We did come to an agreement on those two items, on job evaluation and on pensions, and that left three issues on the table. We sincerely believed that something could happen on those particular issues.

I can honestly say that from the very first day to the very last day, when this broke down, there had not been any movement, basically, whatsoever - except some movement on the wage - towards some middle ground.

I proposed, and the Premier, when we sat at the table on, I guess, Wednesday, when we had our last meeting - last Wednesday - put forward numerous suggestions to try and get a middle ground, and a middle ground on sick leave. I said to Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Puddister: Look, if we go forward twelve days - and let's work together to deal with this, the joint task force or whatever avenue you want. Let's work together to address it. They admitted it was a concern, we admitted it was a concern, and it is a significant cost. They said: Let's work together.

I said: What we will do, let's set some targets that are realistic and work toward them and when we get to those targets and keep it we will retroactively give every new member their twenty-four days - the extra twelve days when we get to these targets, so they have these. It does not matter if they have twenty-four days or thirty or 100 days, basically, if you are only using a certain amount. Let's get the numbers down and let's work together to get them there and you can have your days back.

That was our proposal, Mr. Speaker, on the sick leave, and that is for new employees going forward. There is no infringement of the rights of anybody who works for us in the public service, on the sick leave. There is no change to current entitlements whatsoever.

We went to the Warren Report. The previous government signed a Memorandum of Understanding. The former Premier of the Province signed a Memorandum of Understanding that a report would be set up to study the hours of work in schools. Facing the Challenge was the report, commonly referred to as the Warren Report. On that MOU, they put forward that these findings would be implemented. They expected to have a report by the end of March, 2002.

The report was tabled. It was given to government in January, 2003. Under that report, they estimated that it would cost - there were twelve recommendations. The first eight recommendations would cost about $5.1 million and the remaining four would cost about $4.4 million. Recommendations nine to twelve, it was felt, were not within the scope of the Warren Report and therefore non-applicable. The union did aggrieve, and that has not been dealt with, but the other eight were within the scope of that report, and it was $5.1 million to implement that.

Two months after they received that report, the government of the day, when the Opposition Leader sat on this side of the House right here, introduced a budget on the Warrant Report, that put into their budget $2.5 million to deal with the Warrant Report - a report that the author of that report said would cost $5.1 million.

I stood here in this House and brought down a Budget this year that put $3.6 million into that Budget towards the eight basic things that are included in the Warrant Report. That is 40 per cent more than the former government put into that report, the one who said they would implement it, and the one who stands in this House now criticizing us for not fulfilling an agreement.

If they were not going to live up to it, why did they sign it? Why did they agree to it? The hypocrisy is very, very clear. They never had the intention to implement it because it was too problematic in the first place. They did not have that right. I gave assurance to the leaders and the Premier the last day that what we budget and what we allocate for secretarial and janitorial and maintenance in those school systems, we will ensure that it goes for that purpose.

That is far more than a former government ever gave, only a MOU that is not a part of the current agreement. It has no validity in law. Anyone will tell you, in a legal opinion, it is not a part of the current agreement now and it is not a concession. Still, we went and put $1.1 million more into that pot there. We made a very honest effort to get a deal in this case.

I know the players involved. It was frustrating, and the final analysis on these was that we are not doing anything. It does not matter what the report is, or the targets there, we are not going to settle a period for going forward twelve days, even if we can get them back retroactively. They were not going to discuss that. They were not going to sign any agreement that did not include the Warrant Report in it, even though it is not there now.

Anybody who wants to take it to a legal opinion and challenge it to what level you like, it is not a part of it. What was in the current agreement was the Young Mediation Report, and in that report it said there will be certain things complied with for two of the three years. That expired, that lapsed, in June, 2003. That is gone. That is history. That lapsed even during the former governments, when they were in power. That lapsed and went out the door last June, so we have gone on these two issues through a very long and a very arduous and a very fair process.

We spoke with the wallet when we put in a Budget more than the former government even put into that. We indicated if there are problems with certain boards that are unfairly treating people in certain parts of this Province, and are nickel-and-dimed by cutting back a few, fifteen minutes here and there, we will ensure that there is balance, there is equity, that a school in this area, if it has 400 students and another one with 400, they have similar square footage, that we will not allow them to nickel-and-dime one and give unfairness, because people in any part of our Province with similar circumstances have a right to the same basic services. We were prepared to put that in writing, Mr. Speaker. We were prepared to do many things in writing. I hope that we will get this settled before this passes. It has been frustrating, with the games and innuendos that are said by people across this House that are not true, and I know them not to be true.

We went for three months and never spoke on this issue. I respect the right of unions to advertise and do all they want to do. I respect that right. You did not hear us come out and put counter-arguments for three months because we respected their right and we did not feel we should spend more public money on advertising and doing all these basic things to counteract it. A lot of things did get out in public that were not accurate. A lot got out that were not true. I have been there from day one. I know what is true and I know what is not true.

[Comments from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, this legislation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has to again remind people who are visitors in the gallery that they should not show any approval or disapproval verbally, or in any other way participate in the debate whatsoever. Again, we are honoured to have you here and we wish you to be here. This is very important to many of you, so we want you to listen but not to participate in any manner possible.

The hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Nobody who sat at that table with me, Mr. Puddister, Mr. Reynolds, or anybody, can deny what I said, because it is true. I have never heard them denying what I stated publicly on those matters.

The Opposition House Leader stood today in this House and said: Why are you being so draconian? Why are you putting a summary conviction? It should be around a $2,000 fine, not $250,000.

Well, the very members were over on this side of the House and the very government was over here in 1999 and they put in a summary conviction fine in Section 7 of the Health and Community Services Resumption Continuation Act, for $100,000 on a summary conviction, to bring nurses back to work - and talk about how it should be $2,000.

Talk about the hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker. That is what it is; it is hypocrisy. There is a reason, yes. The Premier mentioned it. There are four times as many people in the bargaining units now as there were with the nurses. There is about four times as many - numerous in five years. There has been an advancement in the level of fines in a five-year period. Not only that, the membership has four times the number. Yes, it is something that sends a message from government but it also is one that is reasonable under the circumstances. We want the people to come back to work. We would like to have them working. We did not want to see them out in the first place.

There is a difference in 1999, and I want to mention that. In 1999 the leaders of the Nurses' Union recommended acceptance and the membership said, no. The membership, in this instance - and I respect that is a unions right. I am not, in anyway, taking away or saying anything from the right of a union to make decisions, but the membership did not get an opportunity to speak on what we proposed and put to them. I do not, in anyway, indicate that we should do it. The unions make their own decisions. Their membership takes advice from their leaders, and I am sure they get advice, vice versa, Mr. Speaker, and that is something that is their matter. It is not an area that I am going to intrude into because it is their right. I am not questioning their right, but I would have liked, personally - I am sure we would have liked an opportunity for the members to be able to voice their concern on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to belabor it. It is fairly straightforward, most of this legislation, agreements and the changes that we made and agreed to. What we moved forward in this legislation - everything that was agreed to at the local tables, we agreed to bring forward in this legislation. We agreed to make temporary employees permanent, people who have been here over two years. We are going forward with those changes. We have agreed to allow people who are paying taxes on a car allowance, who need it for their job, a social worker, whatever the case may be, to allow that to become as a benefit that is not taxable to do that. We are coming forward with every single thing that was agreed there. The only three items that are referenced - the salary issue is one that obviously changes with every agreement. The other issue, on sick leave, it is the same for all current employees. The Warren Report is not even in the current agreement.

Mr. Speaker, there is an opportunity to hear from people on both sides of the House as we go on with discussions on this. I am not going to use the hour that I have. I do not think it is necessary. I just want to move that this question be now put.

MR. SPEAKER: It has been moved that the question be now put.

I interpret that to be in accordance with Standing Order 43.(1). I will read the Standing Order so all members can understand it. "The previous question, until it is decided, shall preclude all amendments of the main question, and shall be in the following words, "That this question be now put." If the previous question be resolved in the affirmative the original question is to be put forthwith without any amendment or debate."

So all members understand, this is accordance with the traditions of our House. We are moving the previous question, which means that members who speak now will be limited to twenty minutes; with the exception, I do believe, of the Leader of the Opposition who would have - or the member replying - one hour to speak in reply.

If the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans is going to speak next, the member will have one hour to address the issue.

MS THISTLE: Will the Leader of the Opposition have an hour to (inaudible)?

MR. SPEAKER: I would need to consult on that particular matter with the Chair. Maybe we should take a short recess so I can determine the answer to the question and come back to the House momentarily.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

(Inaudible) it is an issue where, in this particular case, it is not a government order. Therefore, the Minister of Finance could speak for twenty minutes to the question, if he wishes, but that is his choice. Then the spokespeople for the other parties can speak for twenty minutes, the exception being the Leader of the Opposition, who would have one hour to address the House.

You can speak at any time you wish. If the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans wishes to speak now she can. She will speak for twenty minutes but when the Leader of the Opposition speaks his time limit would be one hour.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think back to the petition I raised for Millcrest Academy and the young people in our schools who said: Please be fair and compromise. Mr. Speaker, this government knows nothing about being fair or compromising either. I have to say that I will be voting against Bill 18, and I am sure that all members of this side will be.

This is a very black day for democracy in our Province. It is clear that this government has no respect whatsoever for collective bargaining. They have shown that repeatedly. They showed it before January 5, because any government which realized that the biggest public sector union and all public sector unions in this Province, coming up for negotiations this year and never had the courtesy, never had the decency to sit down with union leaders prior to January 5 and discuss what the fiscal situation was in the Province or what the terms of negotiations would be in upcoming negotiations with the unions and their membership. They never had the courtesy or the decency. All they did was, ten minutes before the Premier's address on January 5, call in the union leaders and say: Look, this is it. In ten minutes time I am going on TV and this is the medicine you are going to get: wage freeze.

I guess you can go back before January 5 because, I guess, the first signal that this new government sent to unions and membership in this Province was - the first order of business was to abolish the Department of Labour. That was the first thing. So that should have been a signal to unions and union membership in this Province, that this government has no regard for the union or the union membership. Absolutely none! They do not believe that it is necessary for a business, government, and labour to have a relationship together because if they did they would have been trying to foster that relationship.

Now, here we are tomorrow, April 28, on our annual ceremony to mourn the loss of injured workers and workers who have died in the workplace. Isn't it interesting - terrible, in fact - that the date is going to coincide, maybe - when this atrocious legislation may be passed in this House tomorrow - with the official day of mourning for injured workers and those who have lost their lives in the workplace. You see that even Workplace Health and Safety, which held a very important part in the Department of Labour, no longer a Department of Labour. That has been transferred to the Department of Government Services. Can you understand now how this very important function of Workplace Health and Safety will no longer be on the front burner of the previous Department of Labour. It will be somewhere towards the back, out of the many things that they do over in Government Services.

When you look at this, Mr. Speaker, no dialogue whatsoever with the most important people in the public sector, the unions and their membership. We now have 20,000 of them out on strike when the Premier blurted out a wage freeze. Do you know something? He never had the decency to say, on that particular night, how long that wage freeze was going to last. I think that was weaseled out of him when he stood before a camera at a public function somewhere. His only agenda, that particular night, was his own agenda. We have seen that everyday since January 5. He had the audacity to take back something from seniors in our Province. He decided, on his own, that he was going to claw back the indexing they had gained in the last round of negotiations. Now, how low can you be, to claw back $5 of indexing from a pensioner out there? Day by day now I am getting letters come to my office asking us: How in the world could this ever happen to a new Premier, a new government, to want to claw back? But, you know, public outcry worked, because it finally caused him and his government to come to their senses and draw back on the pensioners.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a definite pattern of control and right-wing agenda throughout every day of this strike. I saw the Premier's interference on the picket line. We all saw it on television. You talk about intimidation tactics! He went out in the midst of the picket line with an ad that he wanted to sign, setting the record straight - that is a good one for an example - an ad that was in the Telegram. He wanted to sign it, Danny, saying that he wasn't going to touch concessions and he was going to agree to the wage increase that they had. Later the union leader picked up the cell phone and found out what the Premier had signed to was wrong, false, that indeed there were concessions on the table and he had no intention of taking them off.

Then you have the Premier talking about intimidation. Look at the riot gear that the RNC got at a cost of $50,000, and marched on the square. That is intimidation. Then the Premier suggested, not in this House but outside, to the union leadership: You know, you only have 3 per cent of the people in your membership who are concerned about the Warren Report, drop that and move on. He said: You only have 3 per cent of the people out there who are going to make a difference. Do you know something? That is in the collective agreement, that Warren Report, and we have heard nothing only foot loose and fancy free words over there on that side. They can say that it is not there but it is there. It is plain, it is legal, it is in the text.

The union leadership said they were standing up for all their members. They are not going to conquer and divide, they are not going to leave the 3 per cent out. They felt it was important. Why should the union have to lose their concessions? They shouldn't have been brought to the table in the first place. They worked and they earned those concessions. Why are they introducing them now as something they have to fight for right here today? They earned them in the past and they should keep them. They have every right to keep them.

Look at the bill that is coming before the House, Bill 18, look at the heavy-handed fines. I want to step back a bit. I want to show this House today how there was nothing but intimidation and control and the Premier's own right-wing agenda. Every time there was any word of a union demonstration, every time - and I can think of two in particular - when the Premier heard there was going to be a union demonstration, a protest, he, with his Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, hastily decided to schedule a meeting because they wanted to look at a new proposal. Do you know something? Those meetings were only deflection points. That is all they were, nothing else, a PR, public relations event.

The Premier and the Minister of Finance kept the union waiting twenty-seven hours one time, just so the Premier and the Minister of Finance could dodge another Question Period saying it was inappropriate to talk about what was happening at the table because they were looking at a new proposal. I saw him do that twice that I could recall. The first was a twenty-seven hour delay in a meeting, and the next one was a twenty-five hour delay. Does that sound like a Premier who wanted to resolve the strike situation? No, I do not think so, not at all.

Then we had the Minister of Labour stand up in the House last week and drop a weak olive branch for the two unions to get together because she knew there was a massive demonstration planned that day, herself. Twenty-five hours later there was a little PR meeting down at the hotel - a scuttle, I guess - that the Premier and the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board walked out and said, the deal is off. The deal was never on, let me tell you. The deal was never on.

In fact, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo went over to the Government House Leader and he said: Guess what? The deal is off. The talks are off, and it is back-to-work legislation.

The Government House Leader accused him of telling lies, and then the Member for Twillingate & Fog walked out and picked off the media, the news wire, yes, in fact it was true.

The Government House Leader did not even know. He did not know, and neither member of the caucus knew. That is how well-informed this Tory caucus is.

AN HON. MEMBER: I told him, sure.

MS THISTLE: Yes, several people told him, and they were in shock because they had no idea what was going on.

Now these are the same people who filled the gallery here, the public gallery, with managers, high-paid managers, some of them making $100,000 a year and big expense claims, going all over the country, and they were here filling the public galleries when the union membership were trying to get in here and they were not permitted. They even signed the visitors' book. Can you imagine? How low can you go? Managers even signed the visitors' book out there in the front, in security. They were ordered: Be here or be fired. They signed the visitors' book and got a visitor's badge when, in fact, these people work here in the building every day of their working life.

What do people say about this situation here? They clearly had an out many times. They have an out here today. They can still go to binding arbitration, but no, they do not want to go to binding arbitration and let the workers go back to work with some pride and some dignity. They do not want to do that. Workers today have been out twenty-seven days and they are losing a whole month's salary. They are losing the concessions that they had before, and they are going back feeling pretty bad. How do you think morale is going to be? They did not gain anything in this strike.

What surprised me the most was that unions were willing to be a part of the solution. They came out in the beginning and agreed to a wage freeze. That was almost unheard of. So, the unions were the first to be co-operative and what did they get? This is what they got. They cannot go out today and settle this with pride and dignity through arbitration. There are only two or three things that need to be settled. It is all within the Premier's prerogative, but no Sir. He has his right-wing agenda and by golly he is sticking to it. He is going to be the hero. He is going to take off the tables what you earned. That is his only plan in life, the right-wing agenda, and he is going to plow through no matter what else comes. He never, ever had a plan to resolve this issue because he only had one plan and that was his own. It is all about ego and it is all about his own agenda.

I heard the other day - a person of the nurses' union - on Open Line, and she said that they did not like back-to-work legislation, but she did say that the former Premier did not remove any existing benefits. I can speak, as the former President of Treasury Board, that was my first bill to the House. I did not want to bring that bill to the House, but there were thirty bargaining units that had settled prior to the nurses. It was 7 per cent for everybody at that time. That was the only reason why we came to the House. We negotiated the wage increase only. All of the other things stayed on the table and, in fact, after that event nurses were reclassified so they are now on par or above their Atlantic counterparts. Nobody wants to bring something like that to the House, but at that point there was no choice.

There are choices here today. This is the first union that you are negotiating with. You are taking off what people have already fought for, and that is not the right thing to do. I also heard her say that Williams, the new Premier, brought a wage freeze forward and the people of NAPE and CUPE are going to lose concessions.

What did the members of the current government say? This is the interesting part. When we heard that the President of Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance, brought forward a resolution saying, "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House call upon the government to submit the dispute to binding arbitration as provided for in the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act." What an about-face here!

Look at the Government House Leader, "It is the position of the Leader of the Opposition that when you enter into collective bargaining you do so not with threats or predetermined ideas of what you are going to bargain with." He says, "...the Progressive Conservative caucus that at this point, where a consensus cannot be reached, where a tentative agreement cannot be reached, that we do not arbitrarily impose settlements on people." That is what you are trying to do today. That is exactly what you are trying to do today. He said, "It is our position that if we were in your position today..." - well, you are in that position today. You are in that position today - "... we would be announcing that we would be sending it to binding arbitration."

Now, you only have two concessions on the table and you have a wage issue, so minor that people right across this country are looking at you and saying, this is not the kind of thing that you should be settling in the House of Assembly with a heavy hammer. You are very close, but do you know something? The Premier cannot get his way unless he comes to the House of Assembly, because the unions are determined to keep those concessions on the table and the Premier is determined to take them off the table and legislate them to get what he wants. That is the only reason why this Bill 18 is here today, no other reason.

Then we have the member - this is a family situation here - we have the Member for St. John's South. He is saying, "I hope and pray to God that when I get to that side of the House I will have more sympathy and compassion for the public employees than this government has, because they have none." Now, isn't that hypocritical?

Then, of course, another family member, the Member for St. John's West, said, "I am ashamed to be a member of a legislature that would introduce such a tyrannical bill, but I am proud to be a member of this Opposition that will be vehemently voting against it."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MS THISTLE: The Member for St. John's West.

Of course, you have the Education critic, last year, the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne, "Again I bring to your attention that, as far as I am concerned, collective bargaining is sacred." Would you say that today? "As a teacher, I certainly knew what it was to struggle to establish collective bargaining in this Province."

Now, that is the same member who is part of a government that is going to take out 476 teachers. It is going to consolidate the school boards and every peck of savings is not going back into the education system, not one. It is going to abolish the democratically elected school boards and use patronage appointments to appoint the people they want in there.

Then he continues to say, "I certainly knew what it was to struggle to establish collective bargaining in this Province. As I stand in this House today, I am very disappointed that the struggle to continue collective bargaining has taken a serious downturn."

Then we have the present Minister of Education, and this is what he said, "The legislation is reprehensible." Oh, well, how do you feel about Bill 18 today, Mr. Minister of Education? "It goes to show that this government, when it does not get its own way...." - well, gee-whiz, you didn't know you would be eating those same words, did you? "It goes to show that this government, when it does not get its own way..." - we could substitute that with the Premier, I guess - it goes to show that this Premier, when he does not get his own way, will do whatever it takes to ensure that he gets his own way and he denies basic ordinary legal rights and privileges to ordinary, well-intentioned, hard-working, sincere individuals. Now, that is what he says. That is exactly what he says. That is the current Minister of Education. All we had to do was substitute government for Premier. Of course, that was April 1, 1999, but it could be today.

Of course, the Minister of Finance, this is what he said, "I think it is a sad day that we stand and take draconian measures...to legislate a very civilized group of people back to work. I do not think they are very fair measures, not fair measures at all." This was a goodly number of that caucus standing on April 1, 1999, speaking against Bill 3. Now, today we are looking at Bill 18. Also, when you think about those heavy-handed fines, what union can stand to pay $250,000 a day? What union representative can pay $25,000 a day if they speak out? What member of the public service, what employee can afford to lose their job today by not going back to work? I do not think there is one public sector employee today who can take that chance of losing their job by not going back to work. That is the reason why it was heavy-handed fines that were put in this legislation.

We have heard it said during the course of this strike that there are managers out there today doing essential work, working beyond all hours of the night and day. Now, when they go back to work -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Can I just have a minute or so?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted for some cluing up comments.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Now, those managers when they go back to work, they are going to be facing very dim prospects because they are the very people whose jobs are on the line. They do not have the protection of the union. A lot of those people came up through the union system, were then promoted to management and took the chance thinking that they were going to make a bigger salary and so on. Those people, when they are back at their jobs, they do not know if they are going to be one of the 4,000 and another 1,400 who are going to be laid off by this government.

I will close my debate by saying today, Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against this legislation. There were many opportunities for this government to react and give a settlement to these workers but they chose not to, all because of the Premier's right-wing agenda.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question, first of all: Why are we here doing what we are doing today? If you go back and look at the things that have been looked at in the contract, look at the wages, the wage component of it, then look at the part of the janitorial services and then look at sick leave.

Let's look at wages, first of all, Mr. Speaker. When we look at the wages, the workers of the general service and the people who are on strike, the 20,000 of them capitulated. They gave in to zero and zero, because as the Premier has said: There is a financial situation, a mess in the Province. I do not believe that, not for one minute. Hopefully, during my twenty minutes I will be able to expound a little bit on that. In year three and four, he said: 2 per cent and 3 per cent and possibly a three and three. So, it has nothing to do with money there. That has been agreed on.

Now look at the second part of it, the component of it, when we talk about the janitorial work and the secretaries. I worked in a school, Mr. Speaker, for twenty-plus years in a community in Point Leamington where we had a good relationship with the custodian there and the secretaries; they are very important. The Minister of Finance and Treasury Board said today, and he said it yesterday: I gave the unions $1.3 million more than what we did last year so that the janitorial people and the custodians of the schools and the secretaries could have these hours. He gave them more money all right, but do you know why he gave it to the school boards? To use at their discretionary so that they can hire another assistant superintendent or two assistant superintendents, not to give work for the people who are out there doing the work in the schools. It does not cost any money. So why are we here?

Then look at the third one, sick leave. I cannot believe it, when the Premier of the Province goes and says that the last two years of people who work in the schools, or as nurses or as LPNs or anybody else, they take the last two years and do not go to work to purposely use up their sick leave. I do not believe that! Not for one minute do I believe it because there are people there with more dignity than that. If you are going to take any more than two days at a time sick leave you have to go to a doctor and get a note saying that you are sick. To perpetrate that on this House, and the people of the Province, that somehow these people are insubordinate, that they are dishonest, that they are disloyal. It is nothing more than absolutely not telling the truth.

So, why are we here? It is not about money. Government is not looking for money. I will tell you what it is about. It is about power. That is what it was from day one. I will tell you what, the last week I stood in this House and predicted what would happen, and I was right. I had that gut feeling that I was right. It is about power. I will tell you what, I used the analogy - and I will use it again today, Mr. Speaker. I grew up in a small community on the South West Coast, and my grandfather and my father fished for a living. Do you know what? They did not know what it was to have currency in their pockets. It was a barter system. I can remember when my parents had no money. I look back at it and I realize it was quite a struggle for me to be where I am today. But we survived and we got currency, and we did it. We made it a point. Do you know what we have today in the Premier? We have a modern day Water Street fish merchant leading the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: That is what you have.

The people who are strike here are the lowest paid workers in the public service. These are the people we probably should give some extra attention to, people who deserve it, people who are out there like single parents working as a custodian or a secretary, or working with the kitchen outfit in some of the seniors' homes around the Province. These are the people who deserve attention.

I remember also - I think it was the Member for Gander who said it, he can remember as a young boy, when they were ‘politicking' they threw rocks at Joey Smallwood's car. Well, we did not, Mr. Speaker. I said at that particular time it depended on where you lived. If you lived in St. John's on Water Street as a fish merchant or if you lived in some small cove out around the bay, when Joey Smallwood came - do you know what he brought for us? He brought a currency. He brought things that so many other people who were a part of Canada had. It meant that my parents did not have to sell cattle and they did not have to sell potatoes to buy butter and to buy sugar and the things that they needed for the winter. That is the difference, and that is why we are here.

I remember also, when we talked about the legislation a few days ago, one of the members on the opposite side - I am not sure who it was - said: At least we were not like you, we did not bring in legislation to legislate people back to work. This particular piece of legislation is quite different, even though I am not proud that we had to do it. When we legislated the nurses back to work we had already agreed with the general services union. They had gotten 7 per cent, but what the government at the time said: We will give everybody the same, and that is what it was. They wanted 17 per cent and we did not think it was fair.

I mean the comments - I will not use all the comments that are here by people who are opposite. They stand today under the $2.7 billion more debt than we did back in 1999, and that is why they cannot vote for it. I will tell you where some of the money has gone. It was a comment that was made by the Premier to Maclean's. It was probably made in jest, but I tell you, it had a lot of merit in it. Do you know what he said? One of the way that we, as a government - when I was here as a minister - wasted money was by giving 15 per cent over three years to government workers. Do you know what his comment was? Too much, too fast. It might be all right for him, but go and tell the person in the public service who has one wage earner, who makes $25,000 or $30,000 a year, that it is too much for them. Go and tell them. Live in their shoes! I am telling you, it is not right, and that is the situation that we find ourselves in today.

The other thing was pretty telling too, Mr. Speaker. I have been lucky enough, and I guess privileged enough, that the people in my area sent me back to this Legislature five times. I am proud of that, as their representative. Do you know what the Premier said again when he was talking about it in Maclean's and he pooh-poohed it? Some of his friends, when he was interviewed in Maclean's - who owns Maclean's? Rogers Cable, that is who owns Maclean's. I guess there is a connection there. Do you know what he said when he talked about the House of Assembly? He said: I hope it will never open.

AN HON. MEMBER: A waste of time.

MR. LANGDON: A waste of time.

Well, this is the people's House and it is not a waste of time when we come here. The people I represent sent me here. I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, what is going to happen. I have been here long enough and I know. I am not a prophet, but I will predict what will happen. This government has only been in power for six months - six or seven months - but do you know what someone said to me only recently? You have become as arrogant in six months as we were in fifteen years. I will tell you what it is going to mean.

For the people who are on the front bench, it might not make any difference. You have been here two times, three times, four times or five times, and even more than me, but the people who are in the back - and they are good people who see themselves as having a career in politics where they can make a difference to Newfoundland and Labrador - I am telling you, you will not get the second chance. You came in here on his coattails but you will not get elected on his coattails the next time, I guarantee you that. He might have led you to the promised land but he cannot lead you any further. That is why you have, in your situation here, to be able to stand on your own two feet and be able to vote with your conscience. I believe, honestly from my heart, after reading some of the comments that are there and knowing some of the people who are on the other side, you have difficulty with it. You do have difficulty. You are not right wing.

The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board said in his speech in the House of Assembly here: I do not care how much money we have in the Province, there are too many people working for government.

That is what he said. Now, I do not believe other people believe that. I honestly do not believe that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture believes that. In the bottom of my heart I do not believe that he does, and he does not, because, I am telling you, he understands what it is like to be in the rural part of the Province and know the people who work.

I talked to a town manager not too long ago, and do you know what he said to me? He said: Oliver, we can, if we want to, get rid of all the social services or the HRE offices, we do not need any of them. We can probably get rid of many of the clinics in the rural part of the Province and have people drive forty minutes, fifty minutes, or even an hour, but do you know what it does? It takes the personal touch from going up into the office and being able to sit down and relate to a person. If you have a problem then you can deal with it. You cannot deal with it with a TV monitor. That is the big difference. It is the same thing with the teaching situation. You can take out 500 teachers and you can put in a computer monitor, but you do not have the personal touch. You cannot be able to do the things that you want to do.

Mr. Speaker, it all depends on philosophy. I believe that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who are scattered by 10,000 miles along the coastline of Newfoundland and Labrador, and 500,000 people we have, there are two approaches. You can either have the services in education and in health, and other services with it, and grow the economy so that people who live in Leading Tickles or the person who lives in Ming's Bight, or the person who lives in Gaultois, or the person who lives on the Port au Port Peninsula, can have services. That is one way of doing it. Do you know the other way? You have so much money to spend and what do you do with it? You cut and you slash so that you can only provide certain services with the amount of money that you have. That is what we are seeing here, exactly.

The Leader of the Opposition talked about the Blue Book, and he talked about the three approaches that you have, or the three principles, and the first principle that you had was to balance the Budget. That was the first principle, to balance the Budget at all costs, and that is what you are doing here. One of the other things we talked about, when you talk about the financial mess, it was $300 million, I think, for salaries for public service. Think about the other thing. We think about health care.

In health care, those people who are in the Cabinet, you know the problem as well as I do. Only sixteen cents out of every dollar that we spend in health care comes from Ottawa. The rest of it comes from here. In 1999, when we did a Budget, there was $900 million spent on health care. Do you know what it was last year, the last Budget that we had? One point four billion. Where do you think the $500 million came from? It came from the people here, and we had to absorb a certain amount of debt with it. If we did not do that, we would have had to close the clinic in Hermitage or we might have to close the clinic in Fortune Bay North, or the clinic in St. Alban's. We, as a people, decided we were not going to do that, and, I am telling you, when you realign the health care services in Newfoundland - and you will have your report coming in November - if you think you have trouble now, you will have more then, because what you are going to be doing is you are going to be denying the people who live in the rural part of the Province a right to proper health care, and they will not stand for it. I am telling you right now, they will not. It is a sacred thing for the people. I realize that people in my own district, if we want to have services - for example, in Grand Falls-Windsor, we have to drive two-and-a-half hours from down the coast, on the Southwest Coast, and in the wintertime it is a dangerous situation, 150 kilometres without any service station or anything on the Bay d'Espoir highway - nothing - and we come to Grand Falls. Then, of course, one of the things that we were going to do for the people in the central area, which would have served from Baie Verte, probably even to Glovertown, was to put in a new cancer clinic to extend the Central Newfoundland hospital so that the people from my area, the people from Baie Verte, the people from Springdale, the people from Glovertown, might be able to go to that centre and be able to have treatment rather than having to come to St. John's, seven hours, eight hours.

That is where the human touch comes into all of this. There has to be a human touch. If we are elected as people to serve our people, then obviously we cannot be always counter of beans. We have to have the human touch. We have to have a heart. We have to let the people who we serve know that we care about them. It doesn't matter if we stand on this side of the House or the other side of the House. I am not castigating people. That is the way that it is. The people who elect us depend upon us to make good laws, they depend upon us to be able to take their needs and give them the services that they so rightly deserve. This is what it is about in this particular House, and that is why the people in the galleries are here today, general service workers, of which my wife is one, working in a seniors' home as an LPN. I am telling you, the work is hard and strenuous. I am telling you, they work much hard than Oliver Langdon does with the work that they do. I am telling you, you have to have a passion for people who are in that situation, to care for them. They are in the last days of their lives and the parents and relatives who put these people in the homes, they want care, they want attention, and you have to have that for them. That is what it is about, Mr. Speaker, and this is why these people are in the gallery today; they want to do a good job.

I heard one member talking about the T-shirts, I think it was, that the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace had a $3,000 invoice for a T-shirts. I don't have any T-shirts in my closet. If there were T-shirts that were bought, do you know what they did with them in my department? We had such things as appreciation days for employees. They came to me and said: We are going to have a day and we are going to play golf or do something in the summer. Do you have anything to give us? Do you have any T-shirts. Do you have any shirts? Do you have this, do you have that? It came from the budget that was in the department. Oliver Langdon didn't have them. We showed appreciation for the people who worked for us.

Do you know what I said when I went into the departments? I only had the opportunity to be a minister for six years, two departments. I will tell you what I said when I went through the door, and I meant it, the day that I went and the day that I left, and the people over there will tell you no different. I said: There are no hierarchies in this department. The person who is at the desk, the person who welcomes people to the department, to this minister, we are all on the same level. We have a job to do, and I appreciate you and you appreciate me. When good things happen, we all take part in doing it good. If something goes wrong, we all take a part in that too. It worked, because people appreciated me being there for them and being able to associate with them, and to know that you were not up there and they were down here. That is what it is about.

None of us have the right to rule. We are given a privilege by the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, the party opposite, to govern, and that is what it is about. You have six months gone and the people who are out in the Province have three years, or three and a half years, I guess, if you have a fixed term, before they got to the polls again. I am telling you, you mark my words - I might not be here, but I will tell you one thing, don't underestimate the people who are out there in the rural parts of the Province or in any city or urban area. When we come here, it is a privilege. We cannot impose our will on the people that are here, the people who sent us here. We are here to represent them and to do the best we can. None of us have the right to say we rule the Province. We do not rule, we govern. We are given that right.

Mr. Speaker, I also think about the Premier himself, when he came here to lead. There was so much hope, because we had been in power for fifteen years and people said: We want a change. That is a democracy and the people are right and they did that. They gave the party opposite thirty-four seats and we were left with twelve along with two for the NDP. They had spoken.

We had some problems, internally. Everybody knows that. The time had come. I said to our people: If we paved every side road with gold we would not have been back here. People wanted change and they had the change, because the Premier held himself out and said: Nobody who has ever come before me, knows how to do it like I do. I am a lawyer, I know how to negotiate, I am a business man, I am a multi-millionaire, trust me and you will see that things are different, you will grow the economy. The people believed it because, I am telling you, they had faith that it would happen. Look what has happened.

When the Premier gave his word to the people in Grand Bank and said on tape, I do not care

who is elected here, a Tory or a Liberal, you will have your hospital done. Guess what? They are going to remove the steel in Grand Bank. Think about the situation in Labrador, the ferry service, the same thing happened, and the same thing with the school board situation. Time does not permit us to be able to say all the things we want to say in the twenty minutes, but we will have some more time over the next number of days that we debate this. School boards that were genuinely elected by the people, democratically elected by the people, the people put them there, and then what happened? Gone, with the stroke of a pen. You do not matter anymore, you are not there anymore, we will appoint people to run it for you. That is democracy!

They did not, under any conditions when they gave you a vote to come in here to govern the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, give you the right to do that. You did it. You destroyed democracy. You destroyed the level of democracy that the people had in those small communities.

Now you will have a bigger board and the people will have a right to run again. No doubt about it, they will, but there has been no consultation with them, none whatsoever. You just went ahead and did it with the stroke of a pen. I am telling you that the electorate out there, that elected me and elected all of us who are here, will never stand again for all of us, because to deceive them, to tell them one thing and do another - I also said the other day and I stand by that-

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is lapsed.

MR. LANGDON: Just one minute to conclude, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

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

MR. LANGDON: I said this the other day when I stood up here in this House, that the people out there look at politicians on a scale from one to ten. We do not even measure. We are so far down you would have to get a telescope to see where we measure on the scale, because they look at all of us as being not truthful, deceiving them and telling them the things we want them to hear rather than the whole truth. We have lost their confidence. This is what is happening.

This piece of legislation solidifies that, it cements that, because, as I said in the beginning, to bring draconian legislation like this into the House of Assembly and to make the people who are on strike, or the Newfoundland population as a whole, think that this is about money is not true. There does not need to be any money here. These people could go back to work. They did not even need to send it to binding arbitration. They did not need to do that either, because there is no immediate money up top, Mr. Speaker.

With that, I will conclude this particular part of the debate.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. GRIMES: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. GRIMES: Just a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

In normal debate, of course, with thirty-three members sitting on the other side and a dozen or so here, we would alternate. I am sure my colleague would gladly defer if one of the other members on the other side would like to stand and suggest to the people of the Province why it is that they think Bill 18, the back-to-work legislation, is the right and proper legislation for the Province, and why they support it.

Maybe the Minister for Justice, who was answering some questions today about component parts of it, would like to rise. We would certainly defer. We are all going to take our opportunity to say why we are opposed to this legislation, and I am sure that the members opposite would like to take their turn. I am sure they are proud of the legislation, and would like to stand up and say why they are for it.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I recall the time in the House when the Leader of the Opposition was over here, but I will not get into that now, I will deal with the point that he made. We all have an opportunity to speak. Let me assure the Leader of the Opposition, that members on this side will take their opportunity when we are ready to take our opportunity to speak to this piece of legislation.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair certainly does not recognize people who do not stand. The Chair recognizes somebody who stands to speak, and, as the Chair looked around, the member he recognized was the Member for Bellevue. I call on the Member for Bellevue now to rise in his place.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have to say today, Mr. Speaker, that I rise today not very enthusiastic about speaking in this debate in terms of this piece of legislation. The public service unions in this Province today have declared it a Day of Mourning because of what has happened in this Province over the last twenty-six days. Of course, tomorrow I will be participating in a function with the workers of the Province in terms of the official Day of Mourning for people who were injured and killed in the workplace, but today we are here debating this particular bill.

I watched over the last twenty-six days - I was here in 1999 and I sat on that side of the House when we brought in the legislation for the nurses, te back-to-work legislation for the nurses in the Province. It was not an easy decision to make, but as a government we thought that we should be fair to all the workers in the Province. As you are all well aware, as a former public servant, there are positions within the public service that are classified with a different salary levels, based on your level of responsibility and the level of training that is required for the job. We had given every other bargaining unit in the Province at that particular time the 7 per cent raise. We did not say that nurses did not deserve an extra salary, but that was a matter more of classification rather than a collective bargaining one. What we did do after, in terms of that, was that the nurses were reclassified and there was extra money paid to the nurses. I think that is the important thing that we should remember, and I think what hon. members should remember here is that we are talking about positions and we are talking about general increases, so we have to look at the classifications.

We had committed, in the last collective agreement, that we would do a position review that would start this April, but that has been pushed ahead now. That is another thing that the union gave up in this particular contract, was the whole reclassification of positions.

I remember when I became Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, I advocated that our plow operators should be reclassified higher. If you look at the kind of conditions that these people work under - I was on one of those plows one day in a snow storm. If you are driving along that road - I mean when we get in our vehicles and we are caught in a snow storm and we say, my Moses, are we ever going to reach our destination. You are there terrified, you are tense, you are nervous and you are petrified, but, hon. members, when those plow operators get aboard that big machine in a snowstorm - I remember being on the Outer Ring Road, and that is a divided highway. Thank God, I don't think I would go on one of those small highways. On the Outer Ring Road, I mean, you could not see anything and you did not know at the side of the road if there was a vehicle. There could be a family in that car with kids, but in a snowstorm you do not know if there is a vehicle there or not. So, we, as the government, said: We think we should reclassify these people and pay them a higher salary over and above their general increases. That is what we did with the nurses.

Yesterday I talked about the Premier and his interview in Maclean's. He talked about the House of Assembly being a useless place. I think the most damaging thing he ever did, in that article, he said that the Province was in a bit of a financial dilemma. He said one of the big things that the previous government did was that we gave 5 per cent, 5 per cent and a 5 per cent raise to our public servants. How did Newfoundland's deficit get so large? It is accumulation. There has been some mismanagement in the last ten years. For instance, last year public service employees were given 5 per cent increases. Five per cent increases, three years retro. It was not three years. He got it wrong there. It was not three years retro. The man did not even know what he was talking about. He did not know what he was talking about. What we had negotiated was a three-year agreement with out public servants, 5 per cent in the first year, 5 per cent, 5 per cent. There was no retro. The agreement expired at the end of March. The end of April the workers got their increases and they were staged increases per the collective agreement. Now, that agreement expired at the end of March this year. But listen to what he said: That cost us $350 million annually. The public servants had not had an increase for maybe seven-and-a-half years but it was too much, too fast. It was too much, too fast. Now, $350 million, he said, it cost -

MR. GRIMES: That was not what he said when he was sitting right here.

MR. BARRETT: No, that is not what he said when he was sitting there. No. We all know what he was saying when he was sitting there.

MR. GRIMES: They should have gotten more.

MR. BARRETT: They should have gotten more, he said. Let's look at it. I know I only have twenty minutes. That is one of the unfortunate things, and for people who are not familiar with the rules of the House, we have a bill that is brought in here today that is the worst bill that was ever brought before the House of Assembly in Newfoundland and Labrador. The worst bill ever in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador. The worst bill!

Do you know what they have done? I want to tell the people out there in television land - because one of the great things I guess as Minister of Works, Services and Transportation, I was the minister responsible for installing the televisions in this great Assembly. For the people out in television land, what they have done with this bill is brought in closure. For the new members sitting in the seats up here, closure means that each member can speak twenty minutes only. At the end of the twenty minutes - and that is what they are doing over here right now. That is why people on this side are up speaking. Once we all get up and speak for twenty minutes, then they will call the bill. All debate is cut off on that reading.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: Yes, just on this reading. All debate is cut off once every member has spoken for twenty minutes. So, their game plan over there is that we will only speak - and there is nobody going to speak over there, obviously. Well, we will wait and see because we want to hear from some of the people over there who spoke in the nurses union. We want to hear what they are going to say.

The Member for Lewisporte used to call it the hobnailed boots. It was a sign of a dictatorship, actually. Closure is only brought in, in extreme circumstances. It is called the hobnailed boots. It is one rule of the House of Assembly that is often referred to as the hobnailed boots.

I want to get back to the $350 million that the Premier said the public servants cost us. Well, I would like to remind the Premier that the $350 million that was paid to our public servants - I would like to ask the hon. members on the other side, I do not know about you, but when I worked with the public servants and if I got a $50 raise on my paycheque I did not get a $50 raise because the Province took a percentage in provincial income tax. My pensions went up, my premiums, my medicare and all the other things that I pay into went up. Part of that $350 million came back to the provincial government in taxes. So, the normal provincial tax that they would pay is probably around 20 per cent. While I was not a math teacher, I can tell you, 20 per cent of $350 million to me is $70 million. Now we are down to what? Seventy million dollars we are down to $200 -

MR. GRIMES: Two hundred and eighty.

MR. BARRETT: Two hundred and eighty. Thank you.

MR. GRIMES: I used to be a math teacher.

MR. BARRETT: You used to be a math teacher. I am glad you were a math teacher. You are going to have to help me along here now, sir. You are going to have to help me along because I was not very good at math.

So, that is $280 million. It is not $350 million. Again, it is a perfect example of the Premier of the Province trying to mislead. Not only was he misleading the people of Newfoundland and Labrador but he went up with his buddies - the Rogers Maclean's who owns this magazine - sat down with them and probably had a party, that is what it was. It was not an interview, it was a party.

MS THISTLE: Did Rogers buy cable?

MR. BARRETT: Rogers bought cable, yes. They are all part of the same corporation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who sits on Rogers board of directors?

MR. BARRETT: He sits on Rogers board of directors. I think he does, I am not sure. Don't get me sidetracked here now because this is important.

We have $280 million. Do you know what I did when I got a raise? I went out and spent it.

MR. GRIMES: Right here?

MR. BARRETT: Right here. Right here in Newfoundland. Made right here in Newfoundland.

I went out and when my kids were small I probably went out - when I had this big raise. We get all excited when we get that big raise. We go out and we buy things for people. I probably went out and bought something for my son or my daughter. Lo and behold, if it was $50 then when I rang it in at the cash register I had to give a little percentage to Ottawa, a little percentage to the Province; 15 per cent. The public servants, again, have another 8 per cent gone. Eight percent of $350 million, that is another $24 million or $25 million. Now we are down to $250 million.

Do you know also what happened? Do you know what also happened in the last three years? I think hon. members should pay attention to this. We led the country in new car sales. We led the country. Okay, I know what it was like when I got a three-year agreement and I got a raise. I said now this is a good time for me. I know that I am going to have a job and I know I am going to get a raise. I know this is the money I am going to have for the next three years so I will go over to Toyota Plaza now and buy myself a car. Not pay for it though. I had to go to the bank and get a loan for it. We took it out over a three-year period like most of us around here.

AN HON. MEMBER: What caused yourself in a deficit?

MR. BARRETT: No, I couldn't buy a Viper. You will never see me driving around in a Viper, I can tell you that.

AN HON. MEMBER: A true deficit.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, that is a deficit, but I had another deficit called a mortgage, but they didn't call that in. If they had called that in, I would have been out on the street in a canvas tent.

We did the country in new car sales. A public servant went over and paid $20,000 for a new car, financed over three years, four years, five years. Some of us even got to go six years. Do you know what they did when they bought the car? Three thousand dollars in taxes again. Not only that, when they bought the car they had to pay $140 to register it, and all the other things that go with it.

AN HON. MEMBER: One hundred and eighty now.

MR. BARRETT: One hundred and eighty now, $180 for a Viper and $180 for a 1988 Chevrolet. So the poor person has to pay the same as the millionaire. That is another speech for another time.

The other thing that happened in the last three years, we led the country in home renovations. If you go to the building supply dealers, the paint stores, and what have you, and they will say that we led the country in home renovations. People, when they had the security to know they were getting a raise, that kitchen that you needed to do, that bathroom that you needed to do, that new flooring you needed, that new patio you needed to put on - what did the public servants do? They said: Well, we can afford that now. Do you know what they did? They went out and they bought building materials. They paid taxes on building materials. Do you know what else? They employed people to do that work. The public servant out there who had money and went out and did the home renovations, the carpenters, the plasters, the painters, they hired the people to do the work and they generated employment. And this Premier here is up on the mainland saying we wasted $350 million.

What else did we do? We also led the country in new home construction. The same way, when people have a sense of security they go out and know - do you know what is happening in this building today, and you have created it? Everybody is terrified about what is going to happen, because you don't know if you are going to have a job tomorrow. They don't know if they are going to have a job tomorrow. I went through it. I was there. I participated. I was told when the strike was on, back in 1986, to go out and work. I washed dishes at the Waterford Hospital, pots and pans, and worked like a dog, and do you know what this government did to me in 1987, immediately afterwards? I was declared redundant. I was of no use any more. I was declared redundant, and it is going to happen to a lot of people in this building. Every day I came into work - and you talk about the Chinese torture - a young family, in debt up to here, in 1987, a big mortgage, a piece of land that I paid $50,000 to build a house in Mount Pearl, $50,000 for a piece of land. I heard that the Premier got a piece in there for nothing, practically, to build a golf course, but that is a speech for another day.

Every day I came in. For a year they kept me like that. I did not know if the next payday was going to be my last payday. You have those public servants in here now. We have the Minister of Health with the HAY Group doing all of the studies around the Province. We have asked the Minister of Human Resources. In the Budget it said that twenty offices were going to close in the Province, HRE, and she does not know where. So, which offices out there now - it is bad enough that they were out on the picket line for the last twenty-six days, but these employees were out on the picket line, in all kinds of weather, and some of them do not know, when the strike is over - or when they are forced back to work; I should not say when the strike is over - when they are forced back to work, they do not know if they are going to have a job, and you hon. members over there today are not going to get up on your feet? Tell the world how you feel; because I said in this House, when we legislated the nurses back to work, and I listened to some of the speeches that were given by hon. members on the other side - a piece of legislation that never resembled what we have here today - I remember sitting in the caucus, and sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe in. I said that the janitors in the school and the people who work - I have a ninety-one-year-old aunt at Hoyles-Escasoni, a former teacher on Woody Island. I visit her at Hoyles-Escasoni, and some of these people are some of the lowest paid people around. As a family, we are not there for her. We cannot be there for her all the time, but there are angels.

In the way I was brought up, I think you should treat everybody fairly. Everybody should be treated fairly, and I was not prepared to say that the person who worked at Hoyles-Escasoni, or the person who cleans our schools, or the secretary in our schools, or anybody else - I believe that we should give everybody the same raise. If you have a problem with classification, that is a different story all together.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member that his time has expired.

MR. BARRETT: I just want to have a few minutes to clue up, because I want to say the Member for St. John's South was very vocal when he was on this side of the House. He said, "I hope and pray to God that when I get to that side of the House I will have more sympathy and compassion for the public employees than this government has, because they have none".

I ask the Member for St. John's South to rise now and speak in this debate and tell me: Do you agree with this kind of legislation, where you are stripping benefits from the workers of Newfoundland and Labrador, and some of the lowest paid workers in Newfoundland and Labrador? I want you to stand today and be counted and say where you do stand, because when you were over here, I was over there and I said: We have to give the nurses the same treatment as we gave every other worker in this Province.

Will you stand today and be counted, and when the vote is called today, will you stand and vote against this legislation, which is the worst piece of legislation that this Province ever faced?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is with a great deal of sadness today that I find myself having to speak in this debate to participate in such a draconian event as this Bill 18.

As I watched the past twenty-six days unfold, and watched the Thursday afternoon surprises when the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board would stand and say: I think we are close. We have an offer. I think we are going to have some good results by the weekend.

Everybody would go home and be tuned into their TV sets, and their radios and their newspapers, only to find out: No, nothing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hoax.

MR. SWEENEY: I do not want to say the word hoax, but it certainly protrudes to go that way, to be a hoax. I do not want to call it a hoax because I always want to think that the people of government are responsible enough to bargain and negotiate in good faith. Good faith is what bargaining is all about. Collective bargaining is the very pillar upon which our workplace is built. If you do not have good faith, confidence and trust in your employees, then how can you have a service that is going to work for you? How can you have it?

It works the other way as well, the good faith and confidence of your employer. If an employee does not have that respect, that good relationship established towards their employer, then what do we have? You can lay out all the great plans that you want, but if you do not have the people in your system to sustain the goals that you have as an organization, then you are not going to accomplish what you are trying to do. It cannot happen. It just cannot happen. We have seen that in so many instances throughout the years, not just in government but in private corporations. We look at the Enrons of the world, where things fell apart at the top. The employees were hung with the blame for a while, until the inquires were started and things started to come out and unfold as they should.

We do not need to be standing here today in this hon. House debating this bill, which should never be here in the first place. As I watch what happened here, the unions up front conceded zero and zero in the first two years. They pretty well agreed, there was only a small difference between what they asked for in the last two years and what was offered to them. It was a pittance. I said to myself: The Premier, I know he is setting the stage. He is a great negotiator - so he tells everybody. He is a great successful business person. He is going to pull a rabbit out of the hat and come out of this like a hero. He is going to put on his crown and he is going to come down and say: I have a deal. My employees have faith in me; they are going to go back to work.

Well, let me tell you, week after week after week, everybody was shocked, and said, it is not happening. What is he trying to accomplish here? It seemed to me, and a lot of people I have met and have spoken with over the past little while, who said: You know, I think he does not want a deal. I think that he wants to punish the public sector because they stood up and said: No. We have rights and we want to negotiate our rights through a fair collective bargaining session.

Do you know what? As I watch what is happening with all of this, sure enough, that is what it is. Even today, you know, this little carrot was flicked up again today, that by 5:00 p.m. we are going to have a deal; we have another offer. Well, do you know what? The Leader of the Opposition said it earlier: Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me!

I do not think there is a deal. I hope there is. I truly hope there is, because if there is a deal then what we are doing this afternoon is a waste because we can throw away this legislation. The public employees, the public sector, are willing to go back to work and we do not need this deal. We do not need to legislate them back to work. It is as plain and as simple as that. That is why I am standing here this afternoon before our supper break in another hour, and I am hoping that when I go in tonight and turn on the news, or maybe one of my colleagues might come in here, like I did last Thursday, and make the announcement - only, what I announced last week was not good news.

AN HON. MEMBER: None of them knew it.

MR. SWEENEY: You are right, none of the government members knew it. None of them knew it.

MR. E. BYRNE: Gerry, you happened to be listening to VOCM (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: I say to the Government House Leader, that is a sad testimony, the fact that the Member for Twillingate & Fogo happened to be listening to VOCM news. He knew it before you did.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: He did not. One of the reporters was sending a communiqué. You are a Cabinet minister, the right hand of the Premier.

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: Any time that I do take up - I think all members know, and for people in the gallery who do not - for all members here who know, if I take up any time of a member on a point of order, he can have all of it back. That is not the point.

It is a neat argument you are making, but it is not correct. Last week, when negotiations broke down, when the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board and the Premier were down with Mr. Puddister and Mr. Reynolds, I believe the entire provincial media were camped outside their door when they walked out and said - all of the cameras were there, all of the mikes were there - do you have a deal? All four of them came out. Everybody was told the same time.

To make a point, which is the point you have been trying to make, all of you, that for some reason none of us knew, we were told the same time everyone else was told because there was no other opportunity. How could it not be, when you walk out of a room - the Premier and Minister of Finance - and the media are there and they say: Is there a deal? I am sorry, there is not.

The impression you are trying to leave is not a correct one. I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, just to try to put it in the context that it should be in.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: I want to speak to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, because the Government House Leader raised it and because I was the individual who told the House Leader last week that the deal was off and that legislation was coming. I told the individual, the House Leader, out in the hallway. He came back into the House of Assembly and he said it was a lie. In fact, he went further than that. He called me a liar.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I went up to my office and -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: I am speaking to the point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I went up to my office and on the computer I pulled off the CBC Web site exactly what had occurred at the hotel down there.

What the member opposite is saying is not completely correct, because I talked to the Chief of Security out in the hallway after he made the comment to me. He informed me that the Premier was, in fact, back in his office, in this building, an hour before I told the minister opposite that the deal was off and legislation was coming. If the minister did not know, it was because his Premier, who was sitting in his office upstairs for an hour, did not think it was necessary to tell him.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. It is a point of clarification. I call on the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace to continue with his debate.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not mean to generate so much interest in who made the announcement. In any event, the members opposite did not know and the Premier must have forgotten to send a note in and tell the hon. members that negotiations had broken down.

In any event, upon my making the announcement I see the shock and amazement on their faces, the word officially came in.

MR. GRIMES: You made the announcement.

MR. SWEENEY: I made the announcement, yes, right here. It is in Hansard, and I think it was somewhere around 4:05 or 5:04 in the afternoon.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: It was 4:05, was it?

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, this draconian, backwards, regressive - you call it, you name it whatever you want. I will leave Hansard to put in the negative words for this legislation.

MR. GRIMES: The most negative word they can find, they can put it in.

MR. SWEENEY: Yes, absolutely. They have spell check and everything else, so they can use their computers to find whatever they want and I would gladly sign off to it. I say not sign off to it in the same context that the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board did yesterday when he said: Well, I do not know. I have not seen Bill 18 yet. I am not sure. I have not seen it.

Then, last night on the news, they had the gall to stand in front of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and say: Well, the Opposition could have passed this today.

We all know what the process is here in this House. I said: Well, I did not hear that right. So, I spoke to some of my colleagues later in the evening and today and, of course, this morning on Open Line, lo and behold he was saying the same thing: If the Opposition co-operates, we can do this today.

The question I have is: Why didn't we do it last week when the President of Treasury Board stood and made his Ministerial Statement on April 22, that says: Government met with representatives of the health sector and today we have concluded it is necessary to respond to the urgent pressure which this sector is experiencing. It is clear now, the twenty-second day of this labour disruption, that our ability to provide emergent and urgent care is significantly reduced.

What happened? What happened? Swift action, and today is the twenty-seventh. What happened to the swift action? It goes back to the point I was saying earlier: Let's get another week's pay off those public servants because they stood up to me. They said no to me.

MR. GRIMES: Five more days gone.

MR. SWEENEY: Five more days gone and I still do not hear of anything happening other than another carrot held out again for tonight to get a news story, and I would imagine it will point the finger at the unions again if they do not roll over and bleed on the ground in front of them, because that is what is going to happen here. This is about winning and there is nothing more hurtful and vengeful than being in a position where you have to win, because somebody stood and spoke to me. It is about power.

MS THISTLE: Absolute power.

MR. SWEENEY: I say, yes, to the Member for Grand Bank. I am well are of the phrase, absolute power breeds absolute corruption.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: An abuse of power. Published a full page in the paper, I say to the Leader of the Opposition.

The unions in this Province caught on to it. You have to stop and question yourself when you see so many people, yesterday afternoon, march on both sides of the parkway, in both directions of the parkway, in the worse kind of weather. Many of them endangered their lives trying to get in here on the Trans-Canada, because the roads were terrible. I came in over it yesterday and it took me over two hours what it normally takes an hour or an hour and ten minutes. Those people believe in their right to be dealt with fairly. That is what this is about.

Every now and then somebody would get up from the other side: Well, in 1999 you legislated the nurses back. Some of the members on my side have dealt with that. It was a different situation. We didn't take anything. In actual fact, we gave the nurses the same raise that every other public sector - there were thirteen bargaining units - had, at the same time.

MR. GRIMES: They had already agreed to it in negotiations..

MR. SWEENEY: They had agreed to it in negotiations. It is a different story today. We are taking things.

It is sheer nonsense to say that the Warren Report is not in the collective agreement. I think it is on page - it is in every other one that I have seen. It is on page 85. Memorandum of Understanding; Young mediation report; Hours of work. It is all here. To say that it is not there - the pages before it are in there, the pages after it are all in there, so what happened to that page, page 85? It is not there, but I see it. Then, if it is not there, why would you come up with a piece of legislation, a clause in there, saying that it is not going to be there, we don't recognize it. If it is not there, why do you need that clause? That is an issue that is gone.

MR. GRIMES: The Minister of Justice is going to explain that to us when he gets up. He knows the answer.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Some of his answers today were pretty good.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, I want to get on with my soliloquy here, if you wish. I want to quote some of the members opposite from 1999. I want to quote some of the people. It says: We are going to talk about the Premier and some of the members, the Liberal Premier of the day. One member said: Mr. Speaker, the Emperor of the Liberal Party knows that is wrong. He was referring to not letting the Liberal members stand, after the Liberal Premier had said: Everyone has a right to a free vote. He stood in the House and he said that. One member on this side disagreed.

The member goes on to say: The Premier knows that is wrong. The Premier knows that the troops are reined in and the people who want to stand and vote with the masses of people here will not be allowed to do it. They are stifled, they are muzzled, they are not allowed to speak. God help me, Mr. Speaker, if I ever find myself in that position in this House. I will tell you one thing, I will not be here long.

I will continue on for the next little paragraph. I will tell you one thing, when I was elected to the House of Assembly, I was elected by the people of my district to serve them the best possible way that I had the ability. I was not elected to serve the Premier or my Leader or my caucus, I was elected to serve the people of Bonavista South, and that is what I will continue to do. You put your constituents first and you put your desire to be in the front benches last. It is a dark day.

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a dark day. It is a dark day for this Province. We have had a dark few weeks.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) Bonavista South. Can't be the same one.

MR. SWEENEY: That is a prop, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, I am not allowed to use that.

I can go on. I want to pick out some more. This morning, I woke up and listened to the radio.

MR. GRIMES: So he believes, though, there should be a free vote?

MR. SWEENEY: Absolutely, as I suspect all the members on the other side believe.

This morning - and I have to get this in because I notice my time is running short - I listened to CBC radio news, the Morning Show, and a gentleman, Frank Taylor, national representative of Canadian Auto Workers Union, called in. "I guess if there was anyone that got out of bed this morning and they were well after listening to Ed Byrne try to weasel his way out of what, what he said and what he, what he had took on the Tobin government for in 1999. Certainly, you know, that would, that would led one to believe that politics is all about cynicism, about lies, and about deceit. Ed Byrne was a man who, who betrayed himself, you know, with all those, the qualities of being an honorable man. A man who had some integrity, a man who had some honestly and was prepared to stand up for what he believed in. His actions now in the House of Assembly and by sitting by Danny Williams and letting him suck all those virtues out of him, along with his values, certainly leads me to believe that he is a man who can never be trusted again. And I think that every time he looks at himself in, in the mirror he should ask himself, you know, a very simple question, who am I? Am I the man that, you know, had those values or am I now a person who will be led around by the nose, by Danny Williams? You know, one thing can be sure, the electorate in Newfoundland can never trust you again."

That was the end of the conversation with Mr. Taylor.

One of the things that we come into this House with - we are all charged, by our constituents, to come in and do the best possible job that we can. None of us are perfect, but we come in here with the honesty and the integrity to charge forward and represent all our constituents, as fairly and as equally as we can.

I agree with the Member for Bonavista South back in 1999, that it is very, very important that you put your constituents first, because if you do not, even if you are selfish inside, you will never come back again. One of the things that we have discovered, as politicians, is that the electorate out there is not to be fooled or fooled with. They have good memories. They remember the people who stand up to be counted for them. They remember what happens.

I would just like to look around this side of the House, and I sit with a group of hon. members who work hard and that is probably why they are back here, they work hard on behalf of their constituents. Now, there was a great blue wave last October where the hook was set to change the whole Province. It was almost like a blitzkrieg sweeping across the Province, the great blue line coming across.

MR. REID: (Inaudible) line.

MR. SWEENEY: Oh, I am sorry, it was not a line at all. My hearing is not good.

It seemed as though the whole Province was going to become a victim of this new approach, and I say a victim because that is what many people are. There were 5,000, 6,000, 7,000, 8,000 people out there yesterday braving the high winds, the snow, the sleet, the rain, everything that came at them in a short period of time. They came with their broken spirits. You have to remember that. Those people had their hopes dashed.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the member that his time is lapsed.

MR. SWEENEY: By leave to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Those people braved those elements yesterday to come out, and it was their final swan song. They knew that they were defeated. Many of them sat in the gallery today hoping against hope that this would all change. This is too draconian to believe, too cruel, too severe. What did we do to deserve this? I empathized with those people yesterday and I have empathized with them for the past four weeks, because that is what it almost is now, four weeks.

There is a theory out there that there is a plan in place not to allow them back to work until the first of May, because if they do not get back to work before the first of May you would not have to pay into their pension fund. The government would not have to do it. More savings, for the Treasury.

MS FOOTE: Are you serious?

MR. SWEENEY: Oh, yes, I say to the Member for Grand Bank, very serious, because there are no work days in April. There is a look of surprise on many members faces opposite, but let me tell you there is a plan.

Mr. Speaker, I will adjourn my part of the debate right now. I will fill members in on the rest of the plan as I get a chance to speak again on this debate.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to make a few comments on Bill 18 that is before the House today. I would like to start off by saying that on October 21 we elected a Premier and a governing body for this Province, we did not elect a CEO and a Board of Directors. I think there is a big difference, Mr. Speaker, in the two.

When I saw this legislation yesterday, Mr. Speaker, not to make lite of a serious situation, but the first thought that came to my mind when I read Section 6(3) which says, "Every employee who fails to comply with Section 4 is dismissed," was that government is watching too many tv reality shows. I know the Premier is a good business man, he has demonstrated that in the past, but there is a comparison there, I believe, Mr. Speaker, between him and Donald Trump, where at the end of every show, The Apprentice, you are fired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. COLLINS: I do not know if he has taken direction from watching that show or not but this language that is contained in this legislation is very aggressive and very demeaning to a lot of hard-working people in this Province whose employer happens to be the provincial government.

Mr. Speaker, the government talks about having no choice but to do this. I say to them they did have a choice and that choice was brought forward on many occasions in the past week before this House. They had choices, Mr. Speaker, they just made the wrong one.

Mr. Speaker, they talk about the debt of this Province, well I want to remind them, and I say, the people of the Province are concerned about that as well, but the people of the Province are also concerned about the delivery of services, which is what government is supposed to be about.

We did not get into a debt position overnight. The people of the Province do not expect to get out of it overnight, but this government, Mr. Speaker, is driven with an obsession to eliminate the debt in a few short years when it was accumulated over many years. That can be done, Mr. Speaker, as this government is proceeding to do, but I say to them, a lot of innocent people will be hurt along the road to doing that.

Mr. Speaker, I have been involved in collective bargaining for quite a number of years as well, and I have a fair bit of experience, I would say to members opposite, in negotiating collective agreements in both the private and public sector. I want to say to them that when you do something that they are proposing to do here within the next number of hours and days, it is going to put their employees in a position where there is going to be a lot of disruption in the workplaces in the days and months to come and even years to come, because this is not going to be taken lightly, not lightly at all. I have been involved in strikes that had negotiated settlements as a way to an end, and I thank God that the employers in the private sector in this Province do not have the same rights as this government has or the people of this Province would, certainly, be a lot worse off today than we are. Because if they could only use that, nobody in this Province would ever be able to make any gains in their way of life. Maybe this government does not understand the role that working people, by way of their unions, play in our Province and some of the benefits that have been introduced to all society as a result of struggles by unions.

If we look at the health and safety legislation in this Province, Mr. Speaker, and the right to refuse that was proclaimed, if I recall correctly, June 1, 1979. These words contained in the legislation today and the right to refuse unsafe or unhealthy work came word for word out of a collective agreement in Labrador West, the district that I represent, and the steel workers' union. It came about not because some employer, not because some government wanted workers to have the right to refuse, but it came about as a result of many people dying. What really tipped it off is that we had three people killed in nine days and that caused a two-week wildcat strike where we had members go to jail. We had members fired, but in the end, Mr. Speaker, there was a Commission of Inquiry into the health and safety practices and from that came the legislation that we have today. The workers paid a great price for that and nobody can stand here and say the contribution that was made, at that time, did not lead to a better quality of life for both unionized and non-unionized working people in our Province today.

Mr. Speaker, another example of that is what was just passed recently in our federal parliament, and commonly referred to as the Westray Bill. Another important piece of legislation that was driven by workers after the Westray tragedy so that from now on in this country CEO's and managers of corporations can be held personally liable and responsible if they know they have employees working in unsafe conditions. Not some phantom from another country that you are trying to get at, Mr. Speaker, but the people who actually live and work in the community with the responsibility for ensuring that the workplace is safe. They can be now held personally responsible, and that is something that was a long time coming. I am very proud to say that working people, and the Steel Workers' Union in particular, were the driving force behind that. It took many, many years to achieve but it is finally done right now. The Prime Minister of Canada actually went to the national President of the Steel Workers' Union and presented him with a personal copy of the bill.

So working people, working men and women, Mr. Speaker, have contributed greatly to the conditions that we enjoy in this Province and country today. The action taken by this government now could have been taken on day one. It could have been taken on day one of this strike, because there is absolutely no comparison whatsoever to what happened in 1999 and now. I vehemently opposed, at that time, what happened in 1999 as well. I still do not believe it was right. What is happening today is totally different, the circumstances are different, and not different as the Premier points out financially. They are different in a lot of other ways, Mr. Speaker, that does more damage to people in the long run than the financial aspect.

Mr. Speaker, I said earlier that this government had a choice, and they did have a choice, because last week and earlier we proposed to this government that if they wanted to end this strike than the honourable way of doing it, the right way of doing it, would have been to invoke section 30. If they felt that health care was unable to cope and there was a danger to the public, section 30 would have given the government the right to do what they wanted to do. They could have passed the unanimous resolution in this House and that would have ended the dispute.

AN HON. MEMBER: We can do it now.

MR. COLLINS: We can do it now, it is still not too late. It is still not too late, but they chose another route. The route that they chose is what we are debating here today. But, they could have, to deal with the problems - to get people back to work immediately they could have invoked section 30, which says, "Where the House of Assembly resolves that a strike of employees is or would be injurious to the health or safety of persons or a group or class of persons, or the security of the province, it may declare that, from and after that date stated in the resolution, a state of emergency exists and forbid the strike of all employees..." back to work and the remaining outstanding issues would be referred to arbitration. That, Mr. Speaker, is the appropriate way of doing things in a free and democratic society, not what we have here before the House today.

Mr. Speaker, all across this Province, sometimes we are here in St. John's - and many of us are only here because we have to conduct the business that we were elected to do but many of us live in other areas of this Province. There is not one member in this House of Assembly who does not have people in their districts affected by this legislation. I know on the weekends that I have been back in my district since the strike started - I visited most all the picket lines that were around and I talked to the picketers, and the last thing in the world that they wanted was to be on the picket line, but they had no choice, Mr. Speaker. They had no choice whatsoever. Their backs were to the wall. This government was trying to take advantage of what they are deeming to be an unacceptable financial situation and they are trying to reduce the deficit off the backs of the workers.

Mr. Speaker, they may legislate workers back to work. They have the power. They have the numbers over there to do that. They can do that, but they cannot legislate good will in the workplace. They cannot legislate co-operation. They cannot legislate morale. All of these things, Mr. Speaker, is going to be very, very important when these employees return to work. I want to say and ask them, what are their plans to overcome these obstacles once they have done their dastardly deed and regulate people back to work with a legislated settlement?

They call this, Mr. Speaker - these books that were presented to us yesterday which goes in conjunction with this bill - a grievance, and they refer to it. There is no grievance, Mr. Speaker. It is not a grievance, it is a legislated settlement. There is nobody on the other side opposing this government that agrees with the settlement that is in front of us today.

The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker, when he was up talking earlier today, talked about how he was very disappointed, and how many members have called him and spoken to him, that they wanted to vote on the previous offer that was made to government. He could not understand why that could not happen.

Mr. Speaker, there is such a thing known in negotiating circles as being nickelled-and-dimed to death, where you are on strike, you rejected the last offer, and whether it is money, whether it is a benefit, or whether it is contract language, the employers at that time will give a little bit and say: Go back to your membership and have a vote. The membership rejects it, and they give another little bit. Go back and have another vote, until eventually you end up voting in something that you do not want. It is called nickelling-and-diming to death. That is exactly what this government wanted from the unions representing their workers.

Mr. Speaker, we can say the same on the other side, and I indicated it earlier today. We could take the same position that government has taken with the union and say: You have thirty-four members over there forming government. Why don't they have a secret vote? Why don't they be put in a position where they can have a secret ballot vote on this issue and see what the outcome will be? Because I do not believe - I see people over there. I sat next to them here for five years, and there are many people over there, Mr. Speaker, who I do not believe would support this if they could vote in a secret ballot manner, free from repercussions, free from the threat of never getting in Cabinet if you do not agree with me.

MR. HARRIS: Threat of dismissal.

MR. COLLINS: Yes.

Mr. Speaker, that works both ways. If the minister wants that for the union then we say, the House of Assembly have the same rule and let the governing party vote with their conscience, not with their leader.

Mr. Speaker, again the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board talked about - you know, I had trouble here when the minister was speaking because I thought for a while that he was confusing his position with that as president of one of the local unions that is on strike. It seemed to me, as he was speaking, most of the union members, rather than talking to the union, were going to him. On several occasions, he said - he went to the picket line and talked to the members. They did not want to be there, they wanted to vote. He talked to them about tough discipline. Members have called him and said: We want tough discipline, Mr. Minister. We do not want something light. We want tough discipline so we cannot refuse. We want to have no other choice but to obey you.

I do not believe that, Mr. Speaker. I believe they had some calls, yes, but if you are going to listen and make decisions based on the calls you get, then base them on the majority of calls that you get. I would argue with the minister that the majority is not what he is saying, that the majority said: Send it to arbitration. Let's have good negotiations and a fair agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: That is what the majority would have said, not impose stiff penalties and stiff fines so that we do not have any choice but to go back to work.

He also talked about the members of the plan, and joint trusteeship for the pension plan, and he indicated again that retirees have gone to him in droves saying: We do not want you to have joint trusteeship. We do not want that.

They should remember that it was the unions, during the last negotiations, who gave government the option and got them out of the serious financial problems that were existing with the public service pension plans at that time. It is the unions that may very well hold the answers to the current problems, but they are not going to do it with the relationship that exists now between government and the workforce.

Mr. Speaker, anybody who has been involved in the collective bargaining process at all knows full well that a two-tier system is a recipe for trouble.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. COLLINS: It is a recipe for disaster when you have groups of employees working together, side by side, receiving different benefit levels. That is not good for any workplace, Mr. Speaker. What this government is proposing is a two-tier benefit system when it comes to the sick leave provisions of the collective agreement, and that cannot work because eventually, I say to this government, eventually the minority are going to be the majority. It may take ten years, it may take twelve years, but eventually the minority will be the majority and they are going to want back what this government is taking from them in today's legislation, and they are going to be creating a problem, maybe not for them, but for whomever is at the helm when that time turns around.

Mr. Speaker, the right to strike and achieve a fair negotiated collective agreement is a basic right that has been in this country now for a good many years. What this government has done to that process will take a long time for these wounds to heal. Employees do not like being on the picket line to start with. The unions do not want to be on strike. It is much better for everybody if things are running smoothly, efficiently and effectively. When people get their backs against the wall, where they do not have any choice only to strike, they make that decision with a great deal of seriousness. Once they make that decision and they are on the picket lines, doing without an income to provide for their families, then positions do get hard; but I say to this government that the position that they have taken today will certainly increase the hard feelings that exist on the picket line during the last week or so, and that will become quite evident when people return to work in their different jobs throughout the next days, weeks and, again, years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say to this government that they have taken a step now to pass Bill 18. The minister said earlier today that they have received another offer from the union - and they may very well, and I hope they do, get an agreement, but I will say one thing about that kind of agreement. If, in fact, the union's proposal causes an agreement to be reached today, it was an agreement reached under duress, with a gun pointed at their head. It is not a freely-negotiated agreement and it is not going to have the same effect on the workplace or on the workers of this Province as a freely-negotiated collective agreement would have.

Mr. Speaker, we will have opportunities to speak later. I see my time will soon be up so, with that, I will just again conclude by saying that I think this government has made a grave mistake. I think the people of this Province will not forget that any time soon, and it is still not too late to do the right thing.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill 18, and obviously to speak against Bill 18, the most draconian piece of legislation that has ever been introduced into the House of Assembly in Newfoundland and Labrador.

The fact that, in addition to a two-year wage freeze, including concessions in that piece of legislation, when I look at the penalties and the fact that one of these is that you would dismiss an employee for not turning up for work, it is astounding. It is astounding to think that we have 20,000 public servant employees out there, public service workers who are asking for nothing more than a fair deal from this government, who are asking for nothing more than the right to negotiate a collective agreement, who are asking for the same right that unions have had since unions existed, and that is the privilege of being able to negotiate with their employer for a fair deal.

That has not happened. It has happened for whatever reason. We are now in the House today debating Bill 18, a bill that will really hurt our public service employees, in the way that the morale will hit rock bottom, if it hasn't already done so as result of what has gone on in the last twenty-six days. We are going to have public service employees going back into the system, providing that valuable service that they provide to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, whether it is in health care or education or on our highways, wherever they are, they are going back into the system demoralized. We depend on those employees and they are going to do their best, I know they are going to do their best, put yourself in their situation where they are being told: It is this way or no way.

Look at the fines that have been imposed through this legislation, the highest ever, the highest fines ever imposed in Newfoundland and Labrador against a union or a union leader -

MR. REID: Anywhere in the country.

MS FOOTE: Anywhere in the country, in fact, against a union or a union leader, because they may not abide by the legislation.

Talk about real leadership! Talk about what the Premier campaigned on! Talk about what the members opposite campaigned on when they followed his leadership, his real leadership! Could anybody involved in this government really look at what is going on, and has gone on in the past twenty-six days, and say it is real leadership? It doesn't take a lot of leadership not to reach an agreement. It doesn't take a lot of leadership to put in place the most draconian piece of legislation that we have ever seen in this country. It doesn't take a lot of leadership to threaten people, to suggest that if you do not go back to work, because that is where I think you should be, then you are going to be dismissed.

Where are the principles? People have principles. What if these people feel they are being hard done by, that the way they are being treated is so unfair? They don't have a right to stand up. They don't even have a right under this legislation to appeal the fact that they could be dismissed for not turning up for work. Where is the real leadership?

We have seen it now in this legislation, real leadership by this Premier. We have seen it in the Budget, real leadership by this Premier, with measures that will see more people leave this Province because we are seeing 4,000 jobs cut out of the public service. Some of the people who are out on strike, some of people who have been out there for twenty-six days, may, in fact, find that they do not have a job to do back to. That is real leadership!

Measures that were taken in this Budget to cut jobs, the impact that will have on our young students, students who are now in post-secondary institutions who were hoping to be able to stay in Newfoundland and Labrador once they graduate, they are going to have to leave the Province to find employment.

We have seen real leadership by this Premier when he inflated the numbers to suggest that our financial situation was worse than it actually is. Real leadership, forcing offices closed in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. That is real leadership! We have seen an increase in about 150 fees in Newfoundland and Labrador. That is real leadership! Real leadership that is simply showing disrespect for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. When you talk about disrespect, it is disrespect for the 20,000 men and women who provide such valuable service to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Sometimes we have a tendency to say: Oh, they are public service employees. Well, let's put some faces to these people. These are the people who work in the health care sector, the people who are there when you or I get sick. When you go to the hospital and you want to be taken care of, these are your X-ray technicians, these are the people who collect your blood work. These are the people in the education system who we rely on to make sure that our children get a quality education so that they are prepared to be able to compete with the best in the world when the time comes for them to have to do so. These are your janitors, these are your secretaries or receptionists. It is so ironic to have the government suggest that the Warren Report or the Young Mediation Report is not part of the collective agreement.

I can remember when the people involved here went on strike because they needed more hours and they made a case, they made a strong case. We had Dr. Phil Warren, one of the most respected individuals in this Province, do a consultation process and go around the Province and meet with school boards and talk to the affected employees and speak to parents and speak to students, and found out that, in fact, our janitorial staff in our schools, and our secretaries, are among the most valuable. We need to ensure that our schools are safe and clean, that our students when they go to school have a clean learning environment. We need to ensure that we have a secretary or a receptionist there, if either of our students needs support or if parents need to get in touch with that child, or if there are some administrative duties that need to be done while the principal is, in fact, teaching. Because, you know, some of you know, that in a lot of cases, of course, our principals in our rural schools actually teach and they do not get a lot of time to spend on administrative work.

Lets put a human face on these 20,000 people. They are not just people who are out there marching with signs. They are not just people who have nothing better to do or are trying to keep warm standing around the garbage cans out there while they burn the wood. These are our next door neighbors. These are people who need our support just as we would look to them for support. You know some of these people are the very ones that you and I went to when we wanted to get elected, the very people we went to and said: I would like to have your support. I would like to be able to represent your interests in the House of Assembly.

What are you saying to them today? You got their support and now they are looking for your support and where are you? You are certainly not standing up and being counted. How many times have I heard people ask: Where are the members of the government? Why aren't we hearing from them now? Why aren't they standing up and saying: You supported me now I am going to support you? They are asking a very valid question and they are not getting an answer.

We talked again about our public service employees and how valuable they are. Whenever I hear someone say, our much valued public service employees, all I can think is, you know, it is one thing to say it, but you have to do more than just give it lip service. One of the things that happened when we were in government, on an annual basis, was we would have a public service employees week. They would organize it. The public service employees would organize it and it was a celebration of their hard work. Putting a face on those employees again: they are the ones who work in our departments, who work in the various government departments. You can have all the ministers you want, you can have all the deputy ministers you want, you can have all the assistant deputy ministers you want, but when you want to find out about a particular program or a particular initiative, you go and speak to some of our public service employees. They are the ones who will tell you how it is done, because guess what? They have been there longer than any of us. They have been there longer than any of the assistant deputy ministers or any of the deputy ministers. They have been in the trenches. They have been there holding the fort and they will be there a lot longer than you or I. We tend to forget that. We tend to forget that they are the ones who know what needs to be done. We are there as politicians and senior bureaucrats to provide some leadership, but the truth be known, they can tell us a lot more than we can tell them.

We need to show our appreciation for these employees. It is sad when the way we reward them is introduce a bill like Bill 18, a bill that simply does not show any respect at all for these most valued employees, whether they are in government departments, whether they are in the health care sector, whether they are in our schools, whether they work for our school boards or worked for our school boards, because I would assume all of them have their pink slips.

It is a sad day when people have to wonder whether or not they are going to be able to afford to buy a refrigerator, a washer or dryer, any of the essential household appliances, because what I am hearing is that - because what has happened with the actions of this government, whether it was the Budget or whether it was this piece of legislation, and the strike that has gone on for twenty-one days - or twenty-six days is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-six.

MS FOOTE: What I am hearing is that the business community is really feeling the affects of the Budget and of the strike, particularly in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. Well, guess what? People are no longer buying big ticket items. In fact, some of them are not even buying essential items anymore. Businesses are telling us that they are now going to have to lay off employees. They will not be hiring students this summer, all because of decisions taken by this government who fails to understand that the more money you have to put into the economy, the more money that goes back into the provincial Treasury. Unfortunately, in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, there are so few public service employees in our communities that there are not a lot of them to spend that money. So businesses really rely on those employees who have, what you would consider, permanent employment. It is so much easier to get a mortgage if you have a job. It is so much easier to get a loan if you have a job. Today there are public service employees who really do not know if they are going to have a job. Many of them are out on strike hoping that they will get a better deal, but hoping above all, that they will have a job at the end of the day.

We are trying to impress on you how bad this piece of legislation is, hoping that you will see the light before it comes time to pass this piece of legislation. I am sure that some of you feel the same way I do. In fact, I was reading some comments that were made the last time there was a strike. This was one of the members who was then a member of the Official Opposition. He said, "It is no secret in this House that the Official Opposition's position is that there exist, within current legislation, the ability to legislate nurses back to work with the provision of binding arbitration. Any delay that is created by the introduction of this new legislation falls squarely on the shoulders of government and the Premier." How times have changed. Changed, or how much they remain the same.

"Section 30 of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act says that the House can resolve that there is a state of emergency and send the dispute for binding arbitration, thereby bringing an end to the job action. This mechanism is supported by the nurses. This Act is supported by the Opposition." The same act that we pleaded with the government on Thursday to follow instead of introducing a new piece of legislation. An act that would have seen our striking employees go back to work that very day. It did not happen, in spite of the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, and the Minister of Health and Community Services indicating that we were in a serious situation. In fact, he rhymed off statistics about seventy people waiting for cancer surgery, and a number of other people waiting for heart surgery. In spite of all of that, this government, that government decided to bring in Bill 18. They decided to bring it in because that was the only way that the Premier could get his way.

This same member went on to say, "Government has browbeaten the unions with a costly PR campaign. We have all seen the ads in the paper, and government has paid for those ads with taxpayers' dollars in an effort to sell their ideas to the general public..." Doesn't that sound exactly like what we are seeing happening today? In fact, this member said, "I find it insulting....and the general public find it insulting".

This was a member across the way, who went on to say, "Mr. Speaker, the government has intimidated the union during negotiations with threats of costly fines, and we have seen those fines now introduced into the legislation: $100,000 for the union...".

AN HON. MEMBER: What is it today?

MS FOOTE: Guess what it is today?

AN HON. MEMBER: A quarter of a million dollars.

MS FOOTE: Two hundred and fifty thousand. "...$10,000 fines for the union leaders...". What is it today?

AN HON. MEMBER: Twenty-five thousand.

MS FOOTE: Twenty-five thousand. "...and $1,000 for the nurses for each day that they break the law..." - but nowhere, nowhere, did it suggest that they would be dismissed for not going back to work. Draconian?

It said, "If this legislation is put into place and nurses continue their work action, it is $1,000 a day. So government are going to fine nurses for breaking a law." Imagine, we were going to fine nurses for breaking a law. That government is not going to fine public service employees; they are going to fire them. No mechanism for appeal, none whatsoever. If you do not turn up for work, because I insist you turn up for work, because I tell you how it is going to be done, then you are gone, dismissed.

By the way, the same member said, "The nurses offered an olive branch to send only the monetary issues to binding arbitration, leaving the other issues to be worked out in another method. Government has refused. Collective bargaining calls for cooperation." Wow! "Collective bargaining calls for cooperation."

Would some of the members on the other side who said all of these things please tell that to your Premier? Please tell that to your Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. Will you please reinforce what so many of you said when you were on this side, and that is that collective bargaining calls for co-operation?

This member said, "We have not seen that from this government, not the level of cooperation that is expected, not the level of cooperation that is demanded by the general public that relies on our health care system...".

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: Tell us who said that.

MS FOOTE: In concluding, Mr. Speaker, it is the Member for St. John's South.

Thank you for the time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair would like to rule at this time on a point of privilege that was raised earlier today by the hon. the Opposition House Leader regarding comments made by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board last evening outside the House.

The Chair references two references, one in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules & Forms, 6^th Edition, on page thirteen, section §31.(1), "A dispute arising between two Members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfill the conditions of parliamentary privilege."

Section §31.(3), "Statements made outside the House by a Member may not be used as the basis for a question of privilege."

Also, in Joseph Maingot's book, Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, Second Edition, on page 224, "A complaint that a minister of the Crown has made a statement outside the House rather than in the House or that the government provides information only to its supporters in the House may well amount to a grievance against the government, but in the absence of an order in the House forbidding such activity, there is no personal or corporate privilege that has been breached in the doing, and neither does it constitute contempt of the House in the ‘privilege' sense."

The Chair rules, having consulted with the Table Officers and having read the submissions put forward today by all hon members, that there is no prima facie case for a point of privilege.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, Motion 6, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m., and motion 7, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

I believe, by agreement, we are going to just take an hour's break for supper and be back at 6:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it agreeable that these motions now be adopted?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, ‘nay'.

The motions are carried.

Continuing debate, the hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, we move the motion to adjourn between 5:30 p.m. and 6:30 p.m., to recess and be back at 6:30 p.m. to continue the debate, by agreement.

MR. SPEAKER: By agreement, the House will now recess from 5:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.

This House is now in recess.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Continuing debate on Bill 18. Second Reading, the previous question.

The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill 18. As we all seen on the news earlier, the union has asked their employees to return to work. Mr. Speaker, with the employees returning to work I guess the health and safety issues that we have all been saying of why this bill was being brought forth is now off the table. I congratulate the unions for doing that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: - because if the workers that I know, Mr. Speaker, who are in the public service - the workers that I know, if they know there are health and safety issues, they would be the first ones to pressure their own unions to say that we need to get back. I am glad to see they have returned to work tonight.

Mr. Speaker, it draws me great concern to see that the talks are going to resume tonight with a gun to their heads. Here is the union making an offer to the government, or saying to the government: Well, if you think there is some room there for us to wiggle, let us make another proposal. The proposal that is being put forth is being put forth with all sincerity from the unions, but it is almost like a gun to your head, the Bill 18 that is before this House tonight. We heard all week that we need it for health and safety. If this government is really concerned about collective bargaining - the health and safety issue is now off the table, and if this bill is not withdrawn tonight, it is my opinion, and my humble opinion, Mr. Speaker, that the real reason was to take concessions from the unions in the first place because the health and safety issues are off the table as we speak right now.

Mr. Speaker, we have to look at: How did we get ourselves in this mess? Why are we in this mess with the unions right now - this government in the mess with the unions? Why is there so much mistrust? Why is there so much animosity? Mr. Speaker, in my opinion this bill will set back labour relations, labour negotiations, for twenty years in this Province. It all started when the Premier took the Department of Labour and put it into a department as some kind of a division of the department. The people who have been around the government for years could see it coming. But, we must look at the history. We must look back and say at what stages and at what levels of frustration did the employees, did the unions go through over the last six, seven, eight months to get to this stage?

Mr. Speaker, at the NAPE convention the Premier said he would consult with the unions, he would be transparent, and he would work with the unions. Mr. Speaker, those were his words at he NAPE convention.

The Minister of Transportation and Works got up here Wednesday, Mr. Speaker, and he was on his horse and giving all of us a lecture about labour relations. The member said: Minister, what did this government do in this new approach? What we did, we told our people upfront that we could not afford it. Mr. Speaker, the truth be known, twenty minutes before the January 5 address, that the Premier made to this Province, he called the unions in and told them what he was doing. No consultation. There was nothing whatsoever beforehand that this was going to come down. So, this is the type of approach that this Premier and this government have taken. This is the type of government -

MS THISTLE: Not even his Cabinet knew.

MR. JOYCE: Not even his Cabinet knew, as my colleague from Grand Falls-Buchans said; not even his Cabinet. Mr. Speaker, this is the type of government that we have here.

Also, the unions were called together twenty minutes - do you really think that was consultation? Do you think that was transparency? Do you think that was working together to try to solve the problems in this Province? I think not, Mr. Speaker. I think not.

The Minister of Transportation and Works stated on the same day, and I will quote from Hansard: We will, if we have to, Mr. Speaker, but we will be fair, we will be honest, we will be transparent and we will be upfront. If you want to be upfront we will go back to October 17, 2003 in Corner Brook, an ad that appeared in The Western Star. If you want to understand the level of frustration that the unions go through, the level of anxiety that the workers go through, the level of anxiety that a lot of workers are wondering: Is it me? Who is next?

The Premier, Mr. Speaker, a half-page ad in The Western Star, October 17, and he states: The Danny Williams team has clearly stated that under a Progressive Conservative government there will be no layoffs in the public service and we will not reduce the public service by 25 per cent, contrary to allegations by our political opponents. That minister is standing in this House of Assembly and saying that we will be upfront. How is that being upfront to the workers in this Province? How is that being fair to the people who serve us in this Province, Mr. Speaker? I ask the minister, how is that being fair? When we want to look back on how all of this started, we have to go back before the election for the promises that were made.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier always said there would be no layoffs. Then all of a sudden it was changed to: there would be no massive layoffs. If you call 4,000 to 6,000 people no massive layoffs, I think we have a problem; if you do not think 4,000 to 6,000 people is massive.

In the same speech the Minister of Transportation and Works also said - and I will quote from Hansard so there is no misunderstanding in what the minister said. Also, we had the Minister of Finance stand up here saying that there are going to be 4,000 people laid off. This Minister of Transportation and Works is a part of the Cabinet. This minister has all the documentation in front of him. This minister is supposed to be sitting around a Cabinet table and making the decision. Here is what the minister said on Wednesday gone by, right here in the House of Assembly, April 21. Who are we going to believe? Why do we think the hostilities are so high? Mr. Speaker, I will give you an example. Here are the minister's own words, "I understand that over the next three or four years there is somewhere between 6,000 and 7,000 people who voluntarily will leave the public service."

We had the minister and we had the Premier on many occasions stand up and say there are going to be 4,000. So, who do we believe? The Premier on October 17 made a statement, which obviously he had no intent of following. The minister stood up here and said: We are going to be open and transparent. Twenty minutes before his speech he called the unions in. So you can see why we, on many occasions, are questioning that there is no trust in this government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. JOYCE: The real number, I do not know. The Premier was outside the House of Assembly one day and said: Less than 1,000. Budget Day it was 4,000. The minister, as of Wednesday of this week, saying: It is going to be 6,000. Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the real numbers are. The public service do not know what the real numbers are and this is the height of frustration in the whole Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 18, and we look at: What are the main issues for Bill 18? One of the issues that is brought forward is the Warren Report. We all know what the Warren Report is. It is for the secretarial and janitorial services in the schools. They went on strike out in Central and in some other areas for nine weeks. Nine weeks for this report. We had the Premier and the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board stand several times and say: Well, the Warren Report was not a part of the agreement. The Warren Report was never put in there. Well, I ask the government a question and I ask the people of Newfoundland and Labrador a question: If the Warren Report was not part of the collective agreement, why is it in Bill 18? Why is it stipulated in Bill 18? It is, obviously, a part of the collective agreement. When they are saying we are not taking away concessions or anything that is in the agreement, that is just not true because if it was not in the agreement, why is it in Bill 18 saying that we are going to take it out? That is a question that a lot of people are asking, and if it is in Bill 18, it is obvious that it has to be taken out because it is part of the collective agreement. That is part of the confusion that a lot of people look at when it comes to the Warren Report.

I am going to give you the ultimate insult, Mr. Speaker, that I feel, and I am sitting in this House and I never said anything. I almost could not believe it until I heard it the second time, and it came from the President of Treasury Board. Every afternoon I usually go out and listen to the scrums outside the House of Assembly, Mr. Speaker. The ultimate insult is when the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board and the Premier, in front of the cameras, out in a scrum out here - this is what they said: Why are the unions holding up this agreement for 3 per cent of their employees? Mr. Speaker, I was flabbergasted when I heard that. I was absolutely flabbergasted.

There are a lot of jobs in the school system, a lot of secretarial work, a lot of janitorial work, and the Premier and the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board said: Why are you holding up an agreement? Those people are insignificant, those people do not matter to the union, to the school system they do not matter, do not hold them up, put them out to dry. I think that was the ultimate insult to these valued employees in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, here is a quote from the Member for Humber East, the Justice Minister: The public service is very important in the Province, the Premier has stated, and they should be compensated for their work. Do you know when he said that in Corner Brook? We always hear the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board and the Premier talk about our books. That statement was made in Corner Brook on January 8, 2004, after they had a complete look at the books, after the Premier made his state-of-the-union address.

I ask the minister: When you go to Herdman Collegiate or when you go to Regina High School or when you go to Pasadena, when you see those secretaries and you see those janitors, are you going to say, I agree with the Premier, I agree with the Minister of Finance, you should have been cut adrift? I do not think you are. I think you are too honourable a gentleman to say that, Mr. Speaker. Then again, I do not think you will stand up and go against your Premier or the Minister. I do not think you would, as an honourable person, which I know you are, be able to look those people in the eye when you see them at those schools and say: I agree with what my Premier and the Minister of Finance has said. I do not think you will, because I am pretty confident that those employees are valued by the majority of people opposite. The statements that were made by the President of Treasury Board and the Premier, I think someone on the opposite side should take them to task for that. I really, truly do, because I think they are valued employees, Mr. Speaker.

Next, in Bill 18, Mr. Speaker, is the sick leave. We have heard a lot lately, Mr. Speaker, about sick leave. We have heard a lot saying, we need the sick leave back, we have to have the sick leave. It is sixteen point three days per employee. I have contrary reports to that, Mr. Speaker, I have very contrary reports to that.

I say to the government, tonight, on behalf of the members on this side and all the employees: If you have documentation which shows that every public sector employee in this Province takes sixteen point three sick days a year, table it. If you want to be open and transparent, if you want to be the type of government that says, we have nothing to hide, if you want to be the type of government that is going to turn around and say, everything we say we can prove by documentation, by proof, table it here tonight so that we can see it. The figures that we are getting, this figure is just not true. It is an arbitrary figure that the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board had, and what he is doing is, he has taken one small sector of the health care system and thrown a blanket right across the whole public service. That is what he is doing, Mr. Speaker, putting it right across everybody and saying: Look how bad it is across Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I call upon the government: If you are open, if you are transparent, if you want to start right now with the unions and the employees of this Province, table that report so that we all can see. Who knows, if it is true, which I doubt very much, there may be people say: What can we do to help out? I doubt very much, Mr. Speaker, that they have that report, and I doubt very much if there is any such report, that shows that every public sector employee in this Province takes sixteen point three sick days a month. I do not think they do.

I ask the Member for Humber Valley - she was a nurse, and apparently she was a good nurse. People she tended on said she was a good nurse, and I will give her credit for being a good nurse. She is standing here supporting this bill. If this bill goes through as it is, the sick leave, we all feel, and I feel personally, that the next ones who are going to be in line are the nurses on their sick leave. They are the ones who have to be ready next. If they do not cave in, the same thing is going to happen to the nurses. They are going to take a gun, put it to their head, and say: Negotiate or we are going to take it anyway. I really truly feel that is the next step for the nurses.

I ask the Member for Humber Valley - who I assume is still in the nurses' union, who, out in Corner Brook and on the West Coast, on many occasions has said: We have to get rural Newfoundland health care up and running. We need the clinics seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day. We need more nurses in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. We need more services in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. I ask the member: Does she agree with her President of the union, Miss Debbie Forward, who wrote the Premier - and I quote what Miss Debbie Forward said and I ask the Member for Humber Valley if she agrees with these statements: Let me take a few minutes to tell you how I see the sick leave concessions affecting nurses and, ultimately, our patients.

Mr. Speaker, this is from Debbie Forward, President of the nurses' union. "First and foremost it will divide our membership, placing less value on our newer members. A nurse hired in January will have 24 days sick leave this year but a nurse hired in September will have only 12. Is that how we want co-workers to be treated?"

The second bullet, Mr. Speaker, "It certainly tells me the Premier isn't concerned about recruiting and retaining nurses. I am sure decreasing the sick leave in half will really help us keep more new grads in the Province." That is Debbie Forward, Mr. Speaker, and the Member for Humber Valley is well aware.

Continue on, "And, current nurses should also be affected. If you change employers, your accumulation with your new employer will be half what you get today."

The fourth bullet, "The Williams government keeps saying that our sick leave provisions are generous. He is not telling the full story because in most other jurisdictions..." This is very important, Mr. Speaker, this is very important for the nurses. The Member for Humber Valley, if she really wants to stand up for health care, here is her opportunity to vote against this bill. Here is what Debbie Forward says, "In other jurisdictions nurses have long term disability plans that are funded by their employer. NLNU members and other public sector workers have no such employer paid safety net." Those are the words of Debbie Forward for the nurses.

If the Member for Humber Valley is concerned about nurses and nurse retention in this Province, it is time for her to vote against this bill, because, as sure as I am standing here tonight, if the Premier does not get his own way in talks with the nurses, we will be here speaking about another bill taking away the concessions that they have.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the Member for Humber Valley and other members opposite, who are concerned about nurses in this Province, a statement that the Premier made - and we all know that the nurses in this Province are another valued sector that we all cherish because we never know the value until we actually need them. Mr. Speaker, I ask the members opposite: Do you agree with your Premier when he made the statement? This is mainly for the nurses and other employees in the Province. This is what the Premier said: This is not the CFL, this is not the NHL, this is NL, and there will be no signing bonuses. So, when we get a job shop down here -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time is expired.

MR. JOYCE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, to clue up.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, when we have a job shop here in St. John's, and we have recruitment from all across North America, offering $2,000, $3,000, even $5,000 for nurses as signing bonuses, I ask the members opposite: Do you still agree with your Premier, that there are no signing bonuses to keep the nurses in this Province? Do you agree with that, or are you willing, once again, to let the one-man show -

MR. GRIMES: Teachers in Labrador.

MR. JOYCE: Teachers in Labrador.

MR. REID: Nurses in Labrador.

MR. JOYCE: Nurses in Labrador, I am reminded by my colleague here.

Mr. Speaker, when you vote for this Bill 18, these are the questions, these are the implications.

Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for the time and thank you for the leave to clue up, and I will be voting against this bill here tonight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I regret to have to be here this evening, actually, speaking to such a piece of legislation, which I didn't think I would ever see in my time in elected politics in Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, right now, quite frankly, as we stand here, particularly with respect to the news that, I believe, anyone who follows the news in the Province has heard within the last half hour, what is amazing to me is why the Premier is not asking for an opportunity to come and address the Legislature now and tell the whole world why this bill is no longer necessary.

Mr. Speaker, the announcement, in case some of the members here in this Legislature, which I would find hard to believe, didn't hear or didn't know, is that both of the unions have requested their workers to voluntarily return to work immediately, that, as soon as you can make personal arrangements, to return to your job voluntarily. Mr. Speaker, they voluntarily left the jobs on April 1, some twenty-seven days ago. They had a strike vote. They had not come to an agreement with this government, as the employer, and they voluntarily supported the union in taking the position, if there was no contract there would be no work.

The same group, who did that of their own volition - there were not forced to go on the streets by anybody, they voted to go on the streets by over 90 per cent in their own organization and they followed the wishes of their negotiators, that they elected, by the way. I know the Premier wished that they had elected somebody else who might kowtow to him, who might listen to him, like his caucus often does, and just do whatever he says; take it for gospel and do not ask any questions and just assume that must be the law because the man himself said it. The little Napoleon said it.

Mr. Speaker, the question is: Why isn't our Premier, in this Legislature now, explaining why we would suspend or defer or just completely withdraw this bill? Certainly suspend or defer or delay any further debate on it.

Mr. Speaker, today I asked a question, and I would like to begin my remarks here. I asked a question specifically and directly of the Premier, the leader of the government. I asked the Premier this question: What is the purpose of this bill? Could he tell all of us, could he tell the people of Newfoundland and Labrador why we are debating this piece of legislation? The answer, he said - and Hansard will show it - is that it is in the title. The title is - we have this bill here for one reason and one reason only, and it is: To provide For The Resumption And Continuation Of Public Services.

Mr. Speaker, I further asked a question - and you would know this and the record of our House shows it. You were in the Chair and our written record shows it. I asked: Are you sure now that there is no other agenda, that you do not have a piece of legislation here just because you want to punish people because they stood up to you for a month, and just because you want to change their contracts? He assured this Legislature and the people of the Province - not seven hours ago, Mr. Speaker - he assured everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador that there was no other motivation other than the purpose stated in the bill itself. Let me read it out loud so anyone listening to us can hear, and so the members opposite who might not have heard it before, because unfortunately there are some things some of them do not hear at all. I do not mean to be mean-spirited about it, Mr. Speaker, but it is very serious. The purpose - because the question was, in other legislation for back-to-work there is a clause that says: here is the stated purpose.

There is no clause in this, but there is an explanatory note that says, " The purpose of this Act is set out in its Long Title." So, in other words, the title of it is the purpose. Let me read it again. The only reason that any of the members opposite - who have not said a word yet, not a single word. Not one of them has risen to speak since 1:30 today to say why they are so proud of this piece of legislation; why they believe so much in it; why they are convinced that it is the right thing to do; why there is no choice in Newfoundland and Labrador, not one of them. Not even the Premier, himself, Mr. Speaker, has taken an opportunity to stand up and brag in this House about why this is the right thing to do, or he bragged about some things outside. Well, you have to have the toughest penalties because we have to show people we are mean. We mean business. If we say you are going back to work, you are going back to work. I am tough, and I do not apologize for it. I am telling you that if you do not go back you are fired. Now, he did not apologize for any of that outside the Legislature, he bragged about it. He is not bragging today.

He answered that the only purpose - and he said he looked into the galleries, as he has wanted to do, and said: My commitment to you, you loyal public servants - they are not servants, by the way, they are public employees. Until a few days ago, were very proud to be employees of the government. I am not so sure today. Looking into the galleries, he said: Believe me, trust me. Never mind those questions that the Leader of the Opposition is asking you, suggesting there is some other motive. There is no other motive. The only motive is to provide for the resumption and continuation of public services.

What did we hear on the public airwaves just over forty-five minutes ago? We heard that those 20,000 public employees are on their way back to work, voluntarily. Not because they have been legislated. They know that they have been threatened, and very telling. One of the union leaders said: Never mind what else happens because we saw the real Danny Williams. The evil twin surfaced. That wonderful person who spoke to NAPE a couple of years ago and assured the labour movement that I understand and respect labour relations. I respect you. I value your work. I will never, ever use the Legislature like those mean, mean Liberals did in the early 1990s. You can count on me, it will never happen. If I ever have a problem I will come to you and I will consult with you because I respect you. I will not make the mistake, he described, that the Liberals made in the early 1990s of assuming that the public employees do not have enough sense to make a good decision. He went on to say: In making that assumption the government bulldozed its way through and did what it wanted to anyway and brought down the wrath of agencies, like the International Labour Organization, and gave Newfoundland and Labrador a black eye around the world.

By the way, I can speak to some of those things from experience because I was the Labour Minister at the time - the current Labour Minister might like to know - and only three years before that, been the president of the teachers' union. We did the things that we did then and we did the things that we did in 1999 because we were convinced we had to.

In the early 1990s - this is very telling for the members opposite - which is what the current Premier went to NAPE and condemned and talked about. He said how bad it was and how awful it was, and he would never do it. The people of the Province understood why we did it. When we went to an election in 1993 - they might take some encouragement in this - we got re-elected with a bigger majority. I will tell you why we got re-elected with a bigger majority, because we told the truth. The people of the Province, in huge numbers, understood it was the truth. They believed it was the truth because it was the truth. It was supported by every agency and organization with any credibility anywhere in the globe. Unlike the circumstance that I described just a little while ago in one of my addresses to this Legislature, whereby what you have now is a myth perpetrated amongst and within the caucus in the government. They only heard the other side of the story once or twice in this Legislature because there is no one speaking to the real truth about the finances of the Province inside that caucus.

They have a Finance Minister who spent five or six years, consecutively, trying to convince the world that Newfoundland and Labrador was a fiscal basket case when, in fact, we were leading the country in economic growth. We were leading the country in job and employment numbers. We were reducing our debt ratios. We were making some investments in hospitals, like Stephenville. We were making some investments in schools, like the North Coast of Labrador. You do not do those kinds of things without increasing a bit of debt. We increased a little bit of debt, but the other side of the story that the members opposite have never heard, do not want to hear, are not told, and now have themselves almost brainwashed into not believing anything else, is that, despite that increased debt, because the economy of this Province was so strong through the 1990s, the debt ratio for the Province actually declined. We had more debt, but the economy grew so much that the amount of debt, compared to the ability to pay, actually went down. It did not go up, it went down, folks.

The Minister of Finance has spent five years of his life - and we know how stubborn he is. It takes him a full day, to go home and think about it overnight, before he will even apologize for telling a lie. That is how stubborn he is. That is how stubborn the man is. That has happened in this Legislature.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I do believe that the member, just a few moments ago - I may not have heard all of it - made reference to a certain member telling a lie. If you did, then I would ask the member if he could stand - the Chair did not hear all of the expression, the Chair admits to that.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will withdraw that particular comment.

I will tell you this, it took us a day-and-a-half to straighten that out in this House, when the Minister of Finance suggested that something happened that never ever happened. I do not know what you call that in English, but the people in Newfoundland and Labrador know what it is. You are not allowed to call it a lie in this Legislature and I will not, Mr. Speaker, and I apologize for having used the word. Everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador know what it was and they know what it is. He is so stubborn, that it took him a full day before he would finally come to this Legislature and act like an hon. Member of the House of Assembly and apologize for it, and even then he just barely mumbled to get it out. That is what we are dealing with.

Here is a person who spent five years of his life trying to convince himself and trying to convince the Province that we are a basket case. Now, it is does not matter that he gets reports from Moody's saying: We reconfirm your credit rating. It is the best it has been in seventy years, the best credit rating you have had in seventy years, and we reconfirm it, even though the government is changed and the bad guys are out and you good guys are in. The credit rating did not go down. It got reconfirmed at the best rating it has been in seventy years, and the outlook, the report says, is stable.

What do we hear from the Finance Minister and what do we hear from the Premier? You go to a press conference, where the Premier is there and the Minister of Natural Resources, and they tell the whole world, because they are about to have a conflict with the unions which they planned all along. Have you heard that language before? They planned all along. The first day the Premier heard that, Mr. Speaker, he took a fit. That was one of the first times we saw the spite. He rushed down over the stairs and he used language like: What do you expect out of those union leaders, they have nothing better to do. That was the attitude. That was when you really started to see the real Premier, not the one that portrayed himself to people for a couple of years, by telling a story that people wanted to hear, or the other approach he took which was not to say anything.

The record in this Legislature, by the way, when challenged and given opportunities to speak to matters of policy and the legislation, the Leader of the Opposition then, the current Premier, entered into zero debates in this Legislature except for Voisey's Bay. On ever other piece of legislation, when we are speaking now as we are at second reading, where there is an opportunity to tell the world what you really believe, what you really feel, what you think, what you stand for, what your principles are, guess how many times he spoke? Zero. Because it was not to his advantage, it was not according to the plan, to let people know what he really felt. We are only finding out now.

I am amazed, absolutely amazed, Mr. Speaker, that I am standing here with the announcement made by the 20,000 employees who have said, okay, Mr. Premier, okay big, nasty, mean, all powerful government, we know you can use the Legislature, we know you can make us go back to work, we know that you can be so vengeful about it and vindictive about it that it is either go back or off with your head - never been done in history, by the way, except for a crowd here in the early 1980s who did it when there was an illegal strike, not a legal strike like this one. There was an illegal strike in the early 1980s when the Tories were the government, with Brian Peckford, who is so proud of his legacy in Newfoundland and Labrador that he scurried off to BC to live; and then members opposite still hold him up as a big hero. He is so proud of what he contributed to this Province, that he lives in BC, lives in British Columbia. That is how much he loves Newfoundland and Labrador and how proud he is of what he accomplished when he was here as the leader of the government for almost a decade.

We know where other Premiers are as well, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure that members on the opposite side will stand up, like the House Leader says they are going to do, and tell us why they are so proud of this bill and why they think it should still proceed, when, by the way, some of those workers might even be on the job, as we speak. Some of them might even be back in the hospitals and the long-term care facilities, in particular, right now. Do you know why? Because they really do care about the people that they deliver the services for.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: I know the people who work all over St. John's, and lots of places in the Province. They really do care, in the long-term care facilities, about the people they have come to know, not as just someone who is there as part of a job. These are people that they meet, get to know, and become part of a family. They found it hard enough, as it is, to be out there following the dictates of the union, and denying the people the service for the last month.

When the union says, by all means go back - there are members opposite nodding, because they operate those kinds of facilities, and they know exactly how their staff feel. It is not a job, it is a true occupation in which they have a real affinity for the work they are doing and the people they are working with. There is no doubt about it. Some of them have been waiting for the time to go back to the things that they love to do. Now, they will be heavy-hearted, because they know that their employer, the real boss, headed by the little Napoleon, the emperor himself, does not appreciate them.

That is what is so telling about what has happened in the last twenty-seven days, that is what is so telling about what happened here in the last couple of days with this piece of legislation. It was, go back to work, scurry back to work as soon as you are told, or off with your head. Here is the telling comment. The telling comment, again, usually happens outside the legislature instead of in here. The telling comment this time was, well, what about firing these people, Mr. Premier, the media asked. He said - a very cavalier attitude, you know, you are wont to see some times - he said: Well, if they do not go back, I will just assume that they do not want the job. That is all, no more than that to it. Now, can you imagine that! Can you imagine how one of these employees felt, watching their real ultimate boss saying that, shrugging his shoulders and saying: Well, I will just assume that they do not want their job.

Of course, the assumption is, there must be a dime a dozen out there ready to take the job anyway. So, who cares about this crowd? Who cares about this bunch? What if the 20,000 of them do not go back? Well, I do not expect them to go back, but if they do not go back then they do not want a job. We will get someone else, I guess. This person might have given them twenty years. That does not matter. Loyalty does not matter. Dedicated service does not matter. It is all in attitude, and attitude is very telling, and all pervasive.

I think the most telling statement, Mr. Speaker, that one of the union leaders made publically, less than an hour ago, was that they saw inside the real Premier in this negotiation, and in how he behaved, how he acted, and how he lived to his commitments, which he did not of course. He finely showed himself, because of two things. He does not need their vote anymore. As a matter of fact, there is increasing discussion in many circles that come to me from pretty good sources - and I would say this, Mr. Speaker, the media will certainly verify it. When I have made statements as Leader of the Opposition in the last six months about my sources saying certain things, they have been pretty impeccable. We have been pretty well on the mark. My sources tell me that the current Premier, who has only been there six months, is even sometimes saying to some of these people: Well, it will not really matter to me that much because I am not going to be around in four years anyway. It is not about voting for me again. You do not have to worry about voting for me again.

I will not get into it tonight because some people might take offence to it, but I look across the way and I know individuals on the other side who I personally have had that same conversation with where they have said: Well, I am going to do whatever I can in the next four years. They are not going to get to vote me out because I am not running again. Again, that cavalier attitude that says: Who cares about people? Now, it might not matter to some of the people who are not running again but one of the members, I think the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune mentioned earlier today some of the new people who came in here - and I take the assumption that our constituents all think we are good people or they would not have voted for us. They think we are quality people. That is why they chose us, and because they do, then when you start, like I did fifteen years ago, you might even toy with the idea: Well, maybe if I do a good job and I work hard and I stay in touch with the people, I might even get elected a couple of more times or something; once or twice or three times.

It has been five times for me. So somebody somewhere thought I was okay, even though you would never, ever think it - if you listened to the Premier you would be convinced that, sir, there was nothing any dirtier or lower on the face of the earth who ever walked than Roger Grimes. Because that is the way he deals with people who will not kowtow to him and lick his boots and say: Yes sir, yes sir, three bags full, sir. How may I serve you today, sir? You are so wonderful, sir. Because if you do not do that, you see, he gets angry. That is what we have seen. We saw spite. We saw anger. We saw the real person because he is not looking for the vote anymore. He got the vote. Now, listen to the language. He did not get elected to govern Newfoundland and Labrador on behalf of the people. Listen to these words: We got elected to run Newfoundland and Labrador. We got elected to control Newfoundland and Labrador. It sounds like a businessperson to me talking about their own company. I do not care about anybody else, I am in charge. Sure, I am in charge. Well, we should all remember one thing, we are in charge at the people's pleasure -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: - and when you abuse that pleasure you are not in charge very much longer, Mr. Speaker.

Let me get back to this particular bill. Today I did ask: Was there any other motivation? Is there any other reason for us to be here other than to make sure that there is a safe and orderly resumption and continuation of public services? That same Premier today, who wants us to believe something that he says - because I am telling you, this Opposition walked out of this Legislature today when the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board spoke because we cannot believe a single word he says. We cannot believe anything he says. We have asked him so many questions and caught him saying so many things that are absolutely false that we are going to apply our own sanction to that member, that when he speaks he will be speaking to a crowd of converts because quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, he has lost his credibility so much.

You ruled properly today, that it was not a point of privilege, but I tell you one thing, he has crossed the line with this Opposition with respect to a point of any credibility. He has none. Absolutely, none. We do not intend to sit in this Legislation and listen to a minister of the Crown who will perpetrate the myths and falsehoods that he does continually and constantly on a regular basis. We will not tolerate it. That is our own sanction against this particular minister.

There is one other person who is just about in the same category, and it is the Premier of the Province. We will have to think very seriously if we sit in this Legislature and listen to the Premier speak to any issue. Because here is the issue today - he is not here to talk about this bill. The issue today - again, a prime example of it today - talking about the worst, most vindictive, punitive piece of legislation ever tabled in the House of Assembly. What do we have? A question saying: Is there any other motivation other than just going back to work? No - as he looked into the galleries - let me say it again, my commitment to you is that we just want to have an agreement and we would like for you to go back to work.

What do we have now, seven hours later? We have the workers, some of them back at work, the rest going back to work. All of them will be into work by this time tomorrow, whenever their shift is, and still for all the Premier is not seeking an opportunity to come down and say: Well, I told you today the only thing is to have people go back. I am glad to hear the union leaders saying to go back. There is no need to continue the debate. Let's pull the debate now. I would cancel it altogether if it were me. Why would you have it? Because you see, again - do you know why he will not cancel it altogether, Mr. Speaker? Because he does not trust the union leaders. Remember one thing, trust is a two-way street. I heard both union leaders speak in their press conference tonight and the key message was this, that they saw the real Premier, the real one. The real leadership, the new approach. Not the one that was put before the people for a couple of years neatly packaged, nice and tidy, warm and fuzzy; offend nobody, please everybody, stay silent on any potentially contentious issues. Lots of promises that he understood people, respected people, but they saw the real one in the last month and they certainly saw the real one in this piece of legislation. Where again it was off with your head.

Again, the basis of it - as we understand, the Minister of Health and Community Services has not spoken either. I understand that she was involved in the discussions with the NLMA and with the director of the hospital boards. We heard the language about there is an elastic band that could burst anytime. There is a balloon that could burst. There could be a crisis. She is not up today saying: I urge people to vote for this bill because we are getting closer to the elastic band actually snapping and the balloon actually bursting. We have not heard any of that today. We have not heard any of that.

There cannot be - you see, now there cannot be any crisis. There cannot be any urgency. There cannot be any emergency because as of an hour ago, the government's ability to provide those public services has been tremendously and greatly enhanced more so than it has for anytime in the last twenty-eight days. Yet, the stubborn Premier, who is showing his real self, will not come to this Legislature and say - even postpone the debate. They are even supposed to be going to have a chat again tonight to see if they can actually come to an agreement. So, why are we still debating this?

Let me say one thing, Mr. Speaker, I can tell the House Leader now, tomorrow I understand they gave notice for a Private Member's Motion. We should debate it because this Opposition will not be giving leave to do any government business tomorrow because there is no urgency. There is no emergency. The workers have gone back to work. So, if we want to proceed with this - I cannot fathom, I cannot understand the logic or the thinking behind why we would proceed with this debate. I am absolutely amazed as to why we are still doing it. It just boggles the mind, for me, as to why we would continue this debate after the announcement of an hour ago; another olive branch.

This is one of the ironic things throughout the whole piece.

One morning, I was listening to the Open Line and I heard Mr. Puddister, I believe it was, on behalf of NAPE, call in to Bill Rowe and say: Bill, we are going to send over another proposal now to the government and see if we can break this log-jam and to get the negotiations going on. By the time we left the Legislature that day, guess what the headline was? Government offers an olive branch. Sure, the group who offered the olive branch was the union. It was announced on Open Line in the morning they were sending another proposal, and the President of Treasury Board and the Premier were more interested in the spin and the headline in The Telegram suggesting that they had made a move. They did not make any move. They have not made a move since day one. Every single move, including the one - and if you believe what you just heard on the evening news, this discussion that they are having tonight, again, was started and precipitated by the union that made contact with the government. Guess when? Last Friday. Now, what day is this? Tuesday, five days later, another $10 million, $11 million, $12.5 million in the kitty, the government is deciding to go back, and I bet you they will try to have the news reporters and the newscast tomorrow say: Government goes back to last-ditch effort to try to salvage negotiations. Sure, they were given the proposal. They were contacted on Friday, given the proposal - noon yesterday or just after the rally?

MS THISTLE: After the rally, I believe.

MR. GRIMES: Just after the rally.

Again, here we go with this pattern, almost twenty-seven, twenty-eight hours later. Does that sound familiar?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MR. GRIMES: Does that sound familiar? The union gives a proposal and it takes the government a day-and-a-bit to decide if they are even going to talk about it, to think up what their excuse is going to be for not doing it.

I am absolutely amazed, Mr. Speaker, as to why we are still here, and I would like to get an answer to it. I would like to have an answer to it, some answer that makes sense to me, makes sense to the people of the Province, and makes sense to some of the members opposite, because I am pretty certain, I would be willing to bet the little bit of money I have in my pocket - I cannot go much beyond that because I do not want to risk too much- but I would be willing to bet that the group opposite have not met, as a group, with the Premier since six-thirty today. I would be willing to bet that. I would be willing to bet that they have not been called into a caucus discussion as to: What do you think we should do, team? Come on now, team. We are a team. What do you think we should do? Why don't we put it to a vote over here. Why don't we put it to a vote over here. They haven't heard from him, you see. He is upstairs on the eighth floor trying to figure out what he might or might not say tonight, because the union has made another proposal to try to show him and the Finance Minister how to get themselves out of a jam. In the meantime, we are down here debating a piece of legislation that supposedly is here for the only reason, one and only reason, which is to resume and continue public services, which the unions have already done.

Maybe I will get a change tomorrow, in Question Period, to ask the Premier again. Premier, obviously, the answer you gave yesterday must have been the wrong one. Because I asked: Was this the purpose? He said: Yes. He looked in the gallery and said: This is my commitment to you, trust me. So they have done it. Now, I understand, he has already spoken to the media and said: No way, we are not withdrawing Bill 18, because if there is no collective agreement with the unions they might strike again at any time. Apparently, that is what the Premier has just told the media again. He says a lot outside the doors. I do not see him say near as much when he is in his place.

He said: We have to have the bill now, because if we do not, they could go on strike again sometime in the next four years. It is not about going back to work at all. Now it is about taking away their right to strike in the future, because this strike is over. This legal strike, done under the laws of the land, has been ended voluntarily by the striking members. Do you understand that? No, they do not understand that. There are some of them over there nodding. They do not understand it.

Let me say it again, Mr. Speaker. The strike that started twenty-seven days ago is over. The workers, who withdrew their services because they had a right to do so, have decided voluntarily, by themselves, with no assistance or help from the government, to go back to work. They said: Thank you for your lack of interest, thank you for showing us the real you, but we are going back to work.

Meanwhile, your Premier who has not talked to any of you, has not said a word to any of them. Same story. Do you see that pattern? On January 5 announced a wage freeze. What did they say? I heard it on television, like you did. That is what they said to their constituents in embarrassment. What are they hearing tonight from me? What are they hearing right here in this Legislature for the first time? The Premier, who said today that the only reason to have this bill is to have a continuation of services, and guaranteed everyone, is now saying: We have to have it, because if we do not reach a collective agreement - by the way, there is a collective agreement in place. There is a collective agreement already in place. Your Leader is trying to say, if we do not have a collective agreement. They have one. There is one.

I will take a minute, if I could, Mr. Speaker, just to explain that for a second, because that is one of the myths that the Premier, himself, supported by the brilliant Justice Minister, has been perpetrating on the people of the Province. He says he gets advice from the Justice Minister. I will just touch that for a second. He said: We have to have the bill because if we do not have the bill now, there is a new purpose. I hope he is going to amend it and at least put in the new purpose. The new purpose is, we must pass the bill so they cannot go on strike anytime in the next four years. We have to take away their right to strike.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is the real reason?

MR. GRIMES: I guess we will get the real reason sometime. The real reason, that we know, and the unions know, is that he wants to take out the benefits.

Let me just mention a couple of other things, Mr. Speaker. There is no collective agreement. The Premier, in answering a question just a little while ago about, well, why would you change benefits in these collective agreement, when you promised NAPE at their convention that you would not do that, his answer was: Oh, but there is no collective agreement in place because there is a strike on.

I will just use these two as an example, from this stack. By the way, this is Bill 18, this is the stack of stuff we were supposed to read yesterday in five minutes or so. That is Bill 18, and two examples from it. Some members opposite know this. I don't know if the Labour Minister knows it or not, quite frankly; maybe not. It says: Duration of agreement. Here is the language. It says: The agreement shall remain in full force and effect during negotiations for a revision or a renewal of the terms of the agreement and until such time as it is replaced by a new collective agreement. Until it is replaced by a new one, which it has not been, guess what is still in place? This one. Yoo-hoo! There is an agreement in place, and the Premier is out telling the media tonight: I have to have this bill - a different reason than he gave seven hours ago- I have to have this bill now, because if there is no collective agreement in place they might go on strike.

That article, that is the housing one. This is a general service one. The language says: The provisions of the agreement shall remain in full effect during negotiations for a new, a revised collective agreement, and shall remain in effect until a new agreement replaces it. It is in effect. Now, there are a stack of them. Look! That is in every one of these. All these people who are going back to work - and the Justice Minister said that today, answering a question that he was not asked, answering a very different question than what he was asked. He said: By the way, they are not going back to work because of Bill 18. They are going back to work under clause 4, which says they are going back to work under their collective agreement. Today he was telling us they were going back to work under their collective agreement. Now, his Premier, who has not had a chance to speak to him either since six-thirty, is outside those doors saying: The new purpose, and the new reason for this bill is so they cannot go on strike. He is trying to suggest that they do not have a collective agreement. Wrong again!

The caucus opposite - because this is the way it has always worked, Mr Speaker. They believe, to a person - because it is almost like brainwashing. It is almost like being in a cult. They believe, to a person, because the Premier, because their leader, because little Napoleon has told them there is no contract in place that means that must be true. There is nothing that could be further from the truth than that. Just like the other one, and let me do it, it has been done three times today but it has to be done one more time. He talks about the concessions and says the Warren Report - the hours of work for school board workers is not a concession because it is not in the agreement. Well, here is the agreement. Here is the one he is talking about, school boards. Look at it. They have it. They have the same materials we were given. I do not think they have ever looked at it. I don't believe they have ever looked at it, Mr. Speaker, because El Supremo leader told them that it is not in there. So, why would you bother to look yourself? If little Napoleon said it is not in there, sure that has to be true. But, look at it. So you start going through. Now, is he going to say that the article about overtime which is on page three is not in there? I do not think so. I do not think he said that. Is he going to suggest the article that is on page thirty-nine about group assurance, is he going to say that is not in there? No, not going to say that.

Let's get all the way up now. We will go a bit more quickly. Let's get up to seventy-three, Schedule F, which even names the school boards covered by the agreement. Is he suggesting that is not part of the agreement? No, not saying that. You get all the way up to page eighty-four. Oh, that is a signature page which says you agrees to it all. I am sure he agrees that is part of the agreement. Then you get to page eighty-five which is hours of work for school board staff; right in there. Now he is saying, by the way, that is not in there. Okay? So let me take that one, eighty-five. That is not in there, according to the Premier.

Page eighty-six, another memorandum. You see this is a memorandum about hours of work. This one is a memorandum about what? Agreement on pensions. Is he suggesting that is not in there? No, sir. He is agreeing that one is in there. Then you go to the next page, and you go to page eighty-seven and there is another memorandum. Guess what it is about this time? Health insurance. Is he telling you people that is not in there? No, he is telling you that is in there. So, all of a sudden he stood up today and said: We have legal advice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: We have legal advice which tells us that every other page that is in here is part of the agreement but that one, which happens to fit right in there - right there it used to be. Guess what? Not there. Now, believe it. Pretend I am El Supremo there for a minute. I just told you, okay. Do not use your own head. Do not pretend you have a brain. Just listen to me. It is not in there, folks. Now, that is the way he is treating the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is the way he has been treating the union leaders. They know what is in an agreement. We asked, at one point, the Labour Minister, who should know about labour law, whether or not these things - whether they are memoranda or schedules or attachments - are part of the agreement? The answer is yes. But do you know what she has done? She has never answered the question, or she is not allowed to answer herself. You see, you are not allowed to give the answer that does not suit the argument.

Let me get back to the main point of it all, Mr. Speaker. Even when the group opposite - because I have heard a couple of them speak about it, and I might ask the Government House Leader now. I did not expect to speak this long, but if I go a couple of minutes. I am not trying to be inflammatory but if I go a couple of minutes over the allotted time, would that be permissible?

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Okay, thank you.

Just let me make this point. When that experienced parliamentarian, like the Government House Leader, was asked in the House of Assembly and through the media outside why he was going to support this kind of legislation when he is clearly on the record as saying he would never do it - and I think it was a pretty bad day for him today. I am sure he did not appreciate the commentary that was made by a person he knows well, Mr. Taylor, on CBC Radio this morning, who described - and, again, it was mentioned earlier. I will mention it one more time, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Frank Taylor calling CBC callback this morning: Ed Byrne was a man who portrayed himself with all those qualities of being an honourable man.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member knows that even when he is quoting he should always use the district name or the member's title, even when you are quoting from articles like that.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sorry about that, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for Kilbride, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Government House Leader, who used to be the Leader of the Opposition and was Opposition House Leader and has had a distinguished parliamentary career for just about a decade now, I expect, thereabouts.

AN HON. MEMBER: More.

MR. GRIMES: More than that? Ten or eleven years.

Anyhow, here is a person who has had some dealings with him, knows him well, knew him and still knows him, and he said: The Member for Kilbride, the Minister of Natural Resources and the Government House Leader, portrayed himself with all those qualities of being an honourable man, a man who had some integrity, a man who had some honesty, and was prepared to stand up for what he believed in. He was talking about the fact that when he stood right where I am standing right now as the Leader of the Opposition - and he will acknowledge this - that when back-to-work legislation came in for the nurses, he stood up and said: I will tell you what I would do if I was in your place - and he was pointing at Brian Tobin, who was the Premier of the day - I would not be bringing in back-to-work legislation, I would send it to binding arbitration under the current law.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, that is what he said.

MR. GRIMES: That is what he said.

After that, he further restated what his new leader, the now Premier, said at the NAPE Convention. He said the now Premier said to NAPE: I will never use the Legislature because you have too much power. You are the employer and then you have the Legislature, and it is too much power for anyone to have. It is not fair. Trust me, I will never do it. If I have a problem I will come and talk to you. I will not do like that old Clyde Wells. I will not just do what I think is right. I will come and consult with you and we will figure our the answer together, but I will never use the Legislature. He reaffirmed that in the House, and that is in Hansard.

The Member for Kilbride, now the Government House Leader, reconfirmed when standing on this side: My leader has said he would never do that, under any circumstances. I can guarantee you, he will not use the power of the Legislature. And we are still here tonight debating sending workers back to work with a brand new piece of legislation, using all the powers of the Legislature when - guess what? - the workers are already gone back to work voluntarily.

This was why this commentary was being made. This man, Mr. Taylor, whom I have known for a long time, involved in a union movement, said: Here was this member who had people convinced that he was an honourable man, integrity, honesty, and stood up for what he believed in. His actions now in the House of Assembly, by sitting with the Premier and letting him suck all those virtues out of him. I do not think he took any great satisfaction in hearing a person who he knows, and a person who is well respected in the community, in the labour movement but in the community generally in Newfoundland and Labrador, say those kinds of things about him. That he is letting the Premier who sits next to him suck all those virtues out of him, along with his values, and it certainly leads me to believe that this man can never be trusted again.

I know I have had some awful things said about me, in my political career. I am not sure they have been quite that damning, because that is a pretty good condemnation, and I know that the Member for Kilbride and the Government House Leader does not take any pride in that. That is the kind of thing that has happened in this debate because of the fact - it has nothing to do with the Member for Kilbride, it has nothing to do with the Government House Leader, it has to do with the fellow who is up in the eighth floor, who will not come down and take this off the table. It has to do with little Napoleon. It has to do with the one-man show. It has to do with the emperor who will not come down here and admit now that he does not need this legislation anymore. Instead of doing that, Mr. Speaker, what has he done? He has changed his story again. There is the pattern and therein lies the problem, that trust me, old trust me, does not have anyone trusting him, in just six short months.

I think the first group to say it, very articulately, very poignantly, after the election, were the Metis of Labrador who felt so let down, who felt that they had been so misled by the government, that they took out ads in the paper saying that the government and the Premier, in particular, had betrayed them. You do not think that there is a feeling of betrayal? I have spoken to the NAPE Convention on a few occasions, and there were 400, 500, or 600 assembled in the hall, depending on how many were there. They come from all over Newfoundland and Labrador. They represent all the locals. They are involved because they are volunteers in the organization, they are leaders in their own area. They believe in the rights of workers, employees, they believe and respect the law, they are trying to make life better for themselves, for the people they work for and on behalf of, and they are trying to build a better Province. I can tell you, they took the Premier at his word when he said: I respect you, I respect the process. They gave him a standing ovation, because he said all the things that they had hoped to hear from a political leader. Now, you do not think that they feel a bit betrayed?

Every minute that goes by with this piece of legislation still before us for debate, the sense of betrayal can only grow stronger and stronger and deeper and deeper and leave a scar that will be harder and harder and harder than ever to try to repair, especially when today, again, as I say, six hours ago, seven hours ago, the Premier was asked directly: Well, what is the real reason for it, Premier? He said: Trust me. It is not for any sinister reason, not like you bad old Opposition people want to suggest, that you really want to strip the contracts or that you really want to punish people by having really bad penalties in there. That is not the reason. Our only interest is to have people go back to work in an orderly fashion so we can resume and continue public services. He will not come down from seven stories away now and tell the people: Thank you for going back to work. Thank you for resuming and continuing the services so I do not need to do this anymore.

By the way, in terms of restoring credibility, it is too late anyway, because as the union leaders saw today, he showed himself, you see. It is almost like a game of showdown, and he showed his hand. He showed how mean he was willing to be, showed how vindictive he was willing to be, showed how tough he was willing to be, with his own employees. He had the nerve, the gall, to stand here today in answer to a question from the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and say: Do not talk to me about my relationship with my employees. You used to work with me. I had a wonderful relationship with my employees. Well, I tell you, the 20,000 who were on strike, up till a while ago, were proud to be his employees, as the big boss. His own language says he is running and controlling Newfoundland and Labrador anyway, so he is the head honcho.

How does he feel about the relationship he has developed in six short months with this group? The biggest problem of all is not anything that happened in the last six months. The biggest problem of all is what has happened in the last couple of days, when, again, members opposite who stood here and now stand up and tell the story - the Member for Kilbride is going to do it when he speaks. He will give the answer again, he gave it last week, and he gave it on the radio. He said: Oh, but five years have passed and the debt is $2.7 billion dollars more. I went through it a bit earlier. They leave out the part, and what about the part, that the debt has gone up to make investments? Here are the investments: schools; hospitals; new facilities in cities like Mount Pearl; roads; sports complexes; water and sewer; The Rooms; clean up of the Harbour; all of those kinds of things.

Listen to some other things now: raises for doctors, that the members opposite all supported because they said we need to be competitive, we need to pay them so we can keep them in Newfoundland and Labrador, so that they do not leave; raises for nurses; raises for teachers, because they were afraid - and they supported it and said: No, no. You have to be competitive, because these are all trained professionals and they might run off some place else. They might all leave here and get their jobs elsewhere, where the pay rates are 20 per cent, 30 per cent or 40 per cent higher.

We also believed that all of the public service deserved a raise, they had not had a descent raise in ten years. The group opposite used to bring in petitions saying that they should have a raise. Then, again, after the election, one of the things about seeing the real Premier, Mr. Speaker, was the Maclean's article. He stood here, he stood where I am standing right now, when we had the strike in 2001, and when it was settled with five, two-and-a-half, two-and-a-half, two-and-a-half, and two-and-a-half, to resume the services, no legislation necessary, negotiation, he said, they should be put back to work, they should be given a fair increase because they have gone a long time without it, they had gotten a raise of 7 per cent in eleven years. So, you will get 15 per cent more in another three, that is 22 per cent in fourteen years. Wow!

Guess what he says to Maclean's, after he did not need their vote anymore? Overpaid! Overpaid, he said, the biggest problem in this Province with the finances. When he was asked, what is the problem, he did not say the debt, he did not say the $2.7 in extra debt. When he answered Maclean's - they said: To what do you attribute the financial problem of Newfoundland and Labrador? - he said: The public employees got too much of a raise and they got it too soon. The same fellow who stood up here, when he was in Opposition, and said that they should get a raise, they deserve a raise. Members opposite presented petitions saying end the strike. As a matter of fact, I do not know but they even said: Legislate them back. Because there was a snowstorm on and there were some buses struck out in the Doe Hills. So, I guess there was a signal then. They were saying there is a crisis, send them back. We said: No, we will negotiate.

Now the same Premier turns around and tells a national magazine the one thing that jumped to the front of his mind - and it is always very telling - front and center in his mind as to what the problem was with the finances of the Province is that the public employees were overpaid.

MR. REID: They got $250 million (inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Not the debt. So let's get the right answer or, at least, let's keep the same answer.

One member says it was because the debt grew. Again, as I was saying earlier, Mr. Speaker, they want to ignore the fact that there is a lower debt ratio, that it has gone down. The Premier refuses - he has refused outside of the House and he has refused at least five or six times inside the House - to answer the question about the biggest myth that he spun out on January 5. The story he used, that they bought, that this group -

[Comments from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair reminds all visitors in the gallery that they are not to participate in anyway, show approval or disapproval. You are always welcome in the people's House to sit in the gallery. However, you are not to make any comment or in any way participate. Thank you for your co-operation in this matter.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, to continue debate.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The question again related to the myth - the biggest part of the myth that he used, and he used it again today in answer to a question. He uses it regularly. At least he is consistent in the story. He has the group and the members opposite believing it and buying into it, even though it is not true. He said on a provincially televised address that the debt is so bad that we have to pay twenty-five cents on every dollar to the banks for interest. Did he say that?

MR. REID: Yes, he did so.

MR. GRIMES: I asked him in the House and he acknowledged that he said it, and the members opposite know. Yes, he said it. If they do not believe me, I will pass them over the quotes again. Twenty-five cents on every dollar, he said. That is $1 billion, and we know we are debating the Budget on other days. It is a $4 billion Budget. He said: The first billion dollars - the Minister of Natural Resources followed up in a speech, the Minister of Justice followed up in a speech that I heard in the media, and I think a couple of others, because that was the line. You had to go and make your speeches and repeat it all over Newfoundland. Listen to it again. He said: The first billion dollars goes to the banks to pay - now listen to the words - the interest on the debt. Everybody understands that. A lot of people understand that. They have interest on credit cards. They have interest on their mortgages. They know they have some debt somewhere. They know the difference between paying off the debt and paying the interest on it. A lot of people understand that, the credit thing; what is a debt and what is your principal payment and what is your interest payment.

Now, the impression he gave was this, that just to pay the interest every year I have to give a billion dollars to the banks. What did Moody's, the bond rating agency, say when I demonstrated this to the group last week? They said it is $544 million. That is a lot, by the way. But, it was down from $565 million a couple of years earlier and the actual interest being paid to the banks has been going down. Now, the members opposite had never heard that before. They had never heard it before. Every time I have asked the Premier to answer to the people of the Province: Why, Premier, did you say that when you knew that statement was not true? He has never answered it. He has always put the Minister of Finance up, who says: Well, there is - he admits I am right, by the way - there is $544 million in interest to the banks but then we owe some money to the pension plans, too. A very different issue, and that is not what the Premier said. Maybe the members opposite do not know, that upon the recommendation of the Auditor General some years ago the Liberal government put in a plan to start paying extraordinary amounts back into the pension plan which the government owed.

MS THISTLE: And she complimented us for doing that.

MR. GRIMES: She complimented the government for initiating the program. So, there is already a plan in place. There is already a plan in place, just like there was in Ontario to wipe out the deficit associated with the pension plan, which is in the range of $400 million. There is a plan to pay it off. Extra payments every year, plus the interest on the earnings.

The Finance Minister stood a few days ago and said that if we earn the same amount of interest for the next few years as we did in the past - 10.2 per cent a year, he said, they are earning. He said if that happens, we will not have a problem in the pension plan. Now, he must have fell and bumped his head that day because he does not want anybody over there to believe that they might not have a problem in the pension plan. He wants all of them, and everybody in the Province, to believe the pension plans are just about caput. They absolutely, totally misstated and misrepresented the interest being paid to the banks. Five hundred million dollars a year being paid in interest on loans accumulated in the last fifty-four years - not the last three when I was the Premier - is a lot of money. But, I will tell you one thing, it is not $1 billion that the Premier said it was, because the myth was perpetrated and the language was used like today.

Again, the Premier today looked into the galleries and said: Sure, we are drowning in debt. We are on the verge of bankruptcy. Don't you people understand? I do not have any choice - when there are lots of choices. You can start by being decent with people and you can start, Mr Speaker, by living to your word. The Premier can start by coming down from the eighth floor and withdrawing this bill that seven hours ago he looked into the eyes of striking workers in the galleries and said: Believe me, my commitment to you - they snickered again, I think, because they have heard so many commitments and he has kept none - is that the only reason this is here is not to punish you, not to put fines in place, not to threaten to fire you, not to take away your sick leave, not to take away your hours of work, not to change your collective agreement, the only reason it is here is to provide for the resumption and continuation of public services which started an hour-and-a-half ago.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will conclude by just making this plea one more time. If we can take the Premier at his word this time - because I taught school one time, and a principal lost his hard-earned reputation over the years for one reason, that he used to give students another chance. One of the lessons, when you are teaching, is that young people sometimes not only need some discipline but they expect some from their teachers and from their elders and so on. When someone would be sent to the principal because there was a pretty extreme violation, the principal would say: Well, okay, I know you should not have done that and you really should apologize to your classmates and to the teacher, but I will give you one more chance. The principal was gone a year later. Guess what the students used to call the principal? Last chance. I am going down to good old last chance now. Ho! Ho! Ho! That is how seriously they took it. That is the problem that our Premier has created. He said again today, I will make this commitment to you. How many times has he said that and how many times has he lived up to it? What he has done, even today in a space of six hours, is change his tune. He said six hours ago: This is my commitment to you. This is the only reason this is here, and if we did not have a disruption in services we would not need this. Then, what do we hear from outside the Legislature? We should hear it right here. I hope we are going to hear it in a few minutes. What we hear outside the Legislature is: No, no, no, we cannot take this out. Even though they promised to resume the services, and already have started, we cannot take it out now because the unions might go on strike again sometime. Now, it is not about resuming services at all, it is about passing a bill to take away the rights of workers to stage a legal strike.

Maybe he does believe what John Crosbie was saying on the Open Line a few days ago. Mr. Crosbie, for those who did not hear him - and I have listened to him a lot, I respect him a lot, although I was a bit amused by his musings, because he has been in very influential positions in this Province and in this country. When he was in key Cabinet positions where he could have done something about it, now that he is retired he says, the real answer is to take away the right to strike for all public employees. None of them should have the right to strike. I never heard him make that speech when he was running for office. He was a pretty brave man and he was known to say what was on his mind, but I never, ever heard him make that speech when he was running for office. He said, they should not have the right to strike, but you cannot just have the government lord it over them either. He said, the answer - and the unions took some comfort in this on Friday past - is binding arbitration, which the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and myself, had offered on behalf of the Liberal party, to enter into a full debate on last Thursday. As a matter of fact, I think even on Wednesday we offered to have an emergency debate, suspend the rules, send the outstanding items to binding arbitration and let people go back to work. Here we are a week later with the people voluntarily gone back to work and now we can only scratch our heads and wonder, what is the real reason that this still sits on this table.

The answer outside the door is, we cannot let them go on strike again, legal or whatever, we just cannot let them. They had a strike but they are not having another one, not while I am around, sir, not on my watch. They are not having another strike while I am here. I am only going to be here for four years and, by hook or by crook, they are not having another strike while I am here. That is what he said outside the door.

We will get a chance to ask tomorrow in Question Period: Does that mean, then, that he only wants to put the contract in place for a four-year period with the wages? Does that mean that he will take out the sick leave concession? He stands in the House and tells us that is not a concession? Everybody in labour law and labour relations knows the definition of a concession. He has his own definition, he has his own dictionary, I suppose, whatever suits him. He does not want to put in the school board hours, even though it is right in the middle. The only page he is saying does not belong in here is page eighty-five. Let me see the last one just to make the point again. The last page is 127. The one almost right in the middle is the only one that is not there.

Mr. Speaker, again I would ask, because maybe the Premier is listening, maybe he is not interested enough: Could we make the plea, on behalf of this caucus and on behalf of the people of the Province, to come down and tell us what the real reason is now? If the real reason, as he said six hours ago, was to have the work resumed and it is already resumed, why don't we stop this charade? Why don't we stop putting ourselves through this game that somebody is playing, a very expensive one, a very costly one, a very unnecessary one, and why don't we end this debate and get back to doing some of the business of the government that might actually improve matters in Newfoundland and Labrador, for the people of the Province?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a number of things to say tonight, and I want to start off by saying I only have twenty minutes, and it is unfortunate that I will not have the same kind of time that the Leader of the Opposition has had, to describe in detail some of the problems that we are facing.

Initially, Mr. Speaker, earlier today, I planned to come here tonight and say some of things that I said on the radio this morning about this legislation, about how devastating it is to the prospect of free collective bargaining in this Province, that it is unjustified, that it is intimidating, that it is autocratic, and all of those things that have been said before today about it being unprecedented, punitive, firing people and the threat of firing, all of those things that needed to be said. Many of them now, Mr. Speaker, have changed, they have changed quite a bit, because we have a very different circumstance before us now than we did this morning, than we did this afternoon.

On Thursday last, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board stood here in the House and said that their ability to provide emergent and urgent health care is significantly reduced. They quoted Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association saying, our patients are suffering and at risk, and that is why he was giving notice of this legislation that is now before us.

At that time, Mr. Speaker, we, on this side of the House, in this party, pointed out Section 30 of Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, which provides exactly for the kind of circumstances that were being described by the Minister of Finance on Thursday, when, "a strike of employees is or would be injurious to the health or safety of persons or a group or a class of persons..." A simple resolution could be passed in this House as a result of which the employees would have been back to work, in the Thursday case, on Thursday night or Friday morning, and the strike would have been over, and the three issues that remained would have been involved in a process of binding arbitration; existing legislation, dealing with the existing problem, that was pointed out by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

On Monday, yesterday, in this House, the same minister said, in answer to a question that he was asked during Question Period, "We are concerned with the health care in our Province and we want immediate action." Mr. Speaker, once again, immediate action was offered to this House, to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, agreement to pass a resolution under Section 30 of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. But no, Mr. Speaker, they went ahead and introduced in this House the worst piece of labour legislation that we have seen in this Province, probably since the days of the IWA, when the former government, the government of Joey Smallwood, decertified a union in this Province and acted in a manner that was condemned by the International Labour Organization by labour organizations around the world.

We have a situation today, Mr. Speaker, that members opposite are now being asked to continue with this legislation in the face of the reality of what we heard announced tonight, that public sector workers are going back to work.

I have just had a note sent to me by members of Local 6206 of NAPE saying: All employees who are regularly scheduled to work at 8 p.m. and 12 a.m at the Health Science Centre and the Leonard A Miller Center in St. John's were contacted and all are reporting to work for their scheduled shifts. These sites are not fully operational. The Health Sciences Complex in St. John's and the Leonard A Miller Center down on Forest Road are fully operational as we speak, that the employees who were scheduled to report to work at eight o'clock tonight have gone to work, and those who are scheduled to report to work at twelve o'clock will be at work. These sites are now fully operational.

Throughout this Province, Mr. Speaker, public sector employees are going back to work, because their leadership - and all of you saw them. We were supposed to come back here at six-thirty, but we did not come back until very close to seven o'clock, and the reason was that everybody in this House was watching TV, and everybody saw what I saw, the leadership of NAPE and CUPE saying, with great dignity, I might add - and I want to ask anyone in this House and anyone watching: Who looks like winners tonight? Is it members opposite, who have gone along with using the power of the Legislature, who supported this by their silence? Are they the winners? Or are the winners the people who have withstood this government's attempts to take away their collective bargaining rights, to take away their hard-won benefits, to impose their will on them? These employees have said: No, we are not going to allow you to impose your will on us. We are still free men and women. We are still free men and women. We will walk back into our jobs with our heads held high, with our heads held high.

I would challenge members opposite when they vote - and they will have to stand and vote because we are not going to allow a silent vote here or a nod or a wink. We are going to ask everybody in this House, who wants to vote in favour of this legislation, to stand. I do not think that members opposite will be able to stand with the same kind of dignity and confidence that the workers, who are walking back to their jobs, using their own free will as free men and women, are doing as we speak and have already done.

The question has been asked by the Leader of the Opposition, and I ask the same question: Why are we now here debating this legislation? Why are members opposite prepared to support legislation to do something that does not need to be done, and to do it with such power and force that someone has to question the motivation, question the legitimacy, and question the abuse of the right of democracy, because this legislation is absolutely unnecessary? If this legislation is for the purpose that it says it is for, it is unnecessary. If this legislation, on the other hand, is to impose the will of the Premier and the Minister of Finance on public sector workers, then, by all means, go right ahead, if that is what you want to do. Do not hide behind public necessity, do not hide behind the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association expressing concern about patients, do not hide behind anybody but the Premier who is determined to have his own way.

Mr. Speaker, I can go through Hansard of the year 1999, when the nurses were ordered back to work, and I can quote the Government House Leader, I can quote the Member for Bonavista South, the Member for Cape St. Francis, the Member for St. John's South and St. John's West, all of whom, in one form or another, said they were ashamed to be in a House that was passing legislation that was so drastic as that which was being passed to force the nurses back to work and to impose a collective agreement raise on them that had been negotiated by every other collective bargaining group of the time. There is no justification for that. I oppose it vehemently, just as strongly, and with just as much and more conviction, than members opposite who said the same things as I did.

I want to say to you, and I want to say to all the new members opposite who have come into this House after many years of dreams - I heard the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde talk about her long cherished dream to be in the House of Assembly. Well, she is here, and all the new members are here. What I am saying to you is that you do not have to do this. You do not have to do this anymore. There is no justification anymore. The leadership of NAPE and CUPE have told you, have gone on television tonight and have told you, that the strike is over, that the people are back at work. You will see, as time goes on - I have given you one report and you will have others as the night goes on and tomorrow - that the strike is over. There is no strike in the public sector. There is no need to force people, with the worst labour legislation in the country, the worse fines and punishments in the country, there is no need to tarnish your own reputation, to come here in your first term of office and sully your own reputation by doing violence to the rights of people who work for the public sector in this Province. That is what you are doing. I am using the term violence advisedly. You are doing violence to peoples rights. You are using the power that you have, as a majority in this House, to force your will upon people. It is not necessary. You do not have to do it.

I think it is even more than that. I was trying to think of some analogy. When I thought about violence to people's rights, I thought about something that I came across in law school many times when reading old judgements - and the Minister of Justice will remember this, I am sure. You read about judges, particularly the English judges, who used to talk about how certain crimes were cowardly crimes, that it was a particular event when a judge was sentencing someone, he would refer to what a cowardly act it was. Usually there were questions of violence, that someone had either committed a murder or someone had an assault, a very serious assault, and they were called a cowardly crime. I was trying to get my head around what they meant, a cowardly crime.

When you think about it, Mr. Speaker, a cowardly crime is when a person who has all the power and who has the strength, uses that power and uses that strength to do violence to someone else's person, in the criminal field. I am thinking, Mr. Speaker, that when we are talking about the rights and dignity of people in this Province, who work for the public sector, who have the right to free collective bargaining, which is a right of democracy, that the people opposite are being asked to do violence to that right. I say, Mr. Speaker, that to do so is a cowardly act. That it is cowardly for members opposite to pass legislation that does violence to the rights of public sector workers without any reason, without any necessity, without any justification, because that justification, that reason, however fragile it may have been - and I am satisfied it was very fragile - is now gone, because there is no strike in the public sector. You do not have to threaten people with $250,000 a day damages if they will not do something which they have already done.

This legislation is very interesting. If we are going to challenge the legislation - and some questions raised to the Minister of Justice earlier today about whether there was something wrong with this legislation from a human rights perspective or Charter of Rights perspective. It seems to me that one of the most significant things that I would think is wrong with this legislation is forcing people to say something. It is called forced expression. We have freedom of speech in this country, freedom of expression. You can say what you like.

I can understand legislation that says: You shall not do anything to encourage people to continue to strike. But, this legislation says that upon the passing of this legislation the representatives of the union shall give notice to the striking employees, whom they represent, that a declaration or direction to go on strike, declared or given to them before the coming into force of this act, has become invalid by reason of the coming and force of this act and shall direct the employees to return to work immediately.

Now that is legislation under paying of $250,000 a day. If you do not say these things, if you do not use your tongues, if you do not use your voices and say these things, we will find you guilty by legislation of an act that is going to be resulting in a fine of $250,000 a day. I would ask the Minister of Justice whether he thinks that is consistent with the right of freedom of expression under our Charter of Rights? That is the one that I would point at first, if we want to talk about doing violence to people's rights.

I want to say to members opposite, you have a caucus tomorrow. I think you do. Every Wednesday, I believe, you have a caucus. Tomorrow afternoon is Private Member's Day and we had initially talked about maybe using that afternoon and that time to have further debate on this important bill because we believe it is important and that to give further, full airing of the issues before the public of the Province, in this Legislature, would be perhaps a proper thing to do. Not to speed it up, but to make sure that whatever time is available was going to be used to debate the bill. But, that is no longer necessary, Mr. Speaker. It is no longer necessary to debate this legislation anymore. We do not need to debate it tomorrow. We do not need to debate it Thursday. We do not need to do anything with it.

If the government decides to get second reading today and call to a vote when members opposite have run out of time, which is going to happen fairly soon because there are only so many and we only have twenty minutes each. When that is over he can call second reading and take a vote on it. We will ask them all to stand and we will have a division. People will stand and they will support the legislation, perhaps. But, after that, Mr. Speaker, he can put it in his briefcase. He can stick it in his draw. He does not have to do anything tomorrow. He does not have to do anything Thursday. He does not have to do anything anytime. He can shelve that legislation, put it in his pocket and save you members opposite from the shame of voting for and putting into force legislation that ought not to be put in place. You should not be asked to do this and you should resist this. In your caucus meeting tomorrow, if you are asked to do this, you should demand to know why you have to do that and resist, because you can. In the privacy of your caucus room you can do many things that you may not be willing to do out here in front of everybody else. I ask you to look at that and consider it because this is a very serious time for our Province. Legislation of this magnitude does not come before this House very often. This is only the second time that legislation has been brought into this House to actually order people back to work.

We had legislation in 1981 which changed the rules for essential workers to the point that the unions felt if all of these people - if more than half of them were being declared essential we may as well go back to work because we are going to be on strike forever and get nowhere. But, that was not back-to-work legislation for the whole bargaining unit. There was no attempt to impose terms and conditions of employment.

We had the nurses legislation which, in fact, imposed certain terms and conditions of employment related to salaries, which had already been negotiated by other bargaining units. That was pretty bad, but nothing has been as bad as this in terms of not only ordering people back to work, ordering them back to work under threat of dismissal, with the highest fines ever put in place in labour legislation in this Province and perhaps this country, and under threat of dismissal for employees who refuse to go back to work. It is absolutely unprecedented, absolutely unnecessary. I would invite you all to vote against it, to vote against it tonight, and if you feel you cannot do that, to make sure that in your caucus room tomorrow you determine, as you have the right to do - you have as much power in your caucus room as we have here to vote. Our numbers are not strong enough to defeat you in this House, but your numbers are strong enough to make decisions in your caucus room. I would urge you to do that.

I would ask that all hon. members recognize that the people who are returning to work tonight, as we speak, or already back at work, who are going to work at midnight, who are going to work when their shift comes on, who are going to work in this building tomorrow morning, recognize that these men and women are coming to work with their dignity intact. If there are any winners in this strike situation, it is those who have withstood for twenty-seven days with great dignity, with great courage, with great hardship personally for their families and financially, and that they were prepared to stand up against a government which was not prepared to negotiate a proper agreement and to recognize, as well, that when they go back to work they are doing so voluntarily, willingly as free men and women, and to use the power of the Legislature after that, to recognize that that itself is a cowardly act which will sully your reputation in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I have been patiently and quietly listening to the debate going on all day. I want to say for the record, I am going to remark - I do not have the same amount of time as the Leader of the Opposition but I will use the time that I have, which is about twenty minutes. I want to say for the record, in terms of some of the points that he made. First of all, I do know that as we speak the Premier is speaking with the President of NAPE in an attempt, I guess, from the offer that was made from the President of NAPE to government. That is being dealt with as we speak. It is, without question, everybody's hope that will conclude itself in an agreement. To say that these are, right now, extraordinary times, would be an understatement. To say that there are tough times, that would be an understatement.

If I listen to the Leader of the Opposition tonight, and maybe members in the gallery may even - I do not know, maybe they think the same things as he thinks or anybody thinks, but if I listen to him and take what he says as gospel then before I come in here tomorrow, and every member on this side, we are going to have to get our horns and tails and put them on to come in here, because that is how we have been described all day. Every speaker today has described each and every one of us as that.

Let me say this to the Leader of the Opposition, it will not be Frank Taylor who decides if Ed Byrne can look himself in the mirror. It will be Ed Byrne who decides that he can look himself in the mirror, nobody else. In this Legislature the people within the confines of the District of Kilbride, which is my home, are the people who sent me here. They sent me here to make decisions and they sent me here to vote upon legislation, and I intend to do exactly that. It will not be under duress and it will not be under influence from any single member, no matter where they sit in this Legislature, that I can tell you.

I want to talk about the Leader of the Opposition for a few moments. Not him personally, because I am not going to get into that. I never have in the ten years that I have been here, but some of the points that he has made. In one of them he said: We increased the debt just a little bit. On October 21 we won an election. It was an incredible day, particularly for members who have been in the Legislature for some time, like myself. Finally you have a chance, you think to yourself. You have an opportunity to bring something that you have been purporting and going forward with, that maybe, just maybe, you can make the place that you call home a little bit better.

When I was appointed to the Department of Natural Resources I did not think it was an accident. For most of the ten years that I was here in Opposition, most of the issues that I was extremely passionate about and strong about were those that were related to resource rentals and resource revenues. So I said: Finally, maybe there is an opportunity for me here to make a little difference. You are not going to change the world overnight but maybe when you are finished with what you are doing the little piece of the planet that you have or that you were involved with and involved in making decisions on, maybe that little piece of the planet will be just a little bit better than what it was before; just a tiny bit better, to advance that ball down the field just a little bit.

In 1996, under a new Liberal regime, there were nine members in the Opposition. I had the privilege to be one of them. It was a tough Budget they said. It went through a program review that year. In order to balance the Budget or come close to it so they would not have to cut public services, the government of the day borrowed thirty years worth of Term 29. For those of you who are watching, wondering what Term 29 is, it was a $9 million compensation package assigned to this Province the day we joined Confederation. Smallwood defeated Diefenbaker over it. Here is what we did, we borrowed thirty years of it upfront. We got twenty years of it and we gave back to the federal government ten years of it. Think about that. We gave back ninety, we kept one-hundred and eighty for the privilege of getting something that was for us by Confederation. It sounds great. It helped that budget year.

The day that I was elected in this Legislature in 1993, the debt-to-equity ratio of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro was 79 per cent debt, 21 per cent equity. Does anybody know what that debt-to-equity ratio is today? Does anybody want to venture to take a guess at what it is? Maybe the Leader of the Opposition could tell me what the debt-to-equity ratio is in Newfoundland Hydro when he talks about the little bit of extra debt that he and his government put on the backs of everybody? Do you know what it is?

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: I am going to tell you. The debt-to-equity ratio is this: 87 per cent debt, I believe - 86 per cent to 87 per cent - to 17 per cent equity. What does that mean in laymen's terms? It means, simply put, that year over year since 1996, we have been living off borrowed credit. It means -

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

MR. E. BYRNE: I did not interrupt him at all, Mr. Speaker. I just want that for the record.

MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

It is not a matter of interrupting, it is a matter of making sure that we understand the facts. It is fairly typical of the approach taken. He is going to tell me and he is going to tell us, I know the answers, and the part he leaves out is as important as any of it. The same people who talk about the debt-to-equity ratio of Hydro write the reports that say all of the debt of Hydro is 100 per cent self-financed, secured by incredible assets and absolutely no risk to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

For an hour and ten minutes I sat and listened silently and intently to the points that the Leader of the Opposition made. I never interrupted him. I made the points that he made and I said: Well, I will have my opportunity to deal with him and the points that he made. The fact is right, that yes, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is financing, but why are they financing? Why are they self-financing? Why are they in such good shape? - as he would like to put it - because the 520,000 of us who live in this little place called Newfoundland and Labrador have guaranteed its debt. Now, if he wants to make the argument, belligerent as he always will be, but if he wants to make the argument that if we want to increase that debt-to-equity ratio and we take it to the end sort of point, where does it leave it? It leaves it with nothing, because each and every year for five or six years that government, when they were the government, stripped one-time payments out of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro; took one-time payments out of that to balance the Budget to say how everything looked great. But, guess what? There is none left for us to take. We cannot do that over the next five years. We cannot take an additional $120 million, like they have done on five or six occasions, to put into the general revenues of the Province. There are some that come in as dividends, no question, but we cannot take those extra revenues because they are not there to take.

Let's talk about a little bit of debt, and back to the point that I wanted to make when I first started, in terms of when you first become a government member or when you are first appointed to the Cabinet. When you are first in a Cabinet seat in an area, particularly for me anyway - my other colleagues can speak for themselves - in an area that I felt I was knowledgeable about, in an area that I know intimately, an area of Natural Resources that really will define where we will be in the future as a people, here is what was presented. He talks about a little bit of debt. The big debt they had in 1996, which was huge, that caused program review, it caused privatization of parks, it caused people going out the door and a whole bunch of other things. The Member for Grand Falls-Buchans looked at us today and basically said shame on us because there are people cleaning the building in the Confederation Building who are making $6 an hour. In 1996 it was the government, that she was part of, that privatized that service and somehow we were the ones responsible for that.

In 1996 - I am going by memory, Mr. Speaker, I think it is pretty good. In 1996 there was a $296 million deficit; huge. It had to be dealt with and it was dealt with immediately. So much so that we had to borrow thirty years of Term 29, give back $90 million to the federal government for the privilege, the absolute privilege of getting it, and keep $180 so we could try to offset what was happening. Now, let's fast-forward to this year, when we talk about the little bit of debt. Oh, I forgot one thing, in between that there was a balanced budget by this government. It was a shell game. I recall the former Premier getting the piggy bank award for delivering a balanced budget in Newfoundland and Labrador. What a joke!

We came into government and the same people, the very same people who advised this government of the financial situation, the same fiscal agents, the same public servants, the same public service, the same ADMs and deputy ministers who advised that government advised us. Status quo this year, deficit almost a billion. Status quo next year, $1.1 billion. Status quo the year after that, without doing anything, without building a new bridge, without building a new hospital, without building a new road, without putting in a new teacher, without hiring a new nurse, without increasing the public service, status quo a year after that, $1.2 billion. That is a little bit of debt from $296 million.

The Leader of the Opposition stands today and talks about how we can afford it. How we can afford it! I do not know how we are going to afford it. I do not know what my daughter, Olivia, who turned eleven on Sunday, twenty years from now when she could be sitting here - and I hope that she has the privilege of doing so - or my son Isaac who is seven, who could be sitting here, or certainly his peers will be. How are they going to afford it? Do you ask yourself that question?

AN HON. MEMBER: All the time.

MR. E. BYRNE: All the time. Yes, and I am glad you say it, because you have. You have, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, and we certainly intend to. The fact of the matter is this, the Leader of the Opposition talks about when he was the Health minister, he understands the situation that we are in. Health boards, he said, have carried deficits, $15 million in each of the last two years despite having their operating budgets increased by just over 10 per cent just to maintain the status quo. This was in August 30, 2000. It is four years later and the situation is almost three times worse, in terms of the amount of debt that we have, than when you made this statement: Just to maintain the status quo, we would see deficits grow to almost $40 million this year, $50 million in 2001, $65 million in 2002. At that time the accumulated deficit would reach $200 million, stated Mr. Grimes. We are on an extremely dangerous course. If not contained, it could lead to financial disaster for Newfoundland and Labrador.

A true statement at the time? Absolutely, a true statement, lead to financial disaster. In 2000, the deficit of the day was a little over, I think, $360 million. We took $240 million out of this year's Budget and, despite all of that, despite all of it, the Minister of Finance stood on Budget day and delivered the highest recorded Budget deficit in Newfoundland's history. Now, how do you square that circle? We take the credit card out of our back pocket again, the government credit card, slap it on the table, and say: Okay, we will use the American Express for the hospital boards. We are going to use our Interac for something else, and we are going to use our member direct card at the Credit Union to keep school boards going. Do you know what they told us? There is nothing left to take. There is nothing left to take.

Mr. Speaker, whether we like it or not, understand it or not, or come to terms with it or not, that is the situation we face. Whether people like it or not, understand it or not, are prepared to accept it or not, the fact of the matter is, that is the situation and the reality we face. The member shakes his head no. I can tell him the answer is yes. He cherry-picks.

A comment the other day from Moody's - he talks about this myth - here is what Moody's said, self-sufficient really. Moody's: Budget reliance - this is Moody's now, alright? - on non-recurring measures - which are some of the ones I just talked about, one-time measures to keep things afloat - could, to enhance short-term financial flexibility, need to reduce budget deficits from recent high levels. That is what Moody' said. The Leader of the Opposition conveniently did not leave that out.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is this: our source revenues - the same people again who advised you, advised you of this, and I know they did and you know what I am saying is true, advised your government of it - source revenues could not keep up with the pace of outstripping deficits.

Now, let's talk about the attrition matter, because he likes to reference that one. I asked a question a couple of weeks ago in the House: Did the former government have an unwritten attrition policy? Nobody answered. Nobody answered over there. Did it go on two years before that?

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: The Leader of the Opposition, again, wants to interrupt. That is fine. I did not interrupt him. He says it was announced in the Budget last year. Yes, it was. Was it announced the two years previous to that? How are you balancing departmental budgets, I ask the former Premier and Leader of the Opposition? How was the minister, and ministers in government, balancing departmental budgets? How did they balance a $58 million budget deficit down in the Department of Forestry? Do you know how they did it? They did it through attrition. Did they have the courage or gumption to go out and tell people about it?

AN HON. MEMBER: We did.

MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, two years after you started it.

The irony that is involved here in terms of what we are facing and what we have to do and what we are trying to do - we are six months old in a government and we are dealing with a fiscal mess. It is a tough piece of work, acknowledgedly. Every person in this Legislature, whether it is the Member for Gander, the Member for Lake Melville, my colleague from Placentia & St. Mary's, my colleague the Minister of Justice, my colleague from the Northern Peninsula, my other colleague from the Northern Peninsula, my colleague from Bonavista North, and people I serve with in this Legislature and know to be hon. people, let me tell you, when it comes to making the tough decisions, and decisions, we are prepared to do it, but there is no joy being taken by anybody in having to do it. I am not going to sit and listen to members opposite suggest that for some reason we are participating, each and every one of us, in some conspiracy theory, that this was all some preconceived, precooked plan that we are launching somewhere else but we are not going to tell anyone about it. The fact of the matter is, that is not true. That is absolutely not true.

For example, when we negotiated the South Coast ferry service with the federal government, the former government, when we negotiated that, $350 million went into a pot, and that pot of money was supposed to be left alone to do what? To ensure that the South Coast ferry service would be continued forever and a day on the principal and interest earned from that. Where has that money gone today? Where is it? We cannot find it. Do you know why? Because it is gone. It was spent. Now, it was spent on roads, yes; probably spent on schools, yes; public services, wherever. But, the fact of the matter is, where is that money today that we signed with the federal government, an agreement to keep a ferry service running in perpetuity for the people of the Southwest Coast? Where is it? It is gone. The money that was negotiated to do that, because that is gone, what is going to be added to the Budget, I ask my colleague, as a result of that, year over year that we did not anticipate that we had to use?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. E. BYRNE: Labrador? No, sorry, the South Coast ferry service. I think it was $5 million? Five million dollars each and every year that we had set aside, reached an agreement with the federal government, but guess what happened? Gone. Now, because that is gone and it was spent on other things, and it was spent on other things, now the rest of us, who thought we had an agreement on that particular initiative that would not cost anyone for anything and a day, one aspect of legitimate, bonafide, absolutely needed public service would be taken care of. We had that salted away but, no, times got tough for the government. They dipped into that, opened that cupboard door, reached in from that shelf, took that money out and put it somewhere else. There is none of that left to do.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let's talk about -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: Let's talk about wastage. Let's talk about - for example, what did the former government do when they built hospitals in the Province? Here is what they did. They got the hospitals built, no question about that. They broke the Public Tender Act to do it. They put the tenders into friends of the government and friends of the Cabinet ministers. The Cabinet Committee involved in those decisions went through the legal process, paid an unspecified amount to the failed bidder, an unspecified amount because that was part of the arrangement. It was part of the arrangement. They spent an unspecified amount for a settlement on the court steps, because that is where it happened. Public-private partnership - leasing facilities cost the Province, over the term of those facilities that were built, somewhere in the vicinity of $45 million to $50 million over and above what it would have cost us had we gone with another bidder. What was the settlement? Five million dollars we had to pay somebody because we broke their rights; public tendering project.

I listened today to everybody. I sat down and listened to the Member for Bellevue. I did not interrupt him at all. I did not interrupt the Leader of the Opposition. I did not interrupt the Member for Labrador West, to whom I have a lot of respect for, and all members in the House, because we were all sent here by people within our districts. On the basis of that, whether I agree with you or not, it deserves me to sit down and listen to what you have to say. Whether I agree with you or not, the very least that I can do is to sit down and listen to what you have to say, and then use my time as wisely as I can to respond to the points, either to agree with you or disagree with you.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, and it is my hope today that before this night is over - because of the discussions when you were out, I say to the Leader of the Opposition. I said that the Premier, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, were discussing with the President of NAPE at the time that the proposal was sent in. It is every person's hope on this side, every single one of us, that an agreement can be reached. But, I want to say this -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. E. BYRNE: I want to say this, Mr. Speaker, that whether it is on this piece of legislation or any other piece of legislation, that clearly it is our intention to speak to them. You cannot hide from in here. When it comes down to it, and a vote takes place and members are in their seats, you either have to say: Yea or nay.

Mr. Speaker, please God, and every member - I think every member in this legislature, even members opposite -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. Government House Leader that his time has expired.

MR. E. BYRNE: I will just say this in conclusion, that hopefully every -

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. E. BYRNE: - and I am sure every member opposite, every member here would like to see a negotiated settlement to the outstanding labour dispute before the Province right now.

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.

I appreciate an opportunity to make a few comments at this second reading stage for Bill 18. Maybe a bit of levity - it seems like there is a lot of tension in the House here today. Everybody giving their comments and some disruptions and so on. A very serious matter, or it was at least a very serious matter at hand before 6:30 this evening. I guess to paraphrase - and this is what NAPE and union leadership must be thinking right now about the Conservative Party. Just to paraphrase what Sir Winston Churchill said one time, he said: Trying to maintain good relations with a Conservative is like wooing a crocodile. You do not know whether to tickle it under the chin or beat it over the head. When it opens its mouth, you cannot tell whether it is trying to smile or preparing to eat you.

MR. RIDEOUT: Was he a Conservative or a Liberal when he said that?

MR. PARSONS: Actually, I say to the Member for Lewisporte, I think he was a Conservative when he said that.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this second reading is to give an overview. I note the comments - I listened quietly and intently, as I usually do - of the Government House Leader, and it is very telling in what he did not say.

The purpose of second reading, as I understand it, is to look at the principles of a bill and say why you do or do not, in general, agree and can support the bill. We are dealing with Bill 18, the back-to-work legislation for the resumption of services in this Province by the NAPE and CUPE workers. There was not a single mention by the Government House Leader, in his twenty-minute comments, as to why he is supporting this legislation - not a single comment - and that is very telling.

It is okay to bring legislation to the floor of this House, and it is okay to say that we are full of guts and gumption, but when you stand - and the Government House Leader never took one second of his time to say why he is in favour of this legislation, not a second, and that is very telling. I will say this: Neither the Government House Leader nor anyone in the government will deflect from what they are doing here in Bill 18 because we, as an Opposition, will not allow the deflection. The public knows, the NAPE membership knows, the CUPE membership knows, what is happening here with Bill 18.

When I made a few notes this afternoon to get up and speak to this issue, I was fully believing that they may have some relevance, and you feel kind of idiotic when you stand up here at 8:59 in the evening, knowing that you are addressing a piece of legislation that has, of right now, no relevance. News media from across the country are calling the news media here in Newfoundland, saying: What kind of Newfie joke is this? You are debating back-to-work legislation when your workers have gone back to work. What kind of joke is this? What is wrong with suspension? What is wrong with deferral of this piece of legislation if it is not needed tonight, tomorrow, Thursday or Friday? There is nothing wrong with suspension or deferral, Mr. Speaker, if the sole purpose and motivation of Bill 18 was to have services resume, which is what the Premier told us today. That is the sole purpose. In fact, it is marked on the explanatory note of the bill. The purpose of this act is set out in the title, and the title says it is: An Act To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation Of Public Services.

Well, we have the resumption and continuation of public services as of 6:30 this evening. Therefore, there is no purpose for this bill; but, lo and behold, we find out there was more purpose in this, albeit not stated in a purpose clause, which is normally done in a piece of legislation, as was done in the nurses back-to-work legislation in 1999, as was done in the essential services legislation back in 1981. No, no, we get the real purpose from the Premier, outside this Chamber, after the 6:30 announcement, saying: Well, we are still going to push this bill through because we do not know that the unions might go on strike some time in the future. We cannot take that chance.

Now, which is it? If that was your ulterior motive, that you wanted to prevent a strike at any time in the next four years, if your motive was to impose a settlement upon the unions, if your motivation was to strip contracts, if you motivation was to tell employees what they are going to get paid - or, I should say, not get paid - in the first two years and then get paid in years three and four, why would you not be up front and tell the people? Why come to this House and say that the only purpose is to assure the resumption of services, and that is gone now, that urgency is gone? In fact, I am amazed that we have been here all day, when we talk about in this House where we are going to have a tit-for-tat, and for every speaker of the Opposition put up we would have a response from the government. I have not seen any responses from government today. I have not seen anybody in their chairs or on their feet crowing today about why this legislation is so good. I have not seen the Minister of Health, who supposedly knows full well what the reason is for the urgency, the emergency in this Province. I have not seen her on her feet, telling the people of this Province why we need to go back to work.

What have we had? One speaker, the Government House Leader, who stands up here after all day debating this legislation, after ramming it down our throats, invoking closure rules so that we cannot get past stage two, second reading, invoking closure on us in Committee stage which follows this, so we only get one shot to talk. That is a very good government who believes in everything that they stand for.

MR. GRIMES: Openness and accountability.

MR. PARSONS: Openness and accountability, even when you have no reason as of 6:30 to even want that. Even now, when there is no impending urgency, you would think you would remove the closure rules and allow us to debate it, if it worth debating. The urgency does not require closure now, at least. We should have the minster on her feet telling us: Is there or is there not going to be an emergency, now, tomorrow morning, with everybody gone back to work? Come clean with the people. That is all we ask. If there is no urgency, say there is not. If there is, tell us why, and tell us where. If not, be sensible, logical, reasonable, rational, just, fair people and say: Let's suspend or defer the debate until we need it. Don't use another cockamamie excuse or motivation to get something. For example, we do not want a strike. For example, we want to strip contracts.

Prove the unions wrong. The unions have been saying that there was another motive all along, another plan. I say to the Premier and to government, prove the unions wrong. Take this legislation off the floor of this House and call their bluff. If they are not going to go back to work, if they put you in an embarrassing position where they tell you they are going back and they do not, and they renege on that deal, and you have a continued urgency, call their bluff. I will be the first one to stand up and say I will back you if they do not do that; but, be men and women enough in this House to stand up, all of us, and allow the unions to have some dignity, the workers of this Province to have some dignity, and go back to work. Then, if this is an urgency, we will come back here and debate it and talk about why this is a necessary piece of legislation.

Any necessity no longer exists as of 6:30 tonight. The only reason it should be continued to be debated here is if there is another motivation, and I challenge the government to stand up and show the people of this Province that there is no other motivation.

Looking at polls - and I am not one, and we all say we do not take comfort or care about polls - even the Telelink poll, which is a comprehensive poll done independently tonight, 91.9 per cent of the people polled, a very accurate poll, 2.8 per cent error possibility, 43.5 per cent said you should negotiate; 48.4 per cent said you should use binding arbitration; 91.9 per cent, in total, in this Province, say we should not use this legislation.

I know the Premier said he is not into popularity contests, and he does not care if his polls go to zero, but that is not relevant. That is not relevant, what his polls go to. It is what the people want. Ninety-one point nine per cent say: Use binding arbitration or use negotiation. Don't use this legislation.

Is this government going to ramrod this through when there is no immediate purpose here? What kind of respect can any self-thinking person have for anyone who operates on that type of level?

Even the contents of this bill, as well - and I will get into that in committee stage further on, the real contents. But, I say to the Minister of Justice, I say to the Minister of Education, they are lawyers, I say to the Premier, he is a lawyer, I say to the Minister of Transportation and Works: Maybe every layperson do not understand the essence of what some of these clauses mean. The Minister of Justice, and these people I have named, they know. If no one else over there knows they do.

They have a clause in here saying, in clause 6.(3), "Every employee who fails to comply with section 4 is dismissed." And to not even permit any form of appeal, any form of arbitration, any form of reasonable explanation to be allowed. Just out the door, off the head. The ministers and all of these lawyers over there, if no one else understands the legal system in Canada, knows that that is totally, absolutely unacceptable in our system. Where is equity? Where is fairness? Where is justice, if you have these kinds of provisions in legislation?

When we had this debate here in 1999, the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation got up and gave his speech here, a very passionate speech, disagreed vehemently with what the government of that day was doing. That is his right to do, but he knows full well, as well, that this legislation is defective, at best. When you talk about these provisions, he is aware of the 1981 provisions dealing with essential health services. Even in that piece of legislation, which was a Tory hammer, another Tory bazooka aimed at the union movements, even that allowed for reasonable explanations if you were to terminate someone. That is not here. Has everyone taken leave of their senses over there and said it is not sufficient, not good enough just to fire somebody? We do not even care if they have a good, legitimate explanation as to why they did not report. You are gone, period! No questions.

I say to the ministers, who have at least law degrees, that the laymen over there do not understand it. There is fairness, there is equity, and there is justice that needs to be put into this bill if you are going to ram it through. I agree, we all change our tunes for different reasons from time to time. I have listened intently. I never disrupted any other member on the other side when they spoke. The Minister of Transportation and Works, he likes to pontificate. I have seen him get evangelical here when he stands up on his feet and preach the gospels to us. I have seen him get that way, and that is fine. If that is the way one communicates, that is fine. I say to the minister, there are a lot of things he needs to listen to, too, before he starts preaching to others.

I refer back to his March 31, 1999 commentary. I would not know where this came from. By the way, there is a bit of difference between the nurses' back-to-work legislation and today, if anyone over on that side is interested in knowing again, that there is another truth other than what the Premier tells you. There are other facts. For example, the nurses were the last in the labour unions to be going through the process. Everybody else had agreed to what the amount was going to be, 7 per cent, and the legislation only imposed upon the nurses what everyone else had agreed to. That is one difference. Whereas here it is just a difference, the big difference. The first out of the chute is CUPE and NAPE. You are trying to set a template over here. This is not telling the nurses they are going to get what everybody else got. You, over here in this government, are dictating to CUPE and NAPE, starting the ball game, we are letting you all know: Zero, zero, 2 per cent and 3 per cent. Go home, say no more. Every other unionized group in this Province, you are going to live by this same template. That is a big difference between what the back-to-work legislation did for the nurses. You are trying to create a template and jam it down everyone's throat in this Province.

The other thing was, it was, as I say, 7 per cent what everybody had. Whereas, what are you doing here? You are giving them nothing. You are saying zero, zero, 2 per cent and 3 per cent, and you are going to live with it for four years. You talk about fairness again. You are not even letting them stand up to inflation. The biggest thing of all, which is going to come out when the true motivation of this legislation hits everybody in this Province - it hasn't hit you people yet. It has hit 91.9 per cent of everybody else in the Province. It just has not hit the government yet - is that you are taking away the concessions. You can play with words all you want but you are taking away concessions, things that people had bartered for. That is a big difference between what was done with the back-to-work in 1999 and what you people are trying to do today.

Now, to get back to the minister and his commentary. I quote from his March 31, 1999 comments in this House - and the short walk across this House did not change the minister when it comes to some of his principles and his beliefs. Maybe his justifications may be different but you do not change core values. You do not change principles. He says, "This government is leaving no doubt that it intends to make sure they will crush this union if they have to. They will make it so expensively prohibitive that they think this union would not dare, they would not even dream, they would not let the thought enter their heads that they would defy this government. I think that is spite on the part of this government, that is vindictiveness on the part of this government because this particular union took on the Premier."

Mr. Speaker, those words are equally true today. Maybe the minister might feel differently about them today since he is on the other side of the House, and that is fair ball, no problem, but they were true then and they are truer today, except there is one difference that I would make in that phrase, in that commentary. That is his concluding comment, where he says, "... because this particular union took on the Premier." That is the piece I disagree with. The reason I disagree is because the union did not take on this Premier. This Premier took on the unions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: That is the only difference between what the minister said back then and what he said today, and what is more true today.

Mr. Speaker, talking about the penalties here again, we have talked about the dismissal piece and we talked about the lack of a defence mechanism here so that if someone has a reasonable reason why they cannot comply with this law, they can go to someone, appeal to someone. Someone should have a sense of fairness and propriety to ensure that a legitimate excuse and reason gets heard and get listened to and gets abided by. As I say, it was in 1981 and I implore the hon. ladies and gentleman opposite, do not let your desire or your urge to force these people back to work be so strong that you ignore even these basic, basic human rights, which is a right to defend yourself if you have a legitimate right.

The fact that the Premier frivolously, I would suggest, again, comments about the fines here: Well, what is the deal? What is the big problem, $250,000 a day? You have that in other places.

We have never, ever had this in other places in Canada. I remind all the members opposite, who were here before, you all used words like: Are we living in Cuba? Are we living in South America? Are we living in Russia - when we went to this debate earlier? We weren't then and we aren't now. The figure of $250,000, maybe it does not mean much to some people, but it has not been used before in back-to-work legislation in this country previously; the $25,000 fine if an individual opens their mouth, dares to object to what this piece of legislation says. Who will fight? We hear this phrase a lot in and about St. John's, if you happen to live here: Who will fight for you? I say, Mr. Speaker, who will fight for the public employee of this Province if this piece of legislation goes through? Maybe some lawyers make great money off contingency fees. There is no contingency fee here. This is just, open your mouth, ram it in, and you take exactly what we are going to give you; no equity, no fairness and no justice.

Another comment I have to make - and, again, I do not want to be and I am not getting personal here, but it is attitude that the Leader of the Opposition referred to. That is half the problem sometimes, that you can get a long way if people sense that your attitude is one of fairness, and that is what is missing here. The blame game has to stop somewhere.

The comment yesterday that the Premier made when he was asked a question here about: Why did you just put in this word that you be dismissed? The Premier's answer to that question - and again I thought it was very telling - was: People in the union are calling us and telling us that you should make sure you are going fire us. Put it right in the legislation, because that will scare the wits out of us and then we are guaranteed to go back to work.

Mr. Speaker, that is hardly a sign of leadership. Number one, it is bad enough to have a problem; for example, you cannot get along with unions or just about anybody. That is a big enough problem. It is bad enough that you do not know how to draft the legislation that you want to try to use to get them to go back to work without using a bazooka to kill a fly, rather than a fly swatter. It is equally troublesome that your behaviour is so infantile and juvenile that you justify what you did by saying: I did it because someone called me and told me to do it. That is a mark of a truly new approach. That is a mark of true, real leadership: I put it in there because someone called me from the union and said it should go in there.

I am sure the Cabinet really had a tough time deciding the penalty section on this one. Never mind what was in, in 1981, which gave a reasonable out if you had good cause.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure to get an opportunity when we get to committee stage to continue this matter. Again, I just urge government, there is no rhyme nor reason for continuation of this discussion, at least not tonight. It is always there as an option. If they want to put this back on the table at any time, the Government House Leader knows full well that he has it in his absolute control. The necessary motions have been made in terms of closure. There is no urgency now. He knows full well that he is in full charge and control of calling the Orders of the Day. The minute that he senses there has been any backup or disagreement, or breach of faith by the unions in their pledge as of 6:30 tonight to go back to work, and we have an urgency again, and we need a resumption of services in this Province, the Government House Leader knows that he can call that shot any time he chooses. So, we need not be here tonight talking and discussing something that we do not need.

Thank you.

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.

I cannot -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS JONES: If there is someone on the opposite side who wants to stand, I would be happy to -

MR. REID: They are not allowed.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am not pleased to stand in this House tonight. I am not pleased at all. Actually, I am quite upset that I have to come into this House this evening and stand to try and stop a piece of legislation that has absolutely no purpose, as I see it, Mr. Speaker, and serves no purpose to the public of this Province. We are in a situation right now where workers in this Province have voluntarily gone back to work. They went freely of their own will, with their heads held high, because they were not going to be legislated by the heavy hand of a government. No, Mr. Speaker, they were not. They were going to go freely to their workplaces because they care about the people they serve in this Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are only here this evening because somewhere in the building, I suppose, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board and the Premier are but they obviously are too spity to come down here and withdraw this legislation from the floor of the House of Assembly. A piece of legislation that they stood in this House today and said was necessary for the resumption of public services in this Province. Well, it is not necessary for the resumption of public services, I say to members opposite, at this moment; at this very moment.

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, the way I view this is just what it is. It is an end to the continuous act that this government has shown to negotiations and collective bargaining right from the beginning. They perpetrated this from the beginning by their own actions; by the announcement of layoffs, by the announcement of wage freezes. They did not go to the negotiating table and do what they should do on their collective bargaining in this Province. They went to the public airwaves. They went out there spreading the message on television in the Province that there would be wage freezes. They come in here and announce in a Budget, before they get to working out a deal at the table, that they are going to take 5,000 jobs out of the public service. That is the kind of things that were done to perpetrate this entire action that we have seen, this legal action by workers in the Province for the last twenty-seven days.

Mr. Speaker, they not only perpetrated it, but then throughout the whole process the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board and the Premier, themselves, singlehandedly bungled the entire process from start to finish. Now I am not going to get into all the long, drawn out aspects of it, but I can honestly tell you that my way or the highway approach did not work. It did not work in this negotiation because a negotiation is about giving and taking. It is about partners coming to the table to do what is right in the interest of their employers and of the public, and that did not happen. The reason it did not happen is simply because there was an agenda by this government to look for concessions in a contract.

Now, I do not care if every member in this House on the opposite side stands and denies it. The truth of the matter is, the government went to the negotiating table with concessions. They set the table from the beginning. They went in and wanted to take back sick leave and pension benefits from these workers, these particular concessions that these workers fought for and went out on strike for in this Province over the last three decades. That was the kind of negotiation that your Premier and your Minister of Finance and Treasury Board put forward on behalf of all of you. That is the kind of negotiation they put forward. Where did that get them, Mr. Speaker? It got them digging their heels in and getting stubborn to the point where they could not get a negotiation that would be in good faith because what they did right from the beginning was laid concessions on the table, knowing full well that unions would not be able to accept them.

Mr. Speaker, we are here in this House tonight debating a bill, as I said, that has no purpose, that has no meaning whatsoever because we already know that the workers in this Province have gone back to work, because they know that what is being introduced here is the worst labour legislation ever to be introduced in modern times in this House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, they will not be victim to that. There were not going to allow themselves to be victim to that kind of draconian measure, that high-handed measure, that pressure tactic, the autocratic behaviour that was being demonstrated by the government. No, they choose to take a different route. They choose to take a different route, knowing that their right to freedom was being oppressed by this government, knowing that there was a piece of legislation being brought into this House that will not allow them to even defy it, because they would lose their jobs; these hard-working people who supply the public services of this Province, who are employed by the government opposite. These people were told: You get on the job or you lose your job.

Those are the kinds of measures that are being taken; but, Mr. Speaker, the government got fooled. They got fooled because they tried to hide behind the bill that was calling for the resumption of public services, and they cannot do that now because these people have already gone back to work.

Mr. Speaker, you need to look at, first of all, how the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board - when I spoke the other day, I talked about the Premier's actions, the things that the Premier did. He went out signing ads in the paper saying we would not lay off public servants, and then went out and announced 4,000 job cuts. Times like when he went down and spoke at the NAPE convention, talking about how he would respect the public service in this Province, how he would respect public employees, and then does the complete opposite.

Let me tell you a little bit about the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker, before he entered his glory days on the other side of the House, where he had all power, all-consuming power in the Province to rule, to tell the public workers what he wants them to do, not what they want to do. Before his glory days on the other side, in 1999, he stood on this side of the House of Assembly and said this: Time can do wonders to you.

Truer words were never spoken, Mr. Speaker. I say that the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board probably spoke the truest words I have ever heard, because what we are seeing today certainly is how the passage of time can do wonders to you. He also said: It is a slick, orchestrated, political plan. To bring legislation into this House that would look at putting workers back to work was a slick, orchestrated, political plan.

Mr. Speaker, whatever book he read to take those quotes from is the same one he followed himself, because I have never seen anybody move any slicker than the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board through this whole process. He is a clever fool, Mr. Speaker. That is what the man is, a clever fool, because the only one he is really fooling is himself. The only one he is really fooling is himself, so really he is not so clever in the end, is he? He is not so clever in the end.

Mr. Speaker, what he said in 1999 -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member, in taking part in debate, should refrain from using expressions which are intended to insult, to cast aspersions. The expression "clever fool" certainly would not meet the requirements of parliamentary practice, and I would ask the member if she would withdraw the expression in reference to another hon. member.

MS JONES: I did not realize that clever fool was unparliamentary, Mr. Speaker. If it is, I will withdraw it in my reference to the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you very much.

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the point I was trying to make was this, and that is that you can spin whatever kind of yarn you want and you can try as hard as you may, but when you have no defence for the argument then it becomes a myth. That is what we have been dealing with, with the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, information that is intended to mislead the people of the Province, mislead the view and the perspective that public service people are developing in their own minds.

Mr. Speaker, at the same time in 1999, the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board, the same minister who signed this bill, this bill that is being brought into the House of Assembly tonight, Bill 18, the same member stood in this House in 1999 putting motion to the Assembly and asked that the House call upon government to submit the dispute to binding arbitration as they provided for in the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. Now, the same member, who a few years ago wanted to go to binding arbitration because it was a part of the collective bargaining act, is now bringing in Bill 18 to this Legislature to legislate workers back to work - when they have already gone back to work, I might add - and legislate some of the highest fines and penalties ever to be offered up in the country attached to legislation. The difference a day makes, Mr. Speaker. The difference a day makes.

I have the greatest admiration for any person who can stand on their own feet, on their own principles, whether I agree with them or disagree with them, but you do not have principles one day and none the next day. That is not how it works. If you have a view and a perspective, and you are prepared to stand up and defend it, I have all respect for you. But when you have a view and a perspective that has no defence, Mr. Speaker, that you are not willing to even stand to your feet and defend, which is what we have been seeing in this House - other than the Government House Leader and the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board. I have not seen the members opposite stand in their conviction of this legislation. I have not heard them stand up and tell the people of this Province who sent them here, elected them to come and serve in this hon. House, why they are supporting legislation like this, why they want to go out and impose concessions on the public service workers of this Province. No, I have not heard them stand up and tell the people of the Province those things. And you won't! You will not hear them stand up because I think they have been muzzled . I think they have been muzzled, and not by their constituents either. Not by their constituents, because I am going to tell you, their constituents would be proud to see them stand on their feet and stand for something, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: They would be proud to see them stand for something, because they had confidence enough in them to elect them and to send them here to this hon. House to stand for something, and to stand and defend it. We have not seen that. We have not seen that and we will not see that because the only thing we are going to see is the performance and the show that has been put off by the Premier and the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board over the past twenty-seven days in this Province while public workers and public employees were going through one of the roughest times in their lives. Not only was their solidarity for the union being tried on a day to day basis by this government, not only was that happening, but at the same time they were going without a paycheque. They were going without the ability to be able to provide for themselves and their families. That is the kind of hardship that you have imposed upon public employees in this Province for the past twenty-seven days.

Now, you can look at me with blank faces if you like, but the truth and the reality is that a lot of these people could not afford to be out on the street. I have them in my own district. They could not afford to be out on the street for the past twenty-seven days, but do you know something? They had principles! They had principles and they were prepared to stand up for them, and they did. They stood in the rain, in the snow. They stood shoulder to shoulder as unionists, as brothers and sisters who believed in what they were doing; trying to stand up to a government that was trying to impose concessions upon them, concessions that they went on strike for, negotiated and lobbied for over the past two or three decades.

Mr. Speaker, that is the kind of people that we are talking about tonight, and now we see the other side. The other side of these people, Mr. Speaker, the people who stood shoulder to shoulder with their unions, now we are seeing the caring, compassionate side to these workers; these workers who have voluntarily taken their cap in hand, put their uniforms back on, Mr. Speaker, and went back to their jobs with their head held high.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Now, these are the people in all of our districts, every one of us. Our districts are made up of people like that: honest, decent, hard-working people in this Province, who take a stand in their lives for what they believe in, who stand on their principles, and they elected all of you, just like they elected me, to come here and stand up for them in the place where they could not stand for themselves, Mr. Speaker. The one place in this Province where they have given their vote to someone else to stand to represent them is in this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, I know that we may all have differences of opinion. I listened to the Member for Kilbride, when he stood this evening. I did not agree with everything he said, and I am sure he does not agree with everything I said, but he stood up and gave us his position. He told us where he stood. I can only encourage the rest of the members opposite to do the same. Stand for the people who sent you here to do just that.

Mr. Speaker, I have a little bit of time left so I want to talk a little bit about the process that we went through in getting to where we are today. I started off by talking about the Premier's announcements, and how he provoked this entire strike. I do not think we can overlook those things because they are important, Mr. Speaker. They are very important, because what we are witnessing here today is a new government's first attempt at public bargaining in this Province, with two of the largest unions in our Province, but there are other unions to come, Mr. Speaker. There are other negotiations that must occur: the negotiations with the nurses and with the teachers.

What is the purpose of this legislation, I ask again, that we are debating this evening? Is it to send a message to the other unions that have yet to come to the table? Just like you went out and provoked the strike that we just came through by announcing wage freezes and layoffs of public service employees, are you now provoking the rest of the unions out there in the Province? Is that what is going on? Is that why there is still a piece of legislation in the name of Bill 18 on the table here, because we are sending a message to the nurses' union and the teachers' union and all the rest that come after you; we are sending you the message tonight: This is how we will rule. This is how I will control the Province when it comes to collective bargaining.

What about the RNC, Mr. Speaker? What about the RNC arbitration? Will they be seeing arbitration? Because NAPE and CUPE did not see any arbitration. There was no arbitration for NAPE and CUPE. Is that the example? Has the precedent been set? We will not let a third party, we will not let an arbitrator, the Premier said, make the decisions on who writes the cheques in this government. Where does that leave the arbitration for the RNC? Or is there a different standard for different groups? I guess we will have to wait and see. We will have to wait and see, because we cannot tell and we cannot always believe what we hear on any given day - we found that out - or any given hour, because the story could change. We have seen it change here today in the span of seven hours on one bill. I have seen it change many times in my district, in their dealings with the Labrador Metis Nation and the Labrador ferry service, where they tell people, we will honour a report from the consultant, and when they get the report they do not like what is in it so they do not honour it at all.

Mr. Speaker, I have learned the hard way, and so have my constituents learned the hard way, just like the unions are learning the hard way when it comes to this government. Again I ask: Why are we hear debating Bill 18 tonight? Why is it still on the table? Because we know that it is not here for the purpose of resuming public services, so we can only form our own opinion until someone on the government side - the Premier or the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board - graces us with their presence -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: Just a few minutes to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MS JONES: - to tell us the real purpose, because we have heard two purposes in the last seven hours - none of which jibe, Mr. Speaker. None of them jibe, so maybe we will hear the other one.

I am going to end, Mr. Speaker, on one note, and that is the note that, I have heard lots of phrases in the last four weeks, I guess, from people who have been out there talking about what is happening with the union and the strike and the government and so on. The one thing I did hear when some of the union leaders spoke, was how they wanted to bring in their own bill, bill 19. Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it just goes to show the desperation of what even union leaders are faced with in this Province when they have to go out on the steps of the Confederation Building and ask that they be able to have their own bill, bill 19, which would ask for the removal of the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board and the Premier of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, I only allude to it because I think it is a demonstration of the frustration, of the stress that this leadership finds as to how their hands are confined when it comes to collective bargaining and public bargaining with this government. It shows the extreme and desperate measures that they have to do on the steps of the Confederation Building to make the point to the public and a point to their own members, and that is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: I am sorry.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sorry about that, my colleague from Conception Bay. I thought the Member for St. John's Centre was going to get up first and talk.

Mr. Speaker, like my colleague from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, it certainly does not give me any pleasure to stand up here tonight; and, unlike my colleagues this afternoon who said they were saddened to have to stand here tonight, I don't feel saddened either. I feel angered, like my colleague from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, because we do not have any reason to be here tonight because the public servants in this Province have gone back to work.

I just had the occasion to go outside the door here, where, on a normal day and a normal evening, any time during this year, we have security guards posted around this building. I was somewhat pleased to see that the regular security guards are now on the front desk and on the front door. It is really good to see them back here tonight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: In the brief conversation that I had with them, I was asked: Why are you fellows and ladies still in the House of Assembly debating a bill calling on the government to pass a bill to put the civil service back to work when we are already back to work? We are already back to work.

Mr. Speaker, for the first three weeks of this strike, again, my colleague from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, the Opposition Health critic, stood in this House of Assembly and asked the Minister of Health, day in and day out, for three weeks, what the situation was in health care in this Province, and day in and day out the Health Minister stood and gave the same answer. She had it written, I think, in front of her, because she gave the same answer for twenty-one days: We are coping.

All of a sudden, last Thursday, when the House Leader dropped this bill on the table, all of a sudden they were not coping. All of a sudden the health and safety of the people of the Province was at stake and we have to act, and we have to act quickly. We have to get these people back into the hospitals. We have to get people back into chronic care facilities because the health and safety of our people is at stake.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are standing here today - a week since that was put on the table - debating putting these civil servants back to work, when they are already back to work. Now, Mr. Speaker, people on this side of the House continued all day to say: Why are we debating this bill? I know why we are debating this bill, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the health and the safety of the residents of this Province. This bill has one thing, one purpose in mind, and that is, in my own words, to gut the civil service; to destroy their contracts, to force them back to work, to drive them into the ground with their heel and keep them down there. This has nothing to do with safety. This has nothing to do with health. Don't let them fool you. Don't let that crowd opposite fool you into thinking that they care about anyone else. This has all to do with the Premier getting his own way and nothing else.

Mr. Speaker, being a student of history myself, I will take you back a little bit. I will prove to you tonight, and anyone listening out there, why we are doing this tonight - why this bill is before the table and why the government is trying to push this bill through. I will prove to you tonight it is about gutting the civil service and nothing else.

Mr. Speaker, it all began, for me - because I like to listen, even though the crowd opposite do not think I listen. I like to listen because I am a firm believer that if you listen carefully you will always find the hidden agenda. About a little over a year or so ago, when the Minister of Finance was sitting in this very seat over right here, he stood one day and talked about $100 million in health care that was wasted; $100 million that was wasted. Now, anyone who has ever worked for government, anyone who has ever sat in this House, anyone who has had to deal with a budget - as the Minister of Health knows, she was the Auditor General for ten years, now she sits in this House of Assembly as the Health Minister - everyone knows that 80 per cent of every dollar spent in every department, including the Department of Health, goes to pay employees; to pay salaries for those who work in the health care.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member said there was $100 million wasted, $80 million of those dollars, obviously, were wasted on the employees. So, where was he going with that? Where was he going with that? He was saying that there were a bunch of employees who were working in the Department of Health and in the hospitals, the chronic care facilities around the Province, that were not needed. So, we have to get rid of them because it is a waste of money. Now, that did not go over very well when he said that, because we twigged to it just like that. When we were on that side of the floor we brought it to his attention time and time again, but guess what he used to do? Guess what he used to do?

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. REID: He used to get up and say, just like he has been doing in this House for the last four weeks: I didn't say that! I did not say that, just like he -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. REID: I have it right here in Hansard, Mr. Speaker. Like the lawyer, that I am not, that is exhibit number one. That is the Finance Minister when he was over here, stating that there was $100 million and all these people who could be cut from the health care in the Province because they were not needed.

Now, the next clue that I got came last year. In fact, I have the date here. It came on March 10, 2003 when the Minister of Education, the Member for St. John's East, was in Deer Lake addressing the Chamber of Commerce, along with his Premier. The Premier was in tow, but he was not up saying anything that day. He was in the audience. After he gave his great speech to the Chamber of Commerce out in Deer Lake, talking about giving tax breaks to businesses - oh yes, because we are going to do that - he made the mistake, and I guess the Premier told him after that he should not have done that. This was March 10, 2003, he told The Western Star - and because it is late, Mr. Speaker, I have to use my colleagues glasses - and I quote. Here is what the reporter said about the Minister of Education: He hinted at possible tax cuts, saying that the government has a responsibility to take as little tax revenue as possible from corporations and businesses. Ottenheimer - oh, I am sorry. I am not supposed to mention his name, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Education said that it can be achieved if government trims the fat from the bureaucratic bodies it operates.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. REID: The Minister of Education. This was March 10, 2003, just a year ago. He said: We can trim the fat from the bureaucratic bodies we operate. To do what with it? Give tax breaks to businesses. Now, as soon as he said it of course, my colleague from the Bay of Islands, never to miss anything, calls me up and says: Did you hear what John Ottenheimer - did you hear what the Minister of Education said in Deer Lake?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to do that.

Did you hear what he said in Deer Lake? He faxed me in a copy, which I will present as exhibit number two to the House. His very words right there in the paper, he copied that in to me.

Of course, we reacted, saying: Here is the hidden agenda, to cut the civil service, to slash-and-burn the civil service, because - like his colleague, the Minister of Finance - there were too many of them, so he was going to trim those.

Then, of course, once we started to speak about that, his Premier, then Leader of the Opposition, knew that he was taking a bit of heat for this, out comes the press release. Out comes the press release from the then Leader of the Opposition, stating - and this is exhibit number three, I might add, Mr. Speaker. I will table this one, if anyone wants to look at it, dated March 10, 2003, fifteen days after the Minister of Education made the fatal mistake of saying it in public, that he was going to trim the fat out of the civil service, the Premier issues the press release where he states: I will honour all collective agreements with the public sector unions. There will be no layoffs. There will be no layoffs.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) massive layoffs.

MR. REID: No, he did not mention massive. He said there will be no layoffs.

Mr. Speaker, I will table that as exhibit number three about their agenda that we knew about for well over a year. In fact, it was almost two years ago that the Minister of Finance made his claim. That is exhibit number three, but all of a sudden it changed when people complained and thought, all of a sudden, that if this fellow ever becomes Premier, we had better watch out for our jobs. Not only should we watch out for our jobs, but we should also watch out for the services that these civil servants provide to us in rural Newfoundland and Labrador. So, off goes the Premier with his press release and says: No, that will never, ever happen under us.

Mr. Speaker, this went on for awhile and every time we talked about it, of course, no, we were not telling the truth. No one should believe that crowd opposite, they were saying, because we are good people. We are good at bargaining with people. We are good with dealing with our employees. How many times have I heard the Premier say that? I do not know how many employees the Premier ever had. I do not know if he ever had a union in his companies that he talks about, because God help them if he did. That is all I can say.

Anyway, prior to the election, just about the election time, the Premier let it slip again, when he mentioned that he was going to reduce the civil service by 25 per cent. Do we all remember that? Do we all remember that? We are going to reduce the civil service. He said it. Everybody in the Province heard him and, of course, we knew it again. Here it comes again. I know this is the third or the fourth time in the last year, as my exhibits will show you, and, all of a sudden, boy, could not take that. What did he do? He knew it did not go over well. It looked bad, so what did he do? He took out ads in newspapers, he took out ads on the radio, and he took out ads on TV. What did he say in those ads? He said that he would never cut the civil service. Here is some of the stuff that he said. I will quote you right from his own press release, signed Danny - nice, cuddly Danny. It says right here: The Danny Williams' team - and, I tell you, he used the term loosely when he said the Danny Williams' team because there is only a one-man team and we all know who that is - the Danny Williams' team has clearly stated that under a Progressive Conservative government there will be no layoffs in the public sector. There will be no layoffs in the public sector and we will not reduce the public service by 25 per cent, contrary to allegations by our political opponents. We will not have any layoffs and we will not reduce the public service by 25 per cent.

Mr. Speaker, every day that this ad has been stuck up in the House of Assembly, someone over on this side has been asked - you are not allowed to use props. You are not allowed to use props in the House of Assembly, and that is exactly what that was. Setting their record straight was the biggest prop or propaganda that I have ever seen perpetrated on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, he came on Open Line shows, he came on TV, and he said there are no layoffs in the public sector; I am not going to reduce it. He went on to say that he met with the head of NAPE, Leo Puddister, just prior to the election, to discuss this issue because it was becoming an election issue: the fact that the Premier wannabe was going to cut 25 per cent from the public service. He was so adamant that he was not going to do it that he met with the head of NAPE.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that when the head of NAPE - I heard him on the radio. I heard him on the Open Line show with Bill Rowe just the last day before polling day in the last election, back last October. The last speaker, in fact, for the day, the day before the election, Mr. Puddister came on the air and said: I met with Mr. Williams - Danny Williams, he called him - and he assured me there would be no job cuts, and I take the man at his word. I take the man at his word.

MR. GRIMES: The day before the election.

MR. REID: The day before the election, the last person on the Open Line show that morning was the President of NAPE, saying that he had met with Danny Williams and that he was assured there would be no layoffs, and he took the man at his word. Can you imagine, took the man on his word? Well, that is exhibit number four, Mr. Speaker, take him at his word.

We know what happened with his word once he got elected. We did not hear anything from him about the public service from October until January - until January 5, to be exact, Mr. Speaker - when he sat himself in front of a bunch of television cameras down at NTV for the state of the union, or the state of the Province address - something he learned from George Bush, I think - and in that state of the Province address he announced a wage freeze to the public servants in this Province. He announced a wage freeze. Guess what he did the next day? This, by the way, was without any consultation whatsoever with any of the thirty-three members opposite. He even admitted that himself, and a lot of his colleagues across the floor went on Open Line shows, two or three days later, saying it was the first they heard of it.

MR. GRIMES: Heard it on television.

MR. REID: Heard it on television, like the rest of us.

After he did that, after no discussion with his caucus - he announces a wage freeze for the public servants - what does he do? He jumps on a plane and heads to the Caribbean, leaving who to take the heat for his comment? The caucus that he never told about it. He was gone there for two weeks and let his caucus take the heat.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who went with him?

MR. REID: I don't know who went with him. It would be nice to know.

What does he do? He is down there for two weeks; his caucus is taking the heat. He arrives back at the airport two weeks later, decked out in a suntan, and appears before the cameras again, with no consultation from his caucus. What does he say this time? He says to the public service, the public employees of this Province: Well, if you don't take the wage freeze, what am I going to do? What did he say? He said: I am going to lay off 2,000 of you. There is negotiation. You take the wage freeze or I am laying off 2,000 of you. All decked out with his suntan, that is what he said: If you don't like it, I will lay off 2,000 of you.

Mr. Speaker, where are we today, after telling that whole chronology of the events that have happened and unfolded in this Province in the last year-and-a-half? Where are we today? - keeping in mind that he said: You have a wage freeze and if you don't take it we are going to lay off 2,000 people.

Tonight we have a piece of legislation that he is going to drive down the throats of civil servants in this Province, saying that you have a wage freeze in years number one and two of a four-year contract, and guess what he said three or four weeks ago before he drafted this piece of legislation in that great Budget that he and the Minister of Finance drafted? Not only are you going to have a wage freeze, but you are going to lose 4,000 public servants; not 2,000 as he threatened, if you did not take the wage freeze, you are going to lose 4,000 civil servants in the next few years, starting with at least 700 of them right now. In fact, the pink slips were going out as the Minister of Finance was standing here speaking to the Budget that very day.

You wonder, Mr. Speaker, why we are here tonight? I am telling you why we are here tonight. It has nothing to do with the sick people around this Province, it has nothing to do with patients waiting to see heart doctors, it has nothing to do with cancer patients waiting to get in to see a doctor to get treatment, it has nothing to do with any of that, because the workers in this Province, the civil servants of this Province, the employees of this Province, have gone back to work tonight. So, why are we here with this piece of legislation? We are here with this piece of legislation because the Premier, just like his Minister of Education said, just like his Finance Minister said, are intent on gutting the civil service: We are going to gut the civil service. Not only are we going to layoff 4,000 of them - and I think that figure has even gone up in recent days, because the Member for Lewisporte, the Minister of Transportation and Works, rose last week and said, in his speech, that could be as many as 6,000 to 7,000. We could very well be up to the 25 per cent that he said he was not going to gut out of the civil service.

We have the wage freeze, so what is he here for? He is here to not only beat the civil service, he is out to drive them into the ground. He is out to make sure that the next time there is a contract negotiation, in four years when he will not be around, there will not be as many of them on the picket lines, because he is going to have at least 25 per cent of them gone. Mr. Speaker, it might be a surprise to everybody else why we are here tonight - and they did it under the guise of the health and the safety of our children and our seniors in this Province, but it had nothing to do with them, Mr. Speaker, it had all to do with the Minister of Finance and the Premier, with this idea that they have had for years, that the civil service in this Province is too big and it is time to reduce it, it is time to wipe it out.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you, I will be standing here next year and I will be giving you the chronology of events that are leading to the stripping of the health care in this Province. They have not talked about that in the Budget yet. All of that is under review, and I will guarantee you, in a year from now I will be standing here and I will be saying to the crowd opposite: I told you a year ago that he was going to strip the health care in this Province. He is going to close rural hospitals, he is going to turn rural hospitals into clinics, and he is going to close some of them, just like he is going to take down the steel on the hospital in Grand Bank, just like he is going to do it, just like when he went to Fogo Island, during the election and prior to the election, and told the people on Fogo Island: Don't worry about your hospital, I am going to open your hospital.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. REID: I am going to have a few moments to clue up, if you do not mind, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. REID: One minute. I knew they would cut me off pretty soon.

Mr. Speaker, he went to Fogo Island and told them, prior to and during the election: I will open your hospital. But, you have to remember that you have to listen to every single word he says, and every single thing he says has a double meaning. Guess what? We heard, through CBC Gander last week, a day or two after the Budget came down: I am opening your hospital - a brand new facility, $14 million, that is scheduled to open next week, and guess what he said to the people of Fogo Island, through the media? I asked the Minister of Health two weeks before that, talked to her personally, what she was going to do with the Fogo Island hospital. She said she would get back to me. She hasn't gotten back to me yet. But the Premier announced, to the media, in Gander: Yes, we are going to open your hospital, but we are only going to open ten of the twenty beds. I say, shame on the Premier for deceiving the people. That was only one of many, many, many examples I can show you, and will show you, in the coming days where he deceived the people of this Province many, many times.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I begin, I will offer, at this time, to anyone opposite, if they wish to get up, because I know a lot of them were shaking their heads when the Member for Twillingate & Fogo was speaking, and saying it was incorrect. I do not know if someone who would want to get up and accept that challenge.

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by reading the following, "I am not very happy being here tonight speaking to this bill, and it is not because I do not want to be in the House of Assembly speaking on behalf of nurses. It is because this is a bill that never should have been brought before this hon. House. It is a bill that flies in the face of collective bargaining and it takes away the rights of people. It takes away the rights of our nurses, who will technically have no rights as it pertains to their employment." It goes on to say, "We are going to do all that we can to circumvent the laws of the House of Assembly and the laws of the land and we are going to do everything we can to crush you. You will go back to work and you will take what we give you." Mr. Speaker, when I read that, at first I thought I had probably fallen asleep and was dreaming. It goes on to say that this individual said they were ashamed to be a member in the hon. House at that time, but they were proud to be in Opposition to vote against the bill at that particular time. This was back on March 31, 1999. Just about every comment that is made here, Mr. Speaker, I stand by it today, because it went on to say, "I am shamed to be a member of a Legislature that would introduce such a tyrannical bill, but I am proud to be a member of this Opposition that will be vehemently voting against it."

Mr. Speaker, that wasn't the Member for Port de Grave saying this, even though I totally agree with it, that was the Member for St. John's West back on March 31, 1999, Mr. Speaker. That hon. member, I know, stood on her feet many times, in this House, speaking up not only for her constituents but the people around this Province. I have to say, I hope that when we vote today, this person will stand and do exactly what was stated back in 1999, Mr. Speaker.

I know quite a few of our hon. members wonder why we are here debating Bill 18. There is only one conclusion I can come to now, Mr. Speaker, after hearing the evening news and being informed that our wonderful people in the public service are back to work - that is good to see, and I hope that the people that are negotiating this evening will come to a settlement without having to go any further than we are thinking they may have to go. Mr. Speaker, I can only see one thing coming from this bill now, and I think some hon. members mentioned that the media across this great country of ours, Canada, are wondering why we are even debating it. I think what it is, Mr. Speaker, it is just the last smack in the side of the head of our public servants, because they have done the honourable thing, they have gone back to work, and we have no reason to be here today debating this bill, because we have heard today that it was only for one reason and that was the resumption and continuation of the public service. That has been taken care with their good wishes, Mr. Speaker.

We have so many other bills that have been put before this House, and quite a few bills that have not even been brought forward yet, and I think about the insurance reform, so much legislation that we could be debating today, but here we are debating a bill which we have no need to do at all at this particular time. We are here talking about this bill which is going to take concessions away, because that is the bottom line, Mr. Speaker, and we are talking about those enormous fines. I heard people talk about: Yes, your government imposed fines back a few years ago, and. there was a fine of $1,000 for the nurses, Mr. Speaker. I am going to tell you, the people in the public service today do not have an option to pay a fine even if they were tempted to have to pay one. They were told, you have no options. Only the highway is the way you have to go if you do not come back to work. I think, Mr. Speaker, the highway is the wrong way to be looking at it by this hon. House of Assembly, when we vote on this here today.

I just want to take a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, having come from a small fishing community on the Burin Peninsula, and some forty-four years ago having moved to the Bay Roberts area. I have to say, that when I lived on the Burin Peninsula, back in my younger days, I had a keen interest in government and watched with my father and listened to the results as they came in from all political parties, all political stripes. Many of those governments, Mr. Speaker, operated under good and bad times. When I came to the Conception Bay North area I got more keenly interested in the political arena, and also in how unions operate and function from year to year.

I remember when the Avalon West School Board, back quite a few years ago, hit the streets to get their first collective agreement. I walked the picket lines with those people because my wife happened to be one of them. It was not a very good scene because those people were working at that time, they had no control, no rules, no guidelines, only just forced upon them what had to be done. Mr. Speaker, all of those people in that area are hard-working God-fearing people, entrepreneurs, government employees, fishermen, farmers and every trade in between. They know what is happening around them today.

As other members here in this hon. House of Assembly, when I return to my district, I here the comments being made: What is happening in our Province? I never saw the like before in any political issue, the concerns the people have throughout this Province, Mr. Speaker. I can assure you, that history will record that this week will be one of the darkest days in our history in this Province, and more so now that we are bringing in this legislation and debating it here this evening with no reason to do so, Mr. Speaker. This bill is the beginning of it.

This week, not only for the people in the public service, but we as members in the hon. House of Assembly, there were times when our rights and freedoms, I believe, were on the verge of falling. We were elected, Mr. Speaker, to serve the people of this Province, and in our districts, and each and every one of us was placed here by the people because they had confidence in us, that we would come here and do the honourable thing, and try to make this Province a better place for them to live in. We have heard, over the last number of weeks, about the mess that the government has inherited, and no doubt, Mr. Speaker, and there is not one person on this side of the House will argue that there is not a financial problem in this Province, and we are going through difficult times. I honestly believe, and the members on this side believe, that the financial concerns in this Province can be dealt with without stripping away the rights of our working class people. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe for a minute that this government inherited anything that could be called near to what you would classify as a nightmare.

The former administration, Mr. Speaker, led by our Leader today, knew that there were problems with the financial scene, but he also knew that our public servants work very hard for this government and they needed a raise, which they received back a few years ago. I can tell you another thing, the doctors' agreement can surely be justified, because, as other speakers said, our nurses and doctors would be leaving the Province if they were not taken care of.

Mr. Speaker, our plan, the former Administration's plan, was that the cash deficit in this Province would be under control within a seven-year time frame, and my point of view today is that this Administration is trying to do too much too fast, and doing it over a period of two or three years. We know there is a problem that has to be corrected, but I think it should be done under a different circumstance, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to vote against Bill 18. I do not think that is any surprise to anybody. I am not voting against it because I am voting against health care or any other services provided to us in this Province. We know that health care is one of the most important issues that we have in this Province. It was only the other day I heard a constituent of mine saying they were in the States on a holiday and his wife became critically ill. Before it was all over, even though they had insurance policies, the cost for the operation that she had to have - I think it was in Florida - was in the vicinity of $180,000. So we are very proud of our health care system here and we will do whatever we can to protect it, but, Mr. Speaker, the people who provide that health care service to us has to be treated with the greatest respect, as all other people in the public service.

I know full well, Mr. Speaker, what can happen when things are put by the wayside and the people in the public service end up going on strike to protect their rights, because I, too, Mr. Speaker, had to have an appointment in Carbonear on the 15^th of this month, which had to be postponed due to the strike. I can honestly say, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the results will be when I do get there. I can tell you one thing, I am proud to be able to say I did not go in there, and to be able to stand for those people and try to protect their rights, because they certainly deserve that.

We are talking today about the 20,000 people who have gone back to work this evening, but there are others following in their footsteps that this legislation will affect, no doubt about it, when the time comes, and that will be our nurses and teachers. Mr. Speaker, during this strike we saw our young people leave the schools and go out on the sides of the roads with our strikers, because they know full well they will be the members of the unions in future years to come, and they can see what is happening, that their future and the democracy that we are all under has been threatened to some degree. Mr. Speaker, it is not only during this strike, but other issues are coming up from the people who are on strike. They know, and now they are gone back to work, this will come to light more quickly, Mr. Speaker.

We know that there are twenty HRE offices closing around this Province. We have questioned the minister on that, but, to date, it has not been finalized. When I visited the picket lines in my area over the last two weeks and spoke with the workers, all they mind is: Will our office close? Will we have a job within the next three or four months, because they think their office is definitely going to close by September? Where will I have to go, because they have been guaranteed that they will be placed in some other facility, but where to? They have built new homes in the area. They do not know where they may have to be transferred.

Mr. Speaker, I go back to a memorandum by the minister, that went around to the department, advising the people in her department that there were some good things in this Budget, and no doubt there was. They go on to say about the transfers, there will be transfers for most of the employees when the word comes down which offices are going to close. Some plan to retire, it says, but we will use these vacancies to alleviate layoffs. It went on to say that, even though this is as far as we can go with it now - but it creates so much uncertainty among the people. The finalization plans will be in place as soon as possible and we will keep our employees informed. Mr. Speaker, I want to say that, there is so much uncertainty that those people do not know where they will be in the next few months, and I think that we have to advise them sooner rather than later.

If you talk to the people in my district - and I have to say, that particular area of the Province, I guess, is one of the more prosperous areas due to the business environment that is there and the fishing industry, which is in crisis at the present time, but once it gets settled, I am sure it will be just as prosperous in future years. If you talk to the car salesmen in that area, the cabinet makers, the convenience stores, they see the downfall with their sales to date, Mr. Speaker, as we go around and speak to them, not only because the people are on strike, but they know what is going to happen with the fallout from the Budget. There is so much uncertainty and there is so much tension, Mr. Speaker.

I had one man call me last week, from Spaniard's Bay, who was leaving. He had his two small business operating the last two or three years, his wife works with the public service, and he did not know if she would have a job. He could not stay around to see what would happen in the two small businesses that he operated in 2003. He called to let me know that he had to go away this year, and quite a few of his friends had to follow him.

Mr. Speaker, when we go back to, say, when the people were legislated back before, I just want to read out some of the comments that were made by hon. members when they were in Opposition. I am not going into any names, Mr. Speaker, but some of the phrases that were used. They said that we were destroying collective bargaining; bad faith in bargaining; heavy-handed; bullying; backward measures; ramming it through; dark days; draconian days; iron-fisted; kills collective bargaining. Some of them said they were ashamed to be MHAs in the House of Assembly. Some people thought that we were in Communist China. They said it was attacks on the union; vow breaking.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. BUTLER: All the members opposite who were in the Opposition at that particular time.

Others wondered if we lived in South America. More said: We had guts to do this. They went on to said, Mr. Speaker, about the gallery clearing - a slick political move. I say, Mr. Speaker, we saw that more than once this week, about our galleries being cleared.

I will tell you one thing they all said; they were very consistent in one thing that they did say. They all agreed that the unions should go back to work and we would deal with binding arbitration; the very thing that we offered last Friday, which was rejected. It was offered by our Leader, as well as the leader of the New Democratic Party. It was a wonderful thing to go back to binding arbitration, but now it is not the way to go. Mr. Speaker, I will tell you why it is not the way to go, because that is not the intent of this legislation. This legislation was intended totally on stripping the unions, and seeing that they were piled under.

I want to say to my hon. colleagues opposite, that I want to challenge them, not in a fighting way but from a person with compassion and concern for our people. This bill is not required and we have heard that so many times today. The only problem with this bill, if it goes through, it has the one and only signature on it to prove that what I had set out to do has been accomplished, and that has to be the signature of the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

I say to them, vote against this bill for the people of our Province, for the people who elected us. If I am hearing the cries in my district, not only from union people but from ordinary citizens, surely the members opposite are hearing the same thing, and I know they are.

Mr. Speaker, this goes deeper than CUPE and NAPE, the unions that are out on the streets today - gone back, I am sorry, they were on the streets today. All the other trade unions in this Province stood shoulder to shoulder on the steps of our Confederation Building yesterday, because they know what is happening to collective bargaining in this Province, Mr. Speaker.

In conclusion, I heard one of the unions leaders say yesterday - and I may have the word wrong, and forgive me, Mr. Speaker - when he said that collective bargaining is in the coffin. I am not quite sure if he said that it is in the coffin or in the casket. I say, Mr. Speaker, collective bargaining probably did lay down yesterday, because they were devastated when they knew what fines were being imposed upon them, but I can assure you collective bargaining will rise again. It is like the old saying goes: When anyone is not all totally defeated but feeling down and out - and we all heard the old expression before: I lay me down to bleed awhile, then I will rise to fight again. As sure as the sun will rise in the morning, Mr. Speaker, the people who are involved with the unions today will not forget what happened to them. I do not care how this is settled now, it is too deep, they have been hurt too much, Mr. Speaker. I challenge my hon. friends opposite, like I said, in a compassionate way, that when the vote comes on this, please stand and support the people who put us here in this hon. House of Assembly to serve them.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise tonight to speak to Bill 18. Certainly, Mr. Speaker, I can say these are sad, difficult times. I think the atmosphere of the whole Province, as we see our public sector workers out, is very difficult.

Mr. Speaker, I go back to years ago, and I know what it is like to be a union member. I was president of Local 2101 in Goose Bay. I know what it is like to be a picket captain. I know what it is like to have wages rolled back. I remember some good times too, Mr. Speaker, of being on a union that got benefits for Labrador travel, protective clothing for our civil service, who had to travel into the ice covered communities of Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of our workers on the North Coast of Labrador. I think of the operator who clears the airstrip, who goes out in a blizzard in case there is an emergency and the small aircraft have to come in. There is no highway depot, Mr. Speaker, where, if his front end loader comes off the airstrip, he can call and get a message to his buddy and let him know that he is in distress. He is there by himself.

I have seen our workers take patients, pulled in a Kamutik box by a snowmobile two-and-a-half miles across the harbor, in a blizzard, and they are fighting to keep a tube down in the throat of a patient to keep that patient alive.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Premier talk about bonuses, that there are no bonuses. When I was a member of the government of the day, we gave bonuses to attract teachers, social workers, and highway operators for the airstrips, to coastal Labrador. You see, in my riding, people pay the highest cost for food, the highest cost for electricity, and the highest cost for travel. Mr. Speaker, with the downsizing of the public service, I shudder to think what is going to happen when we cannot attract people to the North Coast because the benefits are not there.

Mr. Speaker, I want to touch base on something that happened in the late 1950s. That was when the Moravian missionaries and the government officials travelled to the North Coast of Labrador, to Hebron, and they gathered all the Inuit people. Back then, they were referred to as Eskimos. There was a community hall in Hebron, but the government officials and the Moravian ministers chose not to do that. They told them to go into the church, and they told them they had no other choice, that they were going to be relocated to Makkovik and Hopedale and Nain and these places. The reason why they took them into the church is, they knew that for the Aboriginal people it was against their will and against all their ethics to speak out or speak against someone in the church.

I remember, Mr. Speaker, when I was about eight or nine-years-old, when the children came there, when they came into our school. These people had never spoken the English language in their lives. Yet, the government of the day, and the Moravian missionaries, told them that they could not speak their own language. Someone might say: Well, why is the Member for Torngat Mountains speaking about that here in the House of Assembly tonight? Well, I guess, it is a bit ironic. I never thought that I would become an MHA and I never thought I would come into the people's House, where we have our workers who sit in their House and are not allowed to speak. They have listened to a bill that is being brought in, Bill 18, which is being introduced by this government, and that bill says to them, it is going to legislate them back to work and if they do not go back to work, they are going to be fired.

Mr. Speaker, I remember when we brought in legislation for the nurses. We had already gone through seven collective bargaining units. We had given them a raise, and we said we could not give more to one than to the other. We did not bring in concessions in our legislation.

Mr. Speaker, what message does this send to our youth in this Province? We are looking at downsizing of the public service. We are going to go back to encouraging our people, our young people, to go to other provinces. A number of teachers are going to be cut and slashed from the system this year.

Mr. Speaker, I guess it is ironic that my oldest daughter graduates now with a degree in education, and she thought she could travel somewhere in this Province and get a job. I think that this government is now saying to her and a lot of others: We do not care about you. Move on.

Mr. Speaker, why are we here? We are spending all kinds of money tonight to keep the House of Assembly open, when already, today, the public sector made it very clear that they are returning back to work. I can tell you why. We are here because of one man, and one man only, and that is the Premier. I, too, sat in this House and got the news clip where he had gone down and met with the unions, and he came out and announced that he was going to bring in Bill 18. Mr. Speaker, that very afternoon, when the Minister of Health was questioned in the House as to the problems in the health care, she said she is getting advice from certain people and we are coping.

The Premier went down and met with the union leaders, and because he never got his way, he walked out of there and, all of a sudden, he is going to bring in Bill 18 to legislate people back to work. It is not what the people wanted to talk about and negotiate through the normal process, Mr. Speaker. Because the Premier did not get his way, he was going to bring in Bill 18 to force the people back to work.

You know, Mr. Speaker, there is time yet for a far better ending, that we owe the people who work for the government in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, because you see we are going to cut down the workforce by 4,000 people. Do you know what we are going to do? We are going to turn to the rest of the people who work in the public sector and say, listen, we are taking 4,000 jobs, which we are not going to fill, therefore you people have to carry extra responsibility and do a lot more work, when already we hear a cry for jobs at the Melville Hospital in Happy Valley-Goose Bay; cannot find lab technicians, cannot get them. They are a year and a half trying to attract people and cannot get them. We are going to layoff 4,000 people and turn around and say to our public sector workers: You people are going to have to take a wage freeze for two years and you are going to have to take on a bigger burden.

Mr. Speaker, I was never one to talk very long, and obviously I am not going to take my full twenty minutes, but I will say this, Mr. Speaker, that there is time. There is time, Mr. Speaker, and our workers, in this Province, deserve a better fate. Mr. Speaker, somewhere along the way someone made the statement that: Until a person or a people lose their freedom, do they really know what it means? When Bill 18 goes through, if it goes through, then we are going to take the freedom and the right of collective bargaining for the people who do such a wonderful job for the people in our Province.

I say to members on the other side, and to the Premier: There is time. There is time for him to take this bill off and there is time to put it to binding arbitration. I, for one, believe that the workers in our Province deserve a far better fate. Mr. Speaker, I can assure you, on behalf of the people I represent and all of the workers in Newfoundland and Labrador, that as long as Bill 18 is sitting before our workers, this is one member who will never support it. Again, I will say to the government over there: There is time. There is time to give our workers a better fate. After all they have gone through, the torture, the misery, that the government has caused them - and that is exactly what they have done - there is time. Every member over there should take the time to think about the workers in their district, and think about the jobs that we have not been able to fill, and yet you are going to turn around now and say: That is too bad. We are going to take another 4,000 and we are going to expect you people to do a lot more when you are already overworked at the present time.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I say to the people on the other side, please, there is time. I say to the Government House Leader, who I have known for quite some time, and to all members, there is time. Our workers deserve a better fate. Mr. Speaker, as long as Bill 18 is sitting there, I will not support it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair, I do believe, is ready now for some voting in accordance with the rules governing the previous question. The Chair will put the motion before the House, that this question be now put?

All those in favour of that motion, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

The motion is carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called.

MR. SPEAKER: Are the Whips ready for the question?

Those in favour of the motion that this question now be put, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Williams, Mr. Ed Byrne, Mr. Ottenheimer, Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Rideout, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Sullivan, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Mr. Fitzgerald, Ms Sheila Osborne, Mr. French, Ms Burke, Mr. Tom Osborne, Ms Whalen, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Denine, Mr. Manning, Mr. Harding, Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Jackman, Ms Johnson, Mr. Jim Hodder, Ms Goudie, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Oram, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Ridgley.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against the motion please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Grimes, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Langdon, Ms Jones, Ms Thistle, Mr. Reid, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sweeney, Ms Foote, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Harris, Mr. Collins.

Mr. Speaker, thirty-two ayes, and fourteen nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a second time? That is Bill 18, An Act To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation Of Public Services.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, nay?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division is called.

Call in the members.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is it agreeable that the question now be put? Are the Whips ready?

All those in favour of the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Williams, Mr. Edward Byrne, Mr. Ottenheimer, Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Rideout, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Sullivan, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Mr. Fitzgerald, Ms Sheila Osborne, Mr. French, Ms Burke, Mr. Tom Osborne, Ms Whalen, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Denine, Mr. Manning, Mr. Harding, Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Jackman, Ms Johnson, Mr. Jim Hodder, Ms Goudie, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Oram, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Ridgley.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Those against the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Grimes, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Langdon, Ms Jones, Ms Thistle, Mr. Reid, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sweeney, Ms Foote, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Harris, Mr. Collins.

Mr. Speaker, thirty-two ayes and fourteen nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declared the motion carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider Bill 18.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Bill 18.

Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the said Bill18?

All those in favour, `aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against?

Motion carried.

MR. PARSONS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I do believe that the Opposition House Leader has a point of order.

MR. PARSONS: I just want to confirm here that we are entering into Committee at this stage, in that process which stifles the Opposition from speaking more than once. I understand that process has indeed been invoked here and that each member of the Opposition shall have only twenty minutes to address this most important bill. I just want clarification and confirmation that that is the understanding here, that closure has been invoked here and we are -

MR. SPEAKER: For clarification, the Chair has notice of a closure motion. However, until we get into Committee and we have made some progress, the Government House Leader knows that he is not able to introduce that until the appropriate stages, if he chooses to do that. That is not an issue over which the Chair has any jurisdiction whatsoever. However, notice of closure has been given. It was given yesterday. The Chair will now leave and the Committee of the Whole process will begin.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

CHAIR( Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Bill 18, An Act To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation Of Public Services.

CLERK (Noel): Clause 1.

CHAIR: Clause 1. Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

Just a few moments. I have spoken to the Premier and the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board and I told them what time the vote was coming, in terms of legislation, and my understanding is that they are still involved in some discussions with officials from the both unions. Mr. Speaker, with that, in order to get to where - this is parliamentary bridge, I say to my colleague, the hon. Opposition House Leader, and the Leader of Democratic Party, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, that what I need to do now, Mr. Speaker, is move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is put forward by the Government House Leader that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

Motion carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the committee have considered the matter to them referred and have directed him to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

When shall the committee have leave to sit again? Tomorrow? Now?

AN HON. MEMBER: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

On motion, report received and adopted. Committee ordered to sit again presently by leave.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move, motion 1, That This House Approves in General the Budgetary Policy of the Government.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 1 has been moved, That This House Approves in General the Budgetary Policy of the Government.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: I am pleased to participate. for a few minutes, Mr. Speaker, in the non - I understand that members opposite have proposed a motion of non-confidence in a Budget that was presented by my colleague -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The parliamentary practice in this House is to be followed precisely, and therefore the call of the business of the day, Orders of the Day, is exclusively in the hands of the Government House Leader. He has called Motion 1. That is the government's choice, and the Chair recognizes the hon. Minister of Education, speaking on Motion 1.

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

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the members sitting in the House understand precisely what is happening, that instead of debating this legislation that we are called here tonight to debate, we are now on the Budget debate on a non-confidence motion that the government has called at 10:45 at night. I think members on this floor understand that. We were laughing at the procedure that the government has chosen to take, on a night like this after the kind of day we have had, where people are going back to work. I think we all understand that, but it needs to be pointed out that the government is doing something that may well be within parliamentary procedure, Mr. Speaker, but it is certainly highly unusual to see the government do this.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I understand what the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi is saying. If he will allow just a couple of minutes to proceed, we will back to Bill 18. A parliamentary bridge it is called, I say to hon. members opposite. I have no intention of spending any more than thirty to sixty seconds on the Budget debate on non-confidence, because in order to get back to it, under the motions that are in the House, this is what we must do.

I am not trying to get away from Bill 18, to move into non-confidence and leave it there for the rest of the night. That is not the purpose. I have explained all of this to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, in terms of the motion that was put forward earlier, and to the hon. Opposition House Leader. If we will have it that way, I will let the Member for St. John's East adjourn the debate on the non-confidence motion, which is only a purpose to get back to Bill 18. It is called a parliamentary bridge. If members what to consider that a joke, that is up to you, but we will be back debating that in a second, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

First, the Chair has to rule that there is no point of order. It is a point of explanation, probably. There is no point of order and that has been explained, I think, to all hon. members.

The hon. the Minister of Education.

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In accordance with the direction of the Government House Leader, and to use his phraseology, this is being done for the purpose of a parliamentary bridge only and for no other reason, Mr. Speaker.

At this time, I adjourn debate to allow proceedings to continue.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that the Budget debate be adjourned.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

The motion is carried.

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I moved that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole to consider matters related to Bill 18.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on Bill 18.

Is it the pleasure of the House that I do now leave the Chair for the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the said bill?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

The motion is carried.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

Bill 18, An Act To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation Of Public Services.

A bill, "An Act To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation Of Public Services." (Bill 18)

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

The hon. the Government House Leader.

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

I move motion 8 on the Order Paper.

MR. PARSONS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a point of order.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just want to confirm, because, I guess, not only some members of the House, but I have no doubt people in the galleries and probably anyone watching this, are wondering what all these parliamentary gymnastics is about here tonight. To motion 8, referred to by the Government House Leader, I just want confirmation so as people understand. This is a procedure that notice was given yesterday under Standing Order 47, whereby the government has invoked a procedure called closure, otherwise commonly known as a stifling measure whereby debate in this House is limited, whereby each person gets only twenty minutes to speak. Whether or not you have spoken by 1:00 a.m. of this day, your rights to speak have been curtailed and stopped and halted. I just want to confirm that and let people know, and that is my understanding of what has happened here, we have invoked that ruling. That is the rule that we are operating under right now, invoked by the government, certainly not by the Opposition. We would like to have a full, free-ranging debate, unlimited, on this matter.

CHAIR: The Chair rules no point of order, a point of clarification.

Motion 8. Should motion 8 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

Motion carried.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is an unusual circumstance that we are faced with here tonight.

AN HON. MEMBER: Bizarre.

MS THISTLE: Bizarre. I am sure that the viewers across Canada, who are now probably watching by national television, are saying: What are they doing in Newfoundland and Labrador tonight? People are starting now to begin to write a new Newfie joke book, watching this demonstration here in the House tonight. It is almost like you would see a courthouse event, an issue being settled on the courthouse steps. Here we are tonight with Bill 18 in front of us, and negotiations still playing out with the President of Treasury Board and the union leaders. In the House tonight it is a one-sided debate, I might say, Mr. Chairman. A few minutes ago, we all saw every member from the government side stand and vote in agreement with this bill. Every person on the government side stood ,on two occasions when Division was called, in agreement on this bill tonight.

I watched with intensity tonight on television, on CBC, when Doug Letto interviewed the Member for Windsor-Springdale. He was in a quandary. He had a batch of telephone messages, pink slips, on his desk, similar in colour to the ones the present government has given to all their public sector workers in the school boards to tell them that they are finished. His pink slips were telephone calls he supposedly received from people in his constituency, or maybe they were just hanging around for months and years and he was giving the impression that he was getting a lot of telephone calls. Whatever the case might be, the Member for Windsor-Springdale was asked by the interviewer, Doug Letto: How are you going to vote tonight on this legislation? He was quick to point out that he was in a difficult spot because he was representing a government that he was proud to represent and his wife was actually employed by NAPE in Grand Falls-Windsor. They were very professional.

MR. HUNTER: (Inaudible) a snake.

MS THISTLE: Now this is on the public airwaves. You do not need -

MR. REID: On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I was just listening to the Member for Windsor-Springdale calling the Member for Grand Falls-Windsor a snake, as she stood speaking in the House of Assembly. I ask him to do the hon. thing and stand up and withdraw this statement.

CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: I withdraw that statement, Mr. Chairman.

There might be other words I could say, but I will leave that for another time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: The hon. the member for Windsor-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PARSONS: On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the Opposition House Leader.

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

The member for Grand Falls-Springdale is going to -

MR. HUNTER: Get it right, boy. Windsor-Springdale (inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: Maybe the Member for Windsor-Springdale need not be so animated. My only comment was: If he is going to do the honorable thing, which he suggested he was going to do, he should do it unequivocally. He does not need to stand up here and withdraw the word snake that he used against the member opposite here, and say he could substitute other words. If you are going to withdraw in this House, do the honourable thing and withdraw it totally and unequivocally, and do not get on with the foolishness that you are getting on with here. You either withdraw it or you do not.

CHAIR: I say to the Member for Windsor-Springdale, if he is going to withdraw his remarks he should do it unqualified, as it is an unparliamentary remark.

MR. HUNTER: I withdraw, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: Thank you.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is clear to see that the Member for Windsor-Springdale is under quite a lot of stress and duress I would say, duress, the most I have ever seen. I have been in this House now eight years, and this is most stress I have seen that member under.

To continue, I was saying that Doug Letto had asked the Member for Windsor-Spring how he was going to vote when the legislation was called tonight. He said, he was not going to say how he was going to vote tonight. He was not going to say, but he just said. By standing on his feet tonight, he answered the question. He stood on his feet. Doug Letto knows, the people of Windsor-Springdale know, and -

MR. T. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, on a point of order.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Chairman we are here tonight to debate a very important piece of legislation in this Province. I would like the hon. member to confine her comments to the bill, and refrain from personal attacks on members over here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Lets get on with the business of this Province and stop these foolish personal attacks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. T. MARSHALL: I say the same thing to the hon. member there. Since we have been here that is all we hear from you guys over there, nothing but personal attacks. Come on! We are here to do the business of the Province. We are here to do the business of this place. Come on, raise the tone of debate.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. T. MARSHALL: Stop this yelling and screaming and nattering over there. You have been nattering since the day we got here. You are nothing but nattering naysayers of negativism.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

I say to the Leader of the Opposition, he knows quite clearly that the word fool, and directly referring it to another member, is certainly unparliamentary, and I ask him if he would withdraw those remarks.

MR. GRIMES: Absolutely withdraw, Mr. Chairman.

CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Chairman, to the comments made by the hon. Minister of Justice, who has the nerve and the gall to stand up here tonight, after sitting here all day and ramrodding Bill 18 down our throats, and being part of a government that is doing it, and has the nerve to stand up here tonight and tell us to get on with the business of this Province, a business that, we would submit, the Province has no right to even be in or need to be in, I say to the minister what he said to me in a Question Period last week: Minister, you stay tuned. You stay tuned, because that is the only answer you have ever given us in this House. If that is as complete as your answers can ever be, maybe you had better stay seated.

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is quite plain to see that the members on the government side are feeling the heat, and so they should feel the heat. The Minister of Justice gone on his feet and said, here we are debating a very important bill and whatever I was saying was not relevant. It is very relevant to what this bill is saying here tonight, when I questioned the Member for Windsor-Springdale. The Member for Windsor-Springdale represents a union town, as I do, and if he has not got the nerve to stand on his feet and say why he is standing there, there is something wrong here in this House.

Here we are talking about Bill 18 which is not necessary. This bill should not be here tonight. This bill should not be here tonight! You are looking for suspenders, you are looking for a belt, you are looking for double insurance. The people have already gone to work in this Province. I just went out, and the security people are at their desks. People are cleaning the schools, people are at work in the hospitals, people are in the senior care homes, they are on the graders, they are on the snowplows, and you are here, a government with thirty-four members - I cannot say anything about the Speaker, the Speaker is supposed to be neutral - they have thirty-three members here trying to ramrod this legislation through the House of Assembly, at 11 o'clock in the night when the workers are at their places of work right now performing their duties. And you are saying that this is not relevant! Listen, you had better go back and see who elected you and why they elected you, because I can tell you something -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: - if you were to ask your constituents tonight, are they better off by electing a PC government than they were six months ago, what do you think you would hear? You would hear the same results that came out when the question was asked by Telelink this weekend. All we are seeing from you crowd over there is you trying to roughshod your way, because there is only one agenda. There is only one agenda! You made the Member for Windsor-Springdale crawl under his seat, just about before he stood up. He did not want to vote with you guys tonight but he had to because he had to be part of your government.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) you guys.

MR. GRIMES: Exactly. He tried to be a big hero with Doug Letto, saying: Well, Doug, you will see how I am going to vote.

MS THISTLE: He tried. The same thing happened to that member last week. He went out to Grand Falls-Windsor and he got under the gun again. They asked him was he satisfied to let the government of the day, the PCs, demolish the cancer clinic for Grand Falls-Windsor. He was under a bit of heat Do you know what he did? He said: Hunter confirms PC's commitment to hospital redevelopment. I brought that up in the House and -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the member if she would refrain from using the name of an individual member here in the House. If she is going to read from reports or if she is going to refer to someone here in the House, I suggest she refer to them either by their ministry's title or by the district that they represent.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will certainly do that. I was reading verbatim from the Grand Falls-Windsor Advertiser, but I think I referred to the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

Under the gun, he said: Yes, we are going to do the right thing when the time comes and it is going to be sooner rather than later, and it is going to be acceptable to the public out there. That sounds like consultation to me. It sounds like you are going to do something for the people in Grand Falls-Windsor and surrounding area, and you are going to commit to the cancer clinic. When I brought that up in the House last week, there was a lot of rushing around with the Minister of Health and Community Services and the Government House Leader. They were all scurrying around the nosebleed section, and, before I knew it, the Member for Windsor-Springdale was gone, and he never showed up last week at all. I do not know what was happening there, but anyway I am sure he was chastised.

MR. GRIMES: He will be back again tonight to vote for this.

MS THISTLE: He will be back. When it is time to vote again, he will be back.

We are here tonight for no good reason. You have people who are now back at their jobs, and you are here with a sledgehammer bill to slam them to the wall. How can a one-man show in this Province cause so much chaos? How much chaos has this one-man show caused in this Province? I guess it is pretty predictable, when you see that this Premier has not consulted with the very people who should be making decisions with him. On several occasions now, it has being brought to light that the Premier has not consulted with his Cabinet nor has he consulted with his caucus. Not a word tonight spoken by any member on the government's side as to why they should support this bill.

We are now into round two. We have already heard from fourteen speakers, with the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party. All of us have spoken. We are now into round two and we have not heard a government member stand and say why they want Bill 18 to go forward, we have not heard one. I can tell, by the look on their faces, that a lot of the people here tonight on the government side, did not know what they were getting into when they decided to run under the Tory banner. I see the blank looks in their faces. If I was to call one by one, now, the people who are in this House, call them by their district and ask them if they would like some of my time to get up and say why they are going to support this bill, I bet you there would be no takers. There would be no takers! I bet you, if I called anyone over on that side, there would be nobody spring to their feet.

MR. GRIMES: Try the Parliamentary Assistant to the Premier, the Member for Conception Bay South.

MS THISTLE: Oh yes, I would say the Member for Conception Bay South would probably like to speak to this one.

MR. FRENCH: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: What did you say?

CHAIR: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

That is one we know will not speak. We know that all the new members do not know what is going on here tonight, although they did get a good information session when the Leader of the Opposition stood and spoke for one hour. I think many eyes were opened up as to what is really going on here tonight. They had no choice in the matter.

The funny thing about it is, we did not see the Premier tonight, we did not see the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board until the vote was ready. I guess wild horses could not keep them away, because as soon as that part of the evening happened, they came down from the eighth floor on a gallop, and everybody stood to attention. There was not one member who was missing, not even to go to the washroom. Everybody stood and they all voted with the Premier.

Well, that is interesting, you know. That is interesting, very interesting. I did not go home this weekend, I was on standby because our leader, the Leader of the Opposition, offered that if the government would go to binding arbitration we would be ready to debate anytime, from Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday. In fact, we were going to get the copy of the legislation that was going to be brought to the House, we were going to get that over the weekend. I wanted to see that. We did not get that over the weekend. In fact, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board stood in his place, on Monday, and said that he never saw the bill, he was only working from the draft copy. Can you imagine? A bill that is signed and approved by Cabinet, with the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board's name on the front of that Bill, Bill 18, he denied seeing that bill. Can anybody here in this House believe that? I do not think so. I wonder, does it have to be approved by Cabinet? Who is Cabinet? The Premier.

I listened to the Government House Leader tonight. He was the only one who spoke, and not even he could say, in his twenty-minute speech, why he was supporting the bill. Isn't that ironic, that the Government House Leader, who has been answering all the questions since the House opened on March 16, I think, whatever date the Speech from the Throne was - maybe is was March 18. There have only been a couple of people answer questions in this House, since the House opened. It has basically been the Government House Leader and the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, and not even the Government House Leader could say why he was supporting that bill. He decided to talk about everything else except the bill itself. Now, what does that tell you? Is he holding his nose and coming to the House, just going through the motions and getting it done under orders and duress by his leader? Probably. Because, those same government members, when they were on the Opposition side, did not hold their nose, they had a lot to say.

In fact, it is very interesting when you look at it. We had the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, in 1999, when the nurses were legislated back, who said: At least, I say to you, Mr. Chairman, members on this side of the House had the guts and they had the gumption to get up and say why they are against this piece of legislation. That was when he was in the Opposition. I said yesterday that, there have to be people on that side of the House who down, in their guts and in their very beings, have to be opposed to this. This is what the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs said in 1999. Now, I would like to ask the same question to that side of the House tonight, in his words: Is there anybody on that side of the House over there, who, down in your gut and in your very being, is opposed to Bill 18? Is there anybody?

Then, of course, we have the Minister of Environment who said only one sentence: I know, tonight, I will be voting in good conscience. I say to the Minister of Environment tonight: Are you voting in good conscience tonight? Can you nod your head and agree to that?

MR. GRIMES: He just nodded his head.

MS THISTLE: He just nodded his head, so he is in agreement.

MR. GRIMES: He believes it makes sense to order them back to work, even though they are already back to work.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MS THISTLE: I say to the Member for Bonavista South, "I can tell you one thing: When I was elected to the House of Assembly I was elected by the people of my district to serve them the best possible way that I had the ability." I think all of us feel that way. Everyone in this House feels that way. He goes on to say: "I was not elected to serve the Premier or my leader or my caucus."

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair is certainly not defending himself from the member who is speaking, but, I remind her that her time is up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: The timing could not be better. By leave?

CHAIR: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

CHAIR: Leave is granted to the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

MS THISTLE: Thank you.

The timing just could not be better.

He went on to say, "I was elected to serve the people of Bonavista South, and that is what I will continue to do." He said, "You put your constituents first and you put your desire to be in the front benches last. It is a dark day." I would say it is an extremely dark day. I would say it is an extremely dark day for democracy in our Province.

Not one of you can stand, with any conscience, and say that you are in support of this bill, because you know it is wrong, it has been wrong from day one, and you know that your leader only had one motive in mind and it is all about winning. When you go to collective bargaining it is compromises, it is not winning, everybody has to compromise. Your leader only had one thing in mind and that was to come out and say that he broke the unions and he got everything that he went in to get. That is not the right thing to do when you are representing the people of this Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, again I would gladly now defer. The Minister of Justice was up a couple of minutes ago indicating that he wanted to speak to getting on with the business of the government, and would like to, I am sure, tell people, in more detail than he did in his point of order, why he is so proud of this bill, why he thinks it is the right thing for Newfoundland and Labrador, and why he believes that we should do it. So, I would gladly -

[Noise from the gallery]

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the spectators in the gallery that you are certainly welcome here, and we are certainly glad that you came because the debate includes you, but I would ask that you not show your favour for or against, or take part in any debate or discussion that is happening here in the House of Assembly. If it continues, the Chair will have no other choice but to have the galleries cleared and we certainly do not want to do that.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I take it that the Minister of Justice is not going to take me up on the offer. I believe he is nodding there now, indicating that he does not plan to really speak to this debate at all, so we can have that clarified. The pattern seems pretty clear, Mr. Chairman, that none of them are going to speak to this. I will tell you one thing, they speak ever more loudly, when they stand to vote, than with any words they could say, and that is the what the people will remember.

When we have a division on this bill at one o'clock, then I am sure the Member for Windsor-Springdale will be in his place voting for it, even though he was trying to be a big hero to somebody on the evening news tonight, by agreeing to be interviewed, having a story on CBC, that maybe all the government members are not going to vote for this, you know. Just maybe! I am sure that some of his constituents were very proud that their member might be going to stand on his own two feet. We saw him stand on his own two feet, right behind the little emperor, right behind the one-man show. They had a free vote. I asked if it was a free vote, and they nodded, yes, it was a free vote, which means that every single one of the elected members for the Progressive Conservative Government, of their own free mind, not because they were told to do anything by their leader, not because they were coerced, but because they have thought about this themselves and they have sorted it out in their own minds, and they say yes. They just stood up a few minutes ago and they are going to do it again. At 1:00 a.m., they are going to do it again; twice in the one night. They have already stood twice. For the third time in the one night they are going to stand up and say: I have thought this through, I have looked at all of the ramifications, and on behalf of the constituents that sent me here, I believe in my heart and soul that it is in the best interests of my constituents, and the best interests of everybody in the Province, to vote for a third time, in the one night, to send people back to work who are working. Now, that is what we are about.

The brilliant Minister of Justice made a brilliant intervention, and I am sure he impressed all the members opposite to the point that they now have a renewed confidence, that when they hear they have advice from the Justice Minister they must be really proud now. They must have real confidence in what they are hearing from the Justice Minister now, because, Mr. Chairman, what he said bears repeating.

He got up a bit angry, a little bit upset, glued to his seat - this is over an hour speaking for me today, my second full opportunity. Every member on this side has spoken at least once. Some of us are now speaking for the second time. The Chair recognizes whomever stands up. We usually do it in a rotation, so if one member on the Opposition side stands up, then if two people on this side stand the next time, but one stands over there, they will get preference. All day, since 1:30 today, they have had opportunities to stand up and tell the people of the Province why, as the Minister of Justice said, we should get on with the people's business, why we should talk about the bill.

His point was, that the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans was not speaking exactly to the content of the bill. Well, he has had an opportunity, he has had about fifty opportunities since1:30 today, and he will have more opportunities until 1:00 in the morning, and guess how many times he is going to get up and speak to the bill? Zero. None. Maybe I just might encourage him enough, if I keep talking about him - because he is brave, you know, he is bold, he jumped up. He just might get up between now and one o'clock and start talking. I would love to hear it because I was so impressed with what I heard before.

Let me repeat it, Mr. Chairman, because it is right on this bill. Here is the bill again: To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation Of Public Services. The Premier, in answering questions in Question Period - because, you notice, he has not come to the Legislature to speak to what he believes this bill is about and why it is good.

The Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board introduced it. I do not know what he said, because this caucus will not listen to him again in this House, because we have never, from the very beginning, been able to really believe a word he says. We are going to continue to invoke our own sanction on the President of Treasury Board, because he does not, in our view, tell the truth, and we cannot deal with that any other way other than to refuse to listen to a person we have no confidence in. He has no credibility with us. I do not know how much credibility he has with anybody else.

Here is the Minister of Justice saying: Let's get on with the business of the Province; talk to the bill. The ironic part is, that would make some sense except, what business is it that he was so worked up about, that he wanted us to get on with the business? Don't delay any further. What business was he talking about? He was talking about the business of ordering people back to work who are already working. As far as I am concerned, that, to me, is absolutely brilliant! That is brilliant!

Let me talk about our Premier for a second. He will be back too, to make sure the troops are voting as they should - the free vote! - to make sure that the free vote goes the way it should. He will be back at one o'clock for the next free vote. Here is the problem with where we are, and here is why we have this kind of legislation. Here is why people like us do not buy it, here is why people, like the 20,000 public employees and their families, do not buy it, here is why over half the population of the Province, polled on the weekend, do not buy it. Because here is what we have seen. We have had the Maclean's article, coming true now by the way. Remember, some of our members raised some concerns about the Premier up sitting in a nice swanky office with his corporate buddies in Toronto, being asked some questions. He said: Well, what about the Legislature? Ha! Ha! Ha! What a waste of time that Legislature is down there. He does not see it as a waste of time tonight. He wants it open at midnight so he can pass a bill to send people back to work who are already working. Now, there is a waste of time for you. There is the joke. Ha! Ha! Ha! He said: It should not open at all. He said: Down there, they are a bunch of drunks! We pointed out that we thought that that was pretty insulting, and, of course, everybody, wanting to give our Premier, our new Premier, the benefit of the doubt, said: Come on now, you are all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, you have a bit of a sense of humor, don't you? That was only a joke. Come on guys, where is your sense of humor gone?

The editors even, of Maclean's, which happened to be owned by Roger's Cable - anybody see the connection? - the editors of Maclean's even came out and said: Come on, where is your sense of humor gone down there in Newfoundland and Labrador? Well, it went from that - they said: He is charming! He is charming! Well, guess what the national press was saying a month ago when the strike started, when all of a sudden an angry Premier lashed out at people and said, they will be out until the cows come home? They did not use the word charming. They said it was time for a cool head, not a hot temper. They went from seeing our Premier, our new Premier, our newly minted Premier, as being a charming joker to being a hothead, an angry hothead.

What have you got tonight? You have a Premier saying: Oh, you have a free vote. You can speak for yourself. Not a soul speaking for themselves, not one, not one speaking for themselves. Not one! Not a single soul! Surely you would think the Minister of Health and Community Services would want to speak. Maybe not some of the backbenchers, but the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development would want to tell people why she is proud to support this, why it is the right thing for Newfoundland and Labrador, how is it going to improve the economy, how it is going to create jobs, how it is going to help us prosper. No, not a word from any of them. Free vote, freedom of speech, and not a word. They will speak when they stand at one o'clock, louder than any words, and everybody in the Province will know it because it is a recorded vote.

What do we have now? A charming, humorous Premier converted, in national media, to a hothead with a temper, and now tonight the national media calling all of the media outlets in the Province saying: Did we miss something? Is this some kind of a joke? This is the latest Newfie joke. That is what they are asking. Now we have gone from a charming fellow with a sense of humor, then a hothead, to the latest Newfie joke. We know it right in this building. You do not have to go any more than a couple of feet outside that door. The security people who work in this building, some of us here fifteen years and longer know them on a personal basis, others, for the six months that they have been new members, know them. They greet us when we come in everyday. They are good people; they do a good job. They like being here, by the way. They very much enjoy being here and they do a good job. They are out there for the very first time in twenty-eight days. They are out there instead of having management people, who were out there before, except for the time they were so urgently needed they had to stuff the galleries.

That was a wonderful day, that was a great day for democracy, that you had management people cross a picket line because they were absolutely needed for essential services. What instruction did they get from the Premier? What instruction came from the Premier's office? What order? The ministers themselves were embarrassed because they had instructions from the Premier's office to tell, not only the political staff, that one we could even understand, these are your own political staff, but to tell your senior executive members, your management people, assistant deputy ministers, at one hundred and something thousand dollars a year, directors, managers, all kinds of supervisors, not in the union - most of them, by the way, were in so they could be assigned to places like long-term care facilities to help or to go to some of the hospital facilities to help. Obviously it was more telling than anything, that they were not needed in here, if for two hours they were under instruction to go sit in these seats.

Every one of us, with this special security card, which lets you in the building and then gives you access to the whole building, because it says you are not a visitor, you are an employee and you are a special employee who has a special designation because of the strike - this is not the normal card we use. The normal one is this one here that we use everyday with our picture and stuff on it, slips through the scanners, gets you in, you do not need a key and all that kind of stuff. That one is no good anymore because there is a strike on. This is special, because you are needed now, management. You have to come through the picket lines, you need this. You can go anywhere in the building, you have clearance anywhere, because once you get in, this gets you anywhere.

What were those people ordered to do? They were ordered to go out to that desk, where our own security personnel are back to work for the first time in a month, sign in as visitors and get a little sticker that you stick on your lapel like this Trust Me button which says: Visitor. Pretend you are a visitor. A great big V on it, a great big V stuck on their chests. They were put through that. That is how urgent it was to get through the business of the Province, I say to the Minister of Justice. That is how urgent it was then. Stuff the galleries so that the people outside, either strikers or members of the general public who would want to come in and sit in this gallery, like a few people are doing tonight because they are interested, because they actually want to hear the debate - but the Premier, you see, did not want anybody in here, because when there is nobody here there is a different circumstance. Some of these members actually get up and speak.

That is going to be the other thing that is going to be amazing for the people in the galleries tonight to understand. Three or four of them is all you need. If there are three or four of them up there, they sit like this. Now, if they went home - I would even ask them for a minute to just go home and turn on your TV and you would see six or seven of them pop up that fast your head would spin. We would not get to speak the rest of the night, I would say. The first one up on his feet, the first one up on his pins, sir, would be the brilliant Minister of Justice saying: Now, brother, they are out of the gallery now, I do not mind telling the world why we should get on with the business of the Province. Now I do not mind telling everybody why we should definitely hurry up. Let's hurry up and order them back to work.

Let me say it again: Hello! Hello! They are working. They are working! Mr. Chairman, did he miss the news. I thought we said this five hours ago. We said it four-and-a-half hours ago. We said it four hours ago. We said it three hours ago. I think he was even out in the hallway and met some of the security personnel who are here, so I believe he knows they are working. He jumps up, sir, he jumps up, because the hero from Windsor-Springdale, who wanted to pretend to everybody that he might vote against his leader - I might stand up for the people in my district because I am from a highly unionized district and my spouse is actually a NAPE member. He wanted to give everybody the impression that this member was going to be a real individual, a real individual thinker, a person with a free vote, a person who got elected on their own merits, going to make up his own mind, playing nice and coy and cute, and when Mr. Reynolds says, how are you going to vote: Oh, I cannot tell you that. Well he told him, he stood up. I would say, right now he is probably getting his hug from the Premier. He is huggy when that kind of stuff happens. Some of the members here might not understand that, they might not know what that reference is. I will not bother right now, I do not have time to go into the details, because there are a couple of other things I want to say.

What you have then is this. Let me just say one other thing in defense of the Minister of Justice, the Member for Humber East. I hope for his sake, Mr. Chairman, that there probably were not any viewers from Humber East. I hope they did not see that performance, for his sake. I would like for his career to last, at least, a full first term. If they saw that performance, I think when he goes home the next time there are going to be some friends of his, even, if they are real friends, who will talk to him about what they saw. I hope they did not see it, for his sake. I do not mean to pick on him, but to use his line: Stay tuned.

Five thousand dollars a payday we are paying an officer of this Legislature who has written the House saying: When can I actually start to work, because I need a piece of legislation that he has been responsible for, for six months? For six months - let me say it again. His Leader, the Premier, El Supremo, has said: I am all for the legislation. I want to be more open. I want to be more accountable. I want to do this. When asked, why don't you proclaim the act, which they can do by the way - they can get together over there proclaim it two minutes from now if they want to. All they have to do is meet the Cabinet, this crowd here in the front, get together and say, let's say that the act, which is already written, already debated in this House, already passed - all that has to happen is the Cabinet has to say: It becomes effective at 11:35. Then, that gentleman who makes $5,000 a payday, but cannot do his job, can start doing his job.

When asked about that, a serious question, when are you going to proclaim it, he said: Oh, you fellows brought it in last year. You did not do anything about it. We said: We understand that, but you got elected, you are the government, you have been responsible for six months, you said there is a new approach, you said you believe in openness and accountability, this is the man who is responsible for it, so what is the hangup? He said: Oh, stay tuned. Another brilliant answer; stay tuned. Now it is $10,000 later, two paydays later, and we are still staying tuned.

Mr. Chairman, let me spend the last couple of minutes that I have just tracking this back. Here is the problem, again, with Bill 18: The whole reason that it even exists is because we had an absolutely, totally botched round of negotiations from the very beginning, from the start, right from the NAPE speech promising to consult with people if there is a problem: Because I know I can work with you and we can work out difficulties. He even said: If we have financial difficulties, I will come and talk to you about it. No talk at all, and, bango, announce a wage freeze. Then, of course, you get all the way up to March 16, just two weeks before the strike, a few days before the Budget, speaking to the media, he says: We have alarming correspondence from the bond raters saying that we have to do something about things like sick leave. We have asked three times in this House for the Premier or the Minister of Finance to table the alarming correspondence. Guess what is laid on this Table right here? Nothing. Because you cannot produce what you do not have. It suits the story again, the big myth, about the money.

Then they bring in the Budget - and the Member for Twillingate & Fogo mentioned it earlier - after threatening the, say, 2,000 layoffs, if you do not take the freeze, 4,000 jobs out the door. It is probably going to be 5,000 or 6,000, because the poor managers who were stuffed in the galleries a week or so ago, now that the others are back to work, there is one thing waiting for them, a pink slip, because they got what they needed out of them now. They did say that they were going to layoff 700 unionized people, never mind the ones that they are not going fill through attrition. They are going to layoff 700, and so the unions supposedly would not get too upset about that, they said: Oh, do not worry too much about that because there will be an equal number of managers. There are 700 people, like the ones who got stuffed in the galleries last week, who are getting their pink slips drawn up for them right now.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that his time is expired.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have appreciated the opportunities to speak, and I know that I will get more opportunities to speak about this in third reading when we get there on Thursday or next week, or whenever, because there is no urgency, no emergency, but I will not be participating in being part of a Newfie joke tomorrow when the government would suggest that we would talk again about sending people back to work who are working. We will not be doing that tomorrow, I can guarantee you, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to say a few words at Committee stage here, given this very unusual closure motion. I have been here since 1990, when I was elected, and I have heard the closure motion used once or twice, but I never before heard the closure motion, which is a motion to limit debate, to shutdown debate, after the debate has been going on for such a long period of time that somebody has filibustered and they need to shut it down, they need to bring closure to a debate that has gone on too long. Ordinarily, Mr. Chairman, as you know, and members on this side know, because we used it against them when they were over there, and some members over there know it because some of them participated in lengthy debates in Committee - because ordinarily in committee we have ten minute speeches, and you can speak an unlimited number of times.

New members of the House should pay attention, because you may have some opportunity to speak in some other debates. You may! Committee is when you discuss the detail of the bill, clause-by-clause, and you get to speak as many times as you like, if you are permitted to. If you are permitted, you can speak as many times as you wish and you can speak for ten minutes. Now you have to stop and if someone speaks for ten minutes, you can speak again. In fact, there had been times when I sat on this side of the House and I spoke for ten minutes and one other person spoke for ten minutes and then I spoke again for ten minutes and then that person spoke for ten minutes, and that went on all night long.

Mr. Chairman, if somebody brought in closure on that and said, we have to put a stop to Harris, we have to put a stop to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, from keeping this House open all night, all by himself with another person, and we have to bring closure to this because he is abusing the House, then I could understand it.

Mr. Chairman, we had the Government House Leader get up in this House yesterday and give notice of closure before one word was uttered for or against this piece of legislation. Before the debate had begun, we had a motion to shut it down. Now we are here and we can only speak until one o'clock. Not very many people are going to be allowed to speak, maybe half a dozen. Some over there can speak if they wish, but they do not seem to be interested. There will be six people on this side of the House speak for a maximum of twenty minutes, speaking only once. That is the effect of the closure motion.

The purpose of the Committee debate is to talk about the clauses of the bill and there is usually an opportunity for amendments. You discuss one clause, then you discuss the next clause, then you discuss the next clause, and, as each clause goes through, you can make amendments and the amendments are designed to improve the quality of the bill. That is why it is called a Committee. The Committee is supposed to discuss this clause-by-clause debate. If we had a real opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to debate this in Committee, look at it clause-by-clause, make amendments and talk about the effect of each clause, why they are there, how could they be changed for the better, move amendments, have those amendments debated, then that would be a real debate.

What we have tonight is a sham debate. It is sham debate because there is only one side to this debate. This is the government sitting on their hands, not doing what they were elected to do, other than sit on their hands and watch while their Premier and their government puts through a piece of legislation that has been rightly described as draconian legislation, autocratic legislation, oppressive legislation, anti-democratic legislation, unprecedented in this Province, Mr. Chairman, and across the country, imposing terms and conditions of employment on workers, taking back from public sector workers the things that they had achieved on the picket lines some years ago, taking back from public sector workers rights that they had gained through negotiations over the years and could never give up in collective bargaining. The government knows it and they are doing it on some pretext. Now, what is the pretext, Mr. Chairman?

Here we get to the clauses, and I would like to make an amendment, if I could, but there is not much point in making an amendment. The only amendment that would make any sense here would remove clause 2 to clause 7, and that would leave the clause 1 which says, "This Act may be cited as the Public Services Resumption and Continuation Act." We would leave that one there. We would leave the last one there, the last clause, clause 8, that says, "This Act applies notwithstanding the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act." Well, perhaps you should take that out. We should take that one out. We should remove, actually, clause 2 to clause 8 and we will stay with clause 1 -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: - "This Act maybe cited as the Public Services Resumption and Continuation Act." That, supposedly, Mr. Chairman, is the purpose of the legislation. As we know, the public services are back in order. The security guards are outside, the hospitals are fully operational, the nursing homes are fully operational, and the shifts are going into work. There is another group preparing to go into work now. I would suspect, Mr. Chairman, that the twelve o'clock shift for LPNs, for workers at the seniors' homes, at Hoyles-Escasoni and seniors homes across this Province, are now reporting for work. They are arriving in the parking lots now to go into work.

This legislation is absolutely, totally unnecessary, and yet the members opposite are prepared to pass a bill that has such clauses as I discussed earlier, clause 3, which provides contrary, in my view - and I know the Minister of Justice will want to talk about this, because surely he would not want to preside, in his first session of the House as Minister of Justice, over a piece of legislation that is brought in contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which guarantees freedom of expression.

When you guarantee freedom of expression you also guarantee that people are not to be made mouthpieces of the Legislature, because freedom of expression also means freedom not to say something. Yet, this legislation says that immediately, upon the coming into force of this act, the unions, and each official or representatives, shall give notice to the striking employees whom they represent - well, perhaps, there are no striking employees, so maybe it does not have any effect because there are no striking employees. Maybe we should remove clause 3, Mr. Chairman. I guess we do not need that. We cannot give notice to striking employees because there aren't any striking employees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficulty hearing the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. I ask that members kindly try to keep their voices down, and allow the member to be heard.

MR. HARRIS: There is no strike, so there cannot be any striking employees. Yet this government wants to tell them that the direction to go on strike, declared or given to them before the coming into force of this act, has become invalid by reason of the coming into force of this act. That is what they want to be passed, to force people to say these things.

Clause 4 talks about employees returning to work. Well, Mr. Chairman, they have already returned to work. Those who have not returned to work already are returning to work as we speak for the twelve o'clock shift, and the others will return to work tomorrow morning at eight o'clock or nine o'clock or whenever they start work, certainly long before this bill ever becomes law.

Then, Mr. Chairman, from the day this act comes into force, the terms and conditions of employment contained in the collective agreement which expired on March 4, 2004, shall be considered to be the terms and conditions of employment.

What is really interesting about clause 5, do you know what it says? It says that the terms and conditions of employment referred to in subsection (1) come into force on the day this act comes into force, except where a different date is set out in those terms, and continues - ah, maybe this is the reason. Maybe this is the reason - and continues in force and expires on March 31, 2008.

Now we are in 2004. We had an election in 2003, and four years from 2003 - let me see: 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007 - what a coincidence. This government has promised that they are going to have a four-year automatic election requirement, and in the fall of 2007 there will be an election but this agreement and this legislation will not expire until March, 2008. Bingo! Bingo! We found out why we are.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: We found out why we are, Mr. Chairman, because not only do they not want collective bargaining to take place in this Province, on the public sector -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Watch out nurses. Watch out teachers. This legislation and these terms and conditions of employment - they are not agreements - that they are seeking to impose on the public sector workers of the Province will not expire until six months after the next election. That is what they want, and the Premier -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: The Premier may not care, Mr. Chairman. The Premier may not care, but there are a lot of people over there whose future, I would submit, hang in the balance with respect to this piece of legislation because they are sending a very clear message to public sector workers, and their spouses - including the Member for Windsor-Springdale - to their sons and their daughters and their brothers and their sisters and their mothers and their fathers and their cousins, all of whom are very widely spread in every district of this Province. The very broad message that is being sent is that this government is totally insensitive to the rights of working people and could not care less whether they trample upon them.

Mr. Chairman, this poll which was done - it was done over the weekend, by the way. It was before this week, before the big rally on Monday, before we had speakers from all across the country from the Canadian Labour Congress, before we even saw the legislation, before we knew what was in it, before we knew that they were going to fire people if they did not go back to work, before we knew about the $250,000 per day fines. Speakers, one after another, from various unions and representations across the country, even the national Leader of the New Democratic Party came here, he was so interested in supporting the cause of workers in this Province. He knew that his presence was necessary here to help that cause and to ensure that not only was this a matter of importance to ensure that people knew here that it was not just important for people in this Province but important to workers across the country.

We are dealing now, Madam Chair - and I see that the Chair has changed - with a matter of national significance. In fact, it is so significant that people are now wondering, from coast to coast, what we are doing here. They are wondering what we are doing here. They are wondering, are the members opposite making fools of themselves? That may be unparliamentary. I guess it is unparliamentary to call somebody a fool, but it must not be unparliamentary to make fools of yourselves. I guess that is what they are doing over there. They are making fools of themselves and, in the process, making fools of us all, to be sitting here close to midnight after the strike has been called off. The strike is over. Do you get this? There is a distinction between a strike and not a strike. A strike is when people are not working. When the unions who called the strike - and they have the right to call a strike, a perfectly legal strike. They also have the perfect legal right to call off the strike and go back to work. It is part of their democratic right. I think you must understand that; that is an important democratic right.

I do recognize, Madam Chair, that this government and members opposite seem to have no concern about the fact, for example, the Minister of Education tells us that, all of a sudden, those people who were elected to school boards - do you remember that election? You know, elected, democracy, democratically elected to the school boards? We only had two elections to school boards. In the first one they had election to school boards and they handed them a whole bunch of motions to close schools, and they worked their way through that for several years. Then we had a second election for school boards, and how long have they been in now? A year-and-a-half, is it, or two years? Maybe two years. All of sudden, zap, you were elected but you are gone now. We are going to appoint somebody to be chair of this school board. We have a great new school board. You do not exist. We are going to appoint somebody as chair of this new school board. We are going to hand-pick people for the next two or three years.

That is the kind of respect for democracy that has been show, because even without legislation, Madam Chair, people who are elected for a four-year term in the school board, they are not there. They cannot discharge their duties any more. They cannot discharge their duties any more because they are gone. They were elected, but that is okay. That does not matter. Similarly, the democratic right of free collective bargaining that public sector workers have had in this Province for thirty years, all of a sudden this government is prepared to take a perfectly legal strike, make it into an illegal strike, and if people do not listen to the legislation they will fire them without any recourse. Anyone who does not comply is dismissed, period, full stop. No explanation, no appeal, no nothing. That is what this government and this legislation is all about. It cannot be amended. It cannot be fixed. There is no fixing it. There is no fix in this legislation.

Madam Chair, this poll that came out last week, based just on the notice that was given - and that is all this poll was done on, the notice that was given on Thursday by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board - just based on the notice alone, this poll shows that the majority of people in the Province oppose what this government is doing and want to see binding arbitration, which was available to the government, which was offered to the government, offered to be passed in half an hour on Thursday, on Wednesday, on Friday, on Saturday, on Sunday, yesterday, today. This government has said no. They said no, and they brought in another piece of legislation that has all the negative features that we talked about.

I want members opposite to know that this poll is a portent of things to come; because, if you did a poll this week, Madam Chair, after this farce, after yesterday's rallies, after the speeches that were made at that rally were reported in the press, after the provisions of this bill have become known, after the debate that has taken place in this House, after the leadership of NAPE and CUPE went on television and said we are going back to work with our heads held high, we are calling this strike over, if we had a poll now, this would be only a joke. The 52 per cent would be 85 per cent. The support for the government's position would be down to 5 per cent, if they could manage that much, maybe 10 per cent.

Members opposite not only are doing a dastardly deed; they are making a very significant big political mistake, flying in the face of democratic principles, putting an end to free collective bargaining in the public sector, because it is not only the 20,000 workers. What about the 8,000 teachers? Are they going to sit down and negotiate with this government? What prospect - some of you are teachers; some of you have been teachers - does the NLTA have of sitting down and having confidence that collective bargaining negotiations can take place? What prospect does the nurses' union have?

I was there when the Government House Leader was outside this House; he was introduced as the next Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. They were so enamoured with the kind of speeches he was making here inside the House on their behalf that, when he and I went out to talk to them the night that the legislation was being passed, he was introduced as the next Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is how much faith they had in the kind of statements he was making in this House. Now we have a situation where he is over there marshalling through legislation that is worse by far than the legislation that he opposed on behalf of nurses in this Legislature four years ago.

I ask the Government House Leader, can he tell us what confidence does he think the executive and the bargaining committee of the nurses' union are going to have in sitting down with this government and saying: We are here to negotiate as free and equal citizens of this Province.

MADAM CHAIR (S. Osborne): Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. HARRIS: By leave, to clue up, Madam Chair?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MADAM CHAIR: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: That is the kind of circumstance that we are in, Madam Chair, that free collective bargaining has been brought to an end by this government and this legislation, unnecessarily, unprecedented, unacceptable and unjustifiable. I think this is one of the worst days in the Legislature that I have spent, where we are seeing this kind of legislation being brought, not only under circumstances that we have but where it is absolutely, totally unnecessary, after a strike is over. You are making fools of yourselves and, in the process, making fools of us all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. LANGDON: Obviously nobody wants to speak, Madam Chair, so I will -

This is my second time today to speak about this particular piece of legislation that is before us. I have to agree with the Leader of the New Democratic Party. This is really a sad commentary about political life in Newfoundland and Labrador. There are no two ways about that. It does not matter where you sit in the House, if you sit as a member of the Opposition or you sit as a member of government. We have a piece of back-to-work legislation here, where the employees have already gone back to work. There is no need for the legislation. Yet, we are here 12 o'clock, midnight, on Tuesday night, saying not only to ourselves, who are the people in the Legislature, but to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who sent us here, and not only to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador but to the nation as a whole, that we are here debating a piece of legislation to put people back to work who are already back to work. Just think about the folly of it. Really, in a sense, it reflects on us as a sad commentary.

I say to the Government House Leader, I have a lot of respect for him, no doubt about that. He was saying earlier - I think I heard him when I was outside; I do not think I was in the House at the time - that everybody here on this side of the House paints everybody on the government side as if you were coming through the doors with horns on, or some costume, that you were bad people or something.

MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: Okay, but -

MR. E. BYRNE: I was responding to the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. LANGDON: Okay, but do you know what? We do not have to do that. We do not have to do that to each other. The people who are in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, if there is somebody watching, can see it for themselves. We do not have to do that. They make the judgement. The thing about it is, and I have said it here many, many times - it is like, in a sense, a broken record; you say it over and over and over - the people who sent us here as their representative - and there are forty-eight of us; we are all equal when we come here - will look at what is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador and, I am telling you, three-and-a-half years from now they will make their decision. Make no bones about that, that will happen.

The question begs to be answered again: Why are we here? There is no doubt in my mind why we are here. It is because the Premier has said so, that he wants this piece of legislation. There is no other reason. What other reason would we be here, other than that? I am confident in what I am saying, that there are people opposite who do not want this particular piece of legislation to go through.

The inference from that was that there is nobody who has ever come into this House, no matter from what walk of life we came, as an electrician, as a teacher, as a lawyer, no matter what, when there is something inferred into that, that we are not as equal, that there is something about it that he can do differently than the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune or the Member for Exploits or the Member for CBS or whatever district we come in. I am not surprised, and I said it yesterday when I was speaking or one day last week, that I am not surprised we are where we are. I do not know for sure if I can say it because I do not have the absolute proof, but I feel it within my gut - I have been around here for fifteen years - that there was an agenda, and no matter what happened there was no caving in. There was no capitulating on behalf of the Premier. They wanted this, and used the expression: Come hell or high water I am going to have it. We see that again tonight. Really, in a sense, those of us who come here to be in this House, that has to give us some concerns. It really does, because all of us, we have to treat each other with respect, but I see that particular attitude coming through lots of times.

I think about the member for - sitting next to me from Bellevue. The Premier has belittled him a number of times. They have called him Mickey Mouse. I have heard a lot of people snicker and smile when they have said that, but you stop and think about it. Just stop and think about it. The Member for Bellevue - and I have heard him say many, many times - grew up in a small community on Woody Island with no parents, just an orphan. Just think about that! He was able to - because of the education system, on a bursary, going - I am not sure, I have never asked him where he went to school to. It could not have been on Woody Island. It had to be somewhere other - probably Arnold's Cove or whatever. He was able to go to university. He was able to graduate, not only with a bachelor's degree but a master's degree. I am telling you, it takes a lot of initiative, it takes a lot of guts, it takes a lot of drive, it takes a lot of commitment when you have nobody other than yourself to make it and when you sit in the House and the Premier refers to you as Mickey Mouse, then it gives me shivers. It really does. Really, in a sense, you are belittling the representative that the people from his district have sent here. He has been here five times. Now, that is not the way that he is perceived in English Harbour East, it cannot be; or in Terrenceville, or in Bay L'Argent or in St. Bernard's, if they did they would not vote for him. They just would not.

We see the same type of attitude prevailing when it comes to the people whom we are talking about here tonight. The people who are at the lower end of the bargaining scale, the general services workers. It's the same thing, same principle. You know, in my heart of hearts, I believe that it was intended that these people would be made an example of for all collective bargaining that is going to come.

I taught for a number of years. I did not retire from teaching. I came here in 1989 - university and teaching in the schools. I had twenty-seven years in when I came here. That was a fair bit of time I had before coming into this particular office - I have lost my train of thought for a second. Anyhow, when we come here, we come here, as I said, to do work. When these people from the general services group of people, are the people that in a sense has been made an example of. You do not question, you do not do this because, at the end of the day, this is what you are going to get.

Getting back to the teachers. I taught, as I said, for twenty-seven years in university and teaching. I would venture to say that every teacher out there - and I have not spoken to one teacher, not one of them, but in my heart of hearts I believe that one of the things - if you were to go and ask the teaching profession today what they are scared about in this round of negotiations, do you know what the first thing is they would tell you? Thirty and out is gone. After thirty years of service in the classroom, you can go. They are saying: we are scared to death that that particular component of our contract is gone. We will not be there anymore.

When you think about it, sick leave benefits for teachers is about two per day, I think it is. It is eighteen a year because you teach about nine months of a twelve month period; two a month. There is no doubt in my mind because you see, you cannot create cheese of one and chalk of the other. Everybody has to be treated fairly and has to be treated the same way. What are we going to do with the sick leave for teachers and new people who come into the system? It is not going to be two, it is going to be one. What about the nurses? They have two a month. Not two anymore, it is going to be one for new recruits, people coming into the system. That is what is out there and that is what the scare is.

I talked to a person last week, and he said: this particular fear that is over the whole Province is having a detrimental effect on business. In fact, one of the car dealerships here in St. John's, in 2003, in March month, sold eighty units. Do you know how many they sold in March, 2004? Thirty. Thirty instead of eighty.

I talked to another person who has a business in here. He said the business is flat. I have six fewer people hired on this time, this year, end of April, than I did last year. I talked to one of the people at the hotels in Gander. He said it is flat, it is gone - the uncertainty of it. It is happening all over. The thing about it is, whether you are a member of the general services bargaining unit, or you are a teacher, or you are a nurse, or anybody who is involved with the public purse, people are scared. They will not buy the expensive items like cars and trucks and all-terrain vehicles or whatever the case might be. They do not even want to buy the large items of an electrical appliance, whether it is a fridge or a stove, washer and dryer, unless it is absolutely necessary. They want to keep their dollars. So, this has a repercussion right through the whole system. There is no doubt about that, and nobody can deny it. As a result of that, we are going to see a situation where more and more people are going to feel the pinch of what is happening here.

Think about the fishing industry. I am sure that the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and Labrador Affairs is certainly concerned about that. That is another 20,000 people. Do you know what is happening, or will happen very, very shortly? I know in my area, where I live - and I represent the Southwest Coast - do you know what will happen? They will go out and they will catch crab. Do you know where they will land it? It is just as easy, just the same distance from where they fish on the Southwest Coast, to Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, and it is to come here. Do you know what happens in Glace Bay, Nova Scotia? I will tell you one thing. Last year, a young person told me: I was out fishing for cod in 3Ps - and the Member for Burin-Placentia West would know where that is, because we grew up in that area - and they had a quota of cod to catch. They were getting fifty-three cents a pound for it here in Newfoundland and Labrador. They did not bother to come here. They went to Nova Scotia. Do you know what they got? One dollar and three cents. He said: If we had gone a day before, we would have gotten $1.53. So, where is the work here? It is a problem. I know that the minister is grappling with it and he has to work with it, but it is not something that we can take lightly. It is this type of thing that I am sure we would like to be able to work on, or the Budget.

I talked to a person in my area who is a small business owner and he said: Do you know what the fees will mean for me in the Budget, because I have a restaurant and a lounge involved in it? It means another $600 in fees that I did not have to pay last year. Six-hundred dollars. These are deterrents to business. He says: What I will have to do is, I will have one employee less in this particular premises than I did the year before.

You multiply all of that through the rural parts of the Province and see what is happening. It is devastating. I can go on for twenty minutes, but I am not going to go a long time. I think I have made my point. There is absolutely no need for us to be debating this here tonight. There is none whatsoever. There is no reason for it. The people have gone back to work. The people who are the security are out here working. The people at Hoyles-Escasoni Complex have reported for night shift. Tomorrow they will report for day shift, right across the whole system. So why are we here debating a bill, after midnight, to put people back to work? It is beyond me. Probably I am not smart enough to be able to understand the ramifications of what it is all about. I have been here for fifteen years and I never, ever, saw that happen since I have been here. Because, really, in a sense, if there was any need for it, and there were people who needed to get in the hospital and they could not because of the services, because of the strike, then obviously there would be a need for it, to do it. That is not the case any more. It is not there. Here we are debating this, as I said, early in the wee hours of the morning, and there is no need for it. I know, without a shadow of a doubt, that at the end you will support it, and that is the way the government will work. All I can say to you is this, and I guess I will not have an opportunity to speak on it any more because of the closure motion and all of that -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. LANGDON: Another reading? I will say it anyhow. I will say this to you: It does not matter where you sit, if you sit here, here, or there. The people who are out there - and they have just said it in the poll that was done. I was surprised, by the way. Just think about it, the poll that was done by Telelink. I do not know who they are. I do not know if they are credible, or whatever the case might be, but their poll said this: Between the people who were polled, more than 1,200 people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, between two options, saying that we should send it to binding arbitration or should negotiate, more than 90 per cent of the people.... Eight per cent of them had no opinion. What does that mean? Less than 1 per cent of the people thought that the government was doing right. That is a large number. That is a large number. I am telling you, and I do not have to tell you because you know it - and there are people here who are my senior in the House - the e-mails that are coming through from all walks of life, from all districts. I am not soliciting it. I do not solicit. As I said, I do not believe in doing it, because the people who are in my district will know at the end of the day if I am doing my job or not and they will tell me in three-and-a-half years from now. There are too many of them coming in, people who are saying this is dictatorship, this is betrayal.

These are not my words. These are words that are coming in. People realize what this is and, I am telling you, it is not a pretty sight because there is no need for it now. The people have gone back to work. People do not need to be here in this situation, neither one of us. We should be home with our families because there are no immediate needs for this to happen, and they could do it in day four or five, next week or the next week after, or whatever the case might be.

Madam Chair, as I said, I have been here for fifteen years, April 21, gone. I came here in 1989, and I have never seen this type of thing happening before - not what this is about. You know, I think it was one of the guys from the media at VOCM who says: The calls are coming in not only from Newfoundland and Labrador but every province of Canada, and territory, saying: What are you guys doing here in Newfoundland, debating a piece of legislation to put people back to work when they have already gone back?

Those are not my words. It casts a shadow on all of us as to what we are all about. There is no need of it. At the end, collectively, we pay the price because people will look at it and - I do not know if they will call us fools. They might call us imbeciles or morons or whatever the case might be, whatever word they will put on it, but they know what we are doing is not needed and, at the end of the day, as I said, we will pay the price for it as a profession and we will pay a price for it as individuals because of what we are doing here tonight.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would have offered my speaking time, albeit we are limited by the closure rules here, to some member opposite, but I guess they are in the hush puppy section tonight and all day. We do not hear much coming out of these people today, these people who stand for their constituents and speak for truth and justice and all of those good things when they are out looking for votes. They do not want to stand up here today and speak to us.

Madam Chair, the purpose of this stage of legislation which we are dealing with here, Bill 18, Committee stage - normally, Committee stage gives the Opposition an opportunity, and even the government, as we saw done in the Student Financial Aid Act, an opportunity to look in detail at the sections. If there is any particular section of the act that we feel is particularly onerous, unreasonable, or maybe missed something - quite often legislation comes into this House and you might miss something - that gives the Opposition a chance to propose an amendment, be constructive about it. If the government does not like it, they say, no, no, that is unnecessary; we do not agree with you there, they still have the option of saying we are going to vote that down, that amendment. That is what would happen at this stage.

What we have done here under Standing Order 48 is, we have had a muzzle put on the Opposition. You cannot do your duty any more and be constructive and offer a constructive suggestion, no matter how relevant and how rational it might be. You are told: Get up, don't even propose an amendment, it is out of order, can't accept it. Just get up and take your twenty minutes, then sit down and shut up, and we are going to put this to a vote. So much for democracy, so much for constructive criticism, so much for proposing legitimate and valid amendments. That is the structure under which we are working here today.

A lot of words have been used to describe Bill 18, despotic, arbitrary, brutal, cruel, demeaning, domineering, harsh, oppressive, overbearing, severe, tyrannical and draconian, and they all fit. Everyone of those words fit this legislation.

It is amazing to see the transgression that has taken place in the last couple of weeks here, since the strike has been on. For weeks on end, the Minister of Health and Community Services, the Minister of Finance and the Premier stood up here and said: No, we have not reached emergency status yet. The health care is coping. Don't worry, no problem, not necessary to go to the Legislature. In fact, if you rewind to a couple of years ago: We would never go to the Legislature. Absolutely unnecessary to go to the Legislature. We heard that when the strike first started, but as time went on: No, we are coping, everything is fine. Except, last Thursday, bang, all hell bust loose. All of a sudden, we had an emergency. We had an emergency! The Minister of Health and the Premier were going to meet with the health care officials on Friday morning. The Premier told everybody, after the talks broke off at the Fairmont: We may have to impose legislation. Not sure. We will think about it overnight and we will let you know tomorrow. We might have to give notice. Lo and behold, they had their meeting on Thursday morning and back they came and, sure enough, notice was given of legislation. This non-existent emergency became existent overnight and all of a sudden the Minister of Health is on her feet saying: We have to take the advise of the professionals and we must proceed to do what is in the best interests, safety and caution, of the people of this Province, because we don't want to see anybody harmed. We must consider putting in back-to-work legislation. Urgent! Urgent! Urgent! Public health and safety.

Minister, you are going to be asked again tomorrow by the media, and you are going to be asked in the Question Period in this House tomorrow: Is there an emergency now? Is it urgent now, Minister? I expect you will do the same consultations, overnight and in the morning, with the same health care professionals you did them with last week, and I suspect you are going to come back here and give us a truthful answer, and that answer will be none other than the fact that it is not urgent, that it is not an emergency anymore, because they have all gone back to work. So, Minister, that is going to be your question tomorrow. You do not have to be a rocket scientist to figure that one out. So, you have your question in advance.

Now, I move on to the speaker issue, and talking about this Bill 18 and all those words that I said could be used to describe it. It is amazing as I look across this House tonight, at the non-speakers on the other side. We have had one speaker from the government side today, the Government House Leader, who stood up and spoke today. Now I say very clearly, he spoke today. He did not speak on Bill 18. He did not utter one word, one comma, one sentence about Bill 18. He tried to take us back into the past again and deal with debt-to-service ratios and all this kind of stuff, but no reference to Bill 18.

I am amazed at the silence of the members. I do not know all of you. I know some of you personally. I have not gotten to know all of you yet, but I am amazed, simply amazed at the silence. We were having a (inaudible) back and forth in this House in the last two or three weeks. Everybody was on their feet debating vigorously; the cut and the thrust of debate, very nice. People were having their maiden speeches and you were all anxious to tell about how good you felt to be here and how honoured you were to be here; that your constituents put you here. Well, you all fell off your soapboxes today. I do not see any soapboxes over there today, not one.

What are these pretenders, I say - the silence is deafening. What were your options over there? What are your options as you sit there now in your seats tonight and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador watch you? Hopefully, all of your constituents are watching you. You had a lot of options.

MR. T. MARSHALL: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: I give the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, I say to the Minister of Justice, more credit than himself. I think this is a very interesting and urgent issue. Urgent from the point of view that they want to know exactly what this government is ramrodding down people's throats.

What are the speaker's options? What are the MHA's options in government here? Just size them up. This is not rocket science. A. You could stand up and say: I support this bill for the following reasons; and list them out. If it is one, you can give it. If it is two, you can give it; or three or ten. I have not heard one of you stand up and say that: I support this bill for that reason. You do not have the intestinal fortitude to stand on your feet and say why you support the bill. You voted, but not stand up and say why. Never pronounce why, God forbid.

Option B, stand and say: I don't necessarily support the bill but I will support my leader's wishes. Tell it, if that is the reason. If that is the truth of it, stand up and say: I have some problems with this. I do not like everything about it but I am going to support it because that is what my leader wants. Tell it truthfully. Tell it like it is.

Option C: There are some parts of the bill I disagree with - such as the penalty section, I say to the Minister of Justice. I disagree with some of these parts of the bill but I will vote for it - even if you let your regrets be known. That is option C.

Option D, you could have stood up and said: I cannot and will not support this bill. You could stand up and say that, but you cannot say it publicly. You could say: I am doing it under restraint, under duress - my fear of retribution from the party, discipline, whatever - and that is why I cannot stand up and say how I actually feel. Or, you could stand up and say: I cannot and will not support this bill. I am going to state my reasons for such and I am going to state them publicly. Now, I do not know of anything else on the spectrum of options that you have. I think that covers them all.

I have not heard one of the members opposite today stand up and take either one of those options. So, do not say you never had any options. Where is your first responsibility? Is it to your leader, is it to your people, or is it to your party? Which is it? That is pretty clear to tell your constituents. That is the only question they want to know. When we put you here what was your first priority? To your leader, to your party or to your people? A simple question. You ask the question of yourselves. I do not need to pose the question to you.

There are no urgent timelines here now. The urgency has gone out of the health care situation. The Government House Leader is a very fair person. He will allow each of you to stand on your feet and speak if you wish, have no fear about it. The Government House Leader will allow each and every one of you the opportunity to stand. Now, he is not doing it for us. He rammed closure down our throats today, but if you wanted to. He told me and the Leader of the NDP: oh yes, we will be up speaking today. Not a problem, he said. We have until 1:00 o'clock tonight. It is 12:27 now. Your constituents are the only people you are going to have to answer to, other than when you stand in your places here tonight and speak.

I have to say this, because I was a part of the government over there during the nurses thing. I heard people over there standing up and calling us cowardly and had no - intestinal fortitude was a word that was used all the time. Gutless, some people even said. Those were the words that were thrown across this floor at people who were over there then, in a piece of legislation that was totally different than this piece; far less onerous than this piece.

Bill 18, I say - particularly now - is wrong in law. It is contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Mr. Minister of Justice, as you will find out in time. It is wrong in fact. It is wrong in conscience. It is wrong in principle. It is wrong in equity. It is wrong in justice, and it is morally wrong. But, besides all those wrongs you have one major problem with it after tonight, and what NAPE and CUPE has done. It is frivolous. It is unnecessary because it is not enforceable. It is drafted and prepared and will be passed on the premise that we have a strike. There is no strike. Your bill that you are so anxious to ram down our throats, I say to members opposite, had no purpose. It does not have any enforceability. I will not be the only person to tell you that, you will find that out in due course.

Now, we talk about contradictions. We talk about contradictions again, and I would just like to point some of these things out because I certainly miss a lot myself but the things I do pick up, if I think it is worthy, I think is worth passing on sometimes. Contradictions - and I have a problem with them. Binding arbitration - which we talked about, and everybody in the Province has heard about in the last few days. Binding arbitration is okay for correctional officers in this Province. Binding arbitration is okay for RNC officers in this Province. Binding arbitration was okay to resolve the doctors' impasse last year in this Province. Binding arbitration is the recognized dispute resolution mechanism under section 30 of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. All of a sudden we run slam-bang into this: Binding arbitration is not okay for NAPE and CUPE. There are contradictions here. I do not understand how come it is all so good for all these other people. Surely, the Premier, I mean - buddy-buddies, likes, and all kinds of admiration for the RNC. It is okay for them, but it is not okay for the people in NAPE and CUPE. I really, really have a problem with it.

My question is: Now that it is no good for NAPE and CUPE - and I said I thought it was good for all those groups - I wonder is it? If I were in these groups now I would be very worried. I would be very, very worried as to what this government and this Administration, if you do not like it, lump it, we are going to take away from you. I would be very worried.

Again, I must come back to the closure piece. It is very relevant, a very telling thing what this government has done here today. I can see - and myself and the Leader of the NDP have been talking and negotiating with the Government House Leader over the last two or three days about how this was going to happen, the timelines as to when it shall be done, how it could be done and so on. He had an agenda he needed to meet, and whatever. All of a sudden we said - I said to him today, actually, I do not mind saying - well, what happens if they go back to work? Do we have the urgency any more? Does that change anything? Obviously not. We are here tonight, notwithstanding that everybody this was about have gone back to work. We are still here with closure, a hood over our head, with an ability speak for only twenty minutes and dare not propose an amendment.

I find it very strange, and I have to say this, I hope, if the members opposite - and I use the word again - don't have the intestinal fortitude to stand up on this piece of legislation, you will not have the gall to stand up on a piece of legislation of lesser import; because we are certainly never going to see, in this term, a piece of legislation of lesser import than this one. If you cannot bring yourselves to your feet to speak to this bill, I would assume you would not have the gumption to stand up and speak to anything of a lesser import. You talk about jackboots - and I must refer again, of course, to the speech of the Member for Lewisporte, as he then was.

March 31, 1999, the jackboot speech I call it, but I was wrong. He says, on March 31, talking about the penalties in that piece of legislation, in the nurses' strike, "So let us be clear, that the hobnailed boots of the government have been ground into this union." Mighty powerful words, mighty powerful words, no matter what the union - the nurses' union, NAPE or CUPE, the RNC, or whomever - a pretty staunch approach.

"I also want to say that back-to-work legislation is something that I have seen before, but I have to say, as has been said by other people in the Legislature, I have never seen back-to-work legislation as heavy-handed as this. This back-to-work legislation that has been forced on the nurses' union in this Province, as far as I know, my research tells me, is the most high-handed, heavy-handed, back-to-work legislation ever proposed by a government in this Province."

Well, I say to the Member for Lewisporte, we have a new high; we have a new precedent. We have a new level of heavy-handedness now in this Province.

Anyway, I look forward to seeing the soapboxes come out again, down the road, once this matter of extreme import gets dealt with. I would suggest to the members opposite - I call them hush puppies - we will see how the sheep act when the vote is called at 1:00 a.m. We will see.

My final concluding remarks, and I direct these to the Minister of Justice because he likes to get up sometimes and tell us to get on with the business here, I would like to get on with the business here with the minister. I refer to the scheme of the act. It is not a lengthy piece. If anybody looks at this, despite all of the paperwork that was handed out and attached, it is a very small act. It would do everybody good just to look at it because - and I use the word scheme. I do not use that in a negative sense because everything has a plan or a scheme as to how it is set up. There are only eight sections to the act - eight sections - a very small act in terms of size and the number of sections. I have seen them where they have been 500 sections. We have eight sections here and, if you all take a close look, seven of those sections deal with back to work. Seven of them - seven out of eight - deal with back to work, but there is one section in that act, section 5, and only one section, that does not deal with back to work. What does it deal with? It deals with terms and conditions of employment. It imposes upon NAPE and CUPE the terms and conditions of what they will live under for the next four years, or up to March 31, 2008.

That is very telling, because to have section 5 in amongst these eight clauses - there are only eight of them - shows one thing. It shows the motivations of this government. There were two motivations. Be up front about it. The Premier said there was only one, which was to deal with the urgency caused in the health care sector, and we needed a resumption of services. That was the purpose stated by the Premier in the title of the act, and he confirmed today in Question Period. That is what he said the purpose was. We all know now, from looking at section 5 - there are only eight of them - it says what the other purpose was. It was to dictate what the terms and conditions of the collective agreement would be. We said that, and the answer we got was: Go away with you; you are being foolish and silly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Fearmongering.

MR. PARSONS: Fearmongering. The purpose of the act is to get them back to work. Smarten up! So we said: Fine, they must be right. They would not say that if they were not serious and it was not true. So, what happens tonight? Lo and behold, the urgency goes out the door. Everybody has gone back to work.

I was out talking to the security guards here. They have gone to work in the health care centres around this Province. I actually checked with my own district and, sure enough, lo and behold, they have gone in. They have gone to work.

What does the Government House Leader do here today? Notwithstanding that the sole purpose of this legislation has now been accomplished and you have everybody back to work, we are still going to ram this down your throats and get it done by 1 o'clock tonight. Why? Well, we have no particular reason now, or we have not been given one. What other reason could it be, other than again that the government, as was always planned from day one, want section 5. The government had an agenda. They hid it in section 5. They have been uncovered and revealed tonight, after 6:30, that they no more have the cloak of urgency to act on.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time is up.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Madam Chair.

If I could just clue up for a second here?

MADAM CHAIR: Does the hon. member have leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes.

MADAM CHAIR: By leave.

MR. PARSONS: They no longer have the cloak of urgency to ram this through. Yet, they insist on ramming it through. The comments of the union leadership, and now known widely by the public, as verified by the poll, are quite evident. This government had an agenda from day one: Section 5 must stand at all cost.

You may be sneaky with your motivations and you might not want to tell people. You may not be able to deal fairly with people, and I say shame to you for that.

In conclusion, we will not forget. You will not be allowed to forget. The people will not forget, and, I am sad to say this but, I fear you shall live to regret this shameful act.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, I have had the unfortunate experience, as a Parliamentarian, I guess, in having to address back-to-work legislation from both sides of this Chamber. I have had the luxury of addressing back-to-work legislation from the Opposition benches, Madam Chair, and I can tell you that the luxury of making the speeches that those people made tonight is quite different than the responsibility that goes with the luxury of making a speech from this side of the House on back-to-work legislation. It is quite a different situation, Madam Chair. I participated in that exercise when I was over there, and I have participated in that exercise when I was here. I saw people who are now over there -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Madam Chair, I sat silent in this House for hours tonight and I would appreciate the courtesy -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Madam Chair, I saw people when they were on this side of the House make the same speeches that they expect us to make on this side of the House. No difference, Madam Chair, it is just that the roles have changed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: They do what they have to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: I have no quarrel with that. They do what they have to do but we have to take the responsibility of being the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and we take that responsibility, Madam Chair. They have been all day talking about members getting on their feet and: Why don't you get up and speak for your constituents? Why don't you get up and speak for this person? Why don't you get up and speak for the people who sent you here? Well, I saw that hon. crowd, when they were here as a government, sit on their hands and run the clock out. I saw it happen. There are other people here with me who were in this House at that point in time back in 1999. We saw exactly the same strategy play out in 1999 as it has been played out here tonight.

MR. GRIMES: A point of order, Madam Chair.

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: There you are, Madam Chair. He cannot take it. He can give it but he cannot take it.

MADAM CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Just a point of order, Madam Chair.

The Member for Lewisporte, the Minister of Transportation and Works has every right to make a speech. He had opportunities all day and did not do it. Now, the fact -

MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: And you have until 1 o'clock when then none of us have an opportunity.

Madam Chair, the point is this, he is trying to suggest that when we were the government we did the same as that group, which is sit on their hands. They have been quoting all day from members on this side who stood up and made the speeches about what they believed in because they have been quoting from them. There will be no quotes from this group as to what they believe in because they have sat on their hands, either by instruction or by choice, and we are not going to sit here and have this member stand up and misrepresent what happened when we know what happened today. They have been silent and now he is supposed to be the big hero and save them at the last minute. Well, we will listen to him but we will interrupt if we have to when he misrepresents the facts.

MADAM CHAIR: There is no point of order.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, the hon. Leader of the Opposition does not like to hear the truth, but the truth of the matter is that when we debated a similar motion in this House in 1999 -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: That is what is happening tonight.

We debated a similar motion in 1999 in this House. The strategy - what took place was pretty well exactly, as I recall, what is taking place here tonight.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) changes pretty well.

MR. RIDEOUT: Well, pretty well. The Leader of the Opposition is always talking about words are important. You can read this and you can read that. Look, Madam Chair, I do not have 100 per cent recall. I cannot exactly say, with 100 per cent certainty, if there was one member, two members, three members or four members, but I can say, Madam Chair -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: - that in the course of the debate there were very, very few members of the government who spoke on this similar motion in 1999. That is the point, and if the Leader of the Opposition does not like that, Madam Chair - I had the courtesy to listen to him when he spoke, he should have the courtesy to do the same thing for me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Madam Chair, they have been getting up on that side of the House all night talking about members over here speaking on behalf of their constituents. I ask this question: What government members, in 1999, stood on this side of the House and spoke for their constituents? Who were they? Was it the member who now represents Grand Falls-Buchans? Was it the member who now represents Burgeo-Bay d'Espoir? Was it the member who now represents Bellevue? Was it the member who now represents Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair? Bay of Islands? Grand Bank? Did they get up, when they were government members in a similar situation in 1999, and speak on behalf of their constituents? No, Madam Chair. The record shows that they did not. So for them to take the advantage or to try to cloak themselves as being different people now than they were in 1999, is a sham - that is exactly what it is - and anybody who follows political life in this Province, follows political activity in this Province, will know that is exactly what it is.

Madam Chair, some of those people were in the Legislature when the Wells government - they were part of a government that negotiated contracts with the public employees of this Province and then after they decided that they could not afford to implement them, came into this Legislature and used the power of the Legislature to strip the contracts and roll them back. Some of those people who were in that government are still over there. They are still members of this House today. Well, I ask them, Madam Chair, did they speak out on behalf of their constituents then? Where was the silence then? Did they speak out on behalf of their constituents? No. I will answer the question, Madam Chair, no. Do you know why? Because in every parliamentary democracy, in the British parliamentary tradition, government members speak on behalf of their constituents in caucus. That is where they speak on behalf of their constituents. That is where they make the arguments on behalf of - and that is exactly what they did.

In 1999 they did not stand here. They did not stand here in the public chamber in 1999. I assume they spoke in caucus. I assume that is where they spoke. When they rolled back the wages in - whenever it was. I do not remember, but in the mid-1990s. They did not stand here in this Chamber and speak and defend those actions. I assume they spoke about them in caucus. When the government of the day, of which they were a part, wanted to privatize Newfoundland Hydro and sell Newfoundland Hydro, did they stand here and talk about, and debate about the merits of selling Newfoundland Hydro? No, Madam Chair. I understand there was a pretty good kick up in caucus. I understand that, but they did not do it here.

Madam Chair, let us not be fooled by what we are seeing coming from the Opposition tonight. What we are seeing coming from the Opposition tonight is what you would expect of an Opposition. That is their role, to challenge the government, to keep the government accountable. That is their role, nobody disputes that, but let us not read anything scared or read anything sacrosanct into the holier-than-thou speeches that we have heard coming from the other side most of the night; most of the day and tonight. They are doing exactly what they have to do. They are doing it until the time runs out for them to do it. When we were over there in 1999 -

AN HON. MEMBER: Hobnail boot.

MR. RIDEOUT: The hobnail boot is one of my favorite phrases. I think I might have coined it and introduced it. Well, I am not sure. I think it might have been Steve Neary. I do not want to take any credit where - I think it might have been the former member, Mr. Neary, but it was one of the most enjoyable phrases that I have heard in this House in a long time.

Yes, Mr. Chairman, Trans City, building a few hospitals. You want to talk about Sprung Greenhouses -

AN HON. MEMBER: At least we got hospitals, didn't we?

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, and who got the benefit of building them? Your buddies, that is who got the benefit.

Mr. Chairman, I hope people out there see what is happening. You try to get up here and make a few half-sensible remarks, Mr. Chairman, and you cannot get a word in edgeways.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I ask that the member be heard.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, if the member is sick of listening to me, he has a choice. He can go out the door, but while he is in here, if he does not have those chainsaw earplugs, he is going to have to listen to me. If he does not want to listen to me he can go out, because, Mr. Chairman, the people of Lewisporte District sent me here. They did not send me here by a smidgen, Mr. Chairman. They did not send me here by the mite of a sandfly, Mr. Chairman. They sent me here by a very solid majority and whether they sent me here by one vote or 1,000, it does not matter. I am going to speak on their behalf whenever I feel like speaking, and if some hon. member does not like the way I speak - they got up the other day and kind of made fun at the way that I - the tone and the animation and so on that I speak with.

Mr. Chairman, I remember dad telling me - and God bless him, he was ninety-one years old when he died - boy, when you gets on your feet heave it out of you. That is the only thing I know how to do, because when I get on my feet I heave it out of me. If people do not like that, Mr. Chairman, they can lump it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, Mr. Chairman, there have been people -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, there has been some allegation coming from people on the other side tonight, of: Why should we support this legislation? Mr. Chairman, let us remember that no matter - at the end of the parliamentary day here today this bill will not have passed. This bill will not have been finalized. This bill will be back in another parliamentary day for another parliamentary proceeding, third reading. When we finish up here tonight this bill will not be the law of the land. This bill will not be passed. It will have to come back -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Whether or not it is called again Thursday, or whether it is called again next week or whether it is called again next month, I mean, who knows? That is a decision that will be taken on another day, in due course. The fact of the matter is, we have brought this piece of legislation to a parliamentary point, at the end of this night, but not to its parliamentary finalization. Let's not forget that. You would not know, Mr. Chairman, but hearing the people on the other side speak, that when the vote is taken here tonight - you would not know that when we walk out of here, that is the end of the matter, it is all over. Well, that is not the case. The hon. members on the other side know that, but you need not worry that they are going to say that. That is not the impression they want to leave. They want to leave the impression that when we walk out of here tonight this is a done deal. This is over and done with. We will not be back at it again, but that is not the case.

Mr. Chairman, there have been some issues raised of - why, for example, wouldn't the government agree to binding arbitration, as is provided in the labour collective bargaining act? People generally know the serious financial situation that this Province is in. People have a general appreciation for the serious financial situation facing this Province. If we were to agree to binding arbitration we could not give - and I am sure the other side would not agree - marching orders to an arbitrator before he or she goes out to do their job. Who knows what the arbitrator might decide on year one and year two, for example, where the government has made it plain that we cannot afford to have any increases in year one and year two and we asked for zero and zero? Who knows what would happen on those? It is not what they agreed to, I say to the hon. Leader of the Opposition, and he knows that. When it goes to arbitration it is what the arbitrator comes back with. That is the bottom line, Mr. Chairman. The Leader of the Opposition knows that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: It is not what was agreed to. It is what goes to arbitration, Mr. Chairman.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, again, the point of the matter is that the minister is misrepresenting the whole notion of arbitration. If the parties have agreed to something, such as a wage freeze for the first two years, that does not get sent to an arbitrator. Everybody in the Province knows - maybe the government does not know and that is why we are still here a month later going through this foolish nonsensical debate - that even before the unnecessary strike started the unions had said to the government that we will have zero, zero in the first two years. The Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board is illustrating why we have a problem because he is still sitting in his place saying it is not agreed to. Everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador knows it was agreed to before the strike even started. It was in the news, in case he doesn't know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chair, I will not take any more of the member's time. He spent twelve of his minutes, so there are six minutes left in the debate, and he has not yet said why he supports the bill.

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the Leader of the Opposition to get to his point of order.

There is no point of order.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chair, the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that what I said was a fact. When matters go to arbitration, nobody has any control any more of what comes back - nobody. Who is to say -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: The government was elected, and that is why we are not passing the cheque book of this Province over to an arbitrator. We are not going to do it, Mr. Chair.

MR. GRIMES: Are you going to do it with the RNC?

MR. RIDEOUT: The RNC, that is a process that is already agreed to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. RIDEOUT: They do not have the right to strike.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: They do not have the right to strike, and they gave up the right to strike for binding arbitration. That is what they did, Mr. Chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: The hon. Leader of the Opposition knows it. They gave up the right to strike, for binding arbitration.

Mr. Chair, they can yeah and they can hah, and they can hoo and they can yell, and they can do all they like, but, I tell you, that doesn't sit me down and it doesn't frighten me either.

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

CHAIR: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: The Member for Lewisporte, the Minister of Transportation and Works and Aboriginal Affairs, has said that the RNC gave up the right to strike and they don't have the right to strike. What this government is doing is taking away the right to strike from NAPE and CUPE, in this legislation.

CHAIR: There is no point of order.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I did not raise any points of order tonight, to take up any time on anybody else.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave, you could speak at 3 o'clock if you want.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chair, if I spoke at 3 o'clock, it would be exactly the same at 3 o'clock as it is now; don't you worry about that. When this crowd wants to yell and jeer and hoo and hah, they can do it. The fact of the matter is, they were challenging: Does anybody over there support the legislation? Yes, Mr. Chair, I support the legislation.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. RIDEOUT: I will tell you a couple of reasons why I support it.

Mr. Chair, as I said earlier, this legislation, despite the best efforts of the Opposition to leave an impression to the contrary, will not pass this Legislature in final form tonight. There is another debate coming. There is another parliamentary day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Look, there you are, Mr. Chair. You cannot get a word in edgeways. If they do not like it, up they get on a point of order.

MR. PARSONS: A point of order, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you.

A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I make no apologies to the Member for Lewisporte for standing up on a point of order and taking his time here. We sat here all day and extended an invitation, and the Government House Leader indicated to us earlier today that there would government members speaking. Now we come to the last twenty minutes of this session, and the Member for Lewisporte can say what he likes tonight about this not being a final process. This is a very final process here tonight at 1:00 in the morning. The Member for Labrador West stood on his feet here about eighteen minutes ago -

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the Opposition House Leader if he would get to his point of order.

MR. PARSONS: - and offered to speak. Yet, he could not because the Member for Lewisporte had jumped up when he knew it was the last opportunity of the day to speak. That goes to show, that is strategy again. That is cheap strategy, when you invoke closure -

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: - and, as the very last speaker tonight, he pops up when he never had the fortitude to jump up earlier in the day.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: I say to the Member for Lewisporte, you still have not told us why you are in favour of this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, Mr. Chair, I have been here for awhile. I have never seen any difference in the first twenty minutes and the last twenty minutes. Parliamentary time in this Legislature is parliamentary time. Now, the hon. member asked a question -

MR. GRIMES: Sit down, you fool.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: I hope everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador heard the Leader of the Opposition address me, the elected representative of the people of Lewisporte, as a fool.

CHAIR: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: That is the last word, Mr. Chair. I hope they heard that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the Opposition Leader if he would retract those unparliamentary remarks. The Chair heard them quite clearly and I ask if he would retract them please?

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the unparliamentary remarks.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank the hon. Leader of the Opposition for doing that. None of us, Mr. Chair, I do not think any of us on any side of the House, are fools and I do not take kindly to being branded as one.

I understand my time has gone. I would have liked to have told the Opposition in detail why I am supporting this legislation but they would not let me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

It being 1 o'clock, and according to Standing Order 47, this debate has now ceased in Committee stage. We will now call the clauses.

CLERK: Clause 1.

CHAIR: Shall clause 1 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Division.

CHAIR: Division has been called.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Williams, Mr. Edward Byrne, Mr. Ottenheimer, Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Rideout, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Sullivan, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Ms Sheila Osborne, Mr. French, Ms Burke, Mr. Tom Osborne, Ms Whalen, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Hickey -

CHAIR: Order, please!

The Chair is having difficult hearing what is happening, the procedure here, and the members are unable to hear their names when they are called. If you would be kind enough to refrain, the Chair would certainly appreciate it.

CLERK: Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Denine, Mr. Manning, Mr. Harding, Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Jackman, Ms Johnson, Mr. Jim Hodder, Ms Goudie, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Oram, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Ridgley.

CHAIR: Those against the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Grimes, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Langdon, Ms Jones, Ms Thistle, Mr. Reid, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Sweeney, Ms Foote, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Harris, Mr. Collins.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

CLERK: Mr. Chair, thirty-one ayes and fourteen nays.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, clause 1 carried.

CLERK: Clause 2.

CHAIR: Shall clause 2 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Division.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Williams, Mr. Edward Byrne, Mr. Ottenheimer, Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Rideout, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Sullivan, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Ms Sheila Osborne, Mr. French, Ms Burke, Mr. Tom Osborne, Ms Whalen, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Denine, Mr. Manning, Mr. Harding, Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Jackman, Ms Johnson, Mr. Jim Hodder, Ms Goudie, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Oram, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Ridgley

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

Those against the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Grimes, Mr. Parson, Mr. Butler, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Langdon, Ms Jones, Ms Thistle, Mr. Reid, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Sweeney, Ms Foote, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Harris, Mr. Collins.

Mr. Chair, thirty-one ayes and fourteen nays.

CHAIR: Clause 2 is carried.

On motion, clause 2 carried.

CLERK: Clause 3

CHAIR: Shall Clause 3 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Division.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Williams, Mr. Edward Byrne, Mr. Ottenheimer, Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Rideout, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Sullivan, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Ms Sheila Osborne, Mr. French, Ms Burke, Mr. Tom Osborne, Ms Whalen, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Denine, Mr. Manning, Mr. Harding, Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Jackman, Ms Johnson, Mr. Jim Hodder, Ms Goudie, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Oram, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Ridgley.

CHAIR: All those against the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Grimes, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Langdon, Ms Jones, Ms Thistle, Mr. Reid, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Sweeney, Ms Foote, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Harris, Mr. Collins.

Mr. Chair, thirty-one ayes and fourteen nays.

CHAIR: I report the clause carried.

On motion, clause 3 carried.

CLERK: Clause 4.

CHAIR: Shall clause 4 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Division.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Williams, Mr. Edward Byrne, Mr. Ottenheimer, Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Rideout, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Sullivan, Ms Elizabeth Marshall -

[Noise in the gallery]

CHAIR: Order, please!

I remind the people in the gallery that they are not to interfere with the proceedings of the House, and if it is continued -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

If the people in the gallery continue to interfere, the Committee will have no other choice but to rise, report to the Speaker, and have the galleries cleared.

CLERK: - Ms Sheila Osborne, Mr. French, Ms Burke, Mr. Tom Osborne, Ms Whalen, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Denine, Mr. Manning, Mr. Harding, Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Jackman, Ms Johnson, Mr. Jim Hodder, Ms Goudie, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Oram, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Ridgley.

CHAIR: Those against the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Grimes; Mr. Parsons; Mr. Butler; Mr. Barrett; Mr. Langdon; Ms Jones; Ms Thistle; Mr. Reid; Mr. Andersen; Mr. Sweeney; Ms Foot; Mr. Joyce; Mr. Harris; Mr. Collins.

Mr. Chair, thirty-one ayes and fourteen nays.

CHAIR: Clause 4 is carried.

On motion, Clause 4 carried.

CLERK: Clause 5.

CHAIR: Shall Clause 5 carry?

All those in favour?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: Those against?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Division.

CHAIR: Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Williams, Mr. Edward Byrne, Mr. Ottenheimer, Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Rideout, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Sullivan, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Ms Sheila Osborne, Mr. French, Ms Burke, Mr. Tom Osborne, Ms Whalen, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Denine, Mr. Manning, Mr. Harding, Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Jackman, Ms Johnson, Mr. Jim Hodder, Ms Goudie, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Oram, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Ridgley.

CLERK: Mr. Grimes, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Langdon, Ms Jones, Ms Thistle, Mr. Reid, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sweeney, Ms Foote, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Harris, Mr. Collins.

Mr. Chair, thirty-one ayes and fourteen nays.

CHAIR: Clause 5 is carried.

On motion, Clause 5 carried.

CHAIR: Before we move on to clause 6, I would ask if we can have some co-operation here by being a little bit peaceful. It is late at night and I understand that people are in a different mood, and we understand the importance of this piece of legislation, but I ask if you would all bear with us for another short while so that we can do this in an orderly fashion.

Shall clause 6 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Motion carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Division.

CHAIR: Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Williams, Mr. Edward Byrne, Mr. Ottenheimer, Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Rideout, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Sullivan, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Ms Sheila Osborne, Mr. French, Ms Burke, Mr. Tom Osborne, Ms Whalen, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Denine, Mr. Manning, Mr. Harding, Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Jackman, Ms Johnson, Mr. Jim Hodder, Ms Goudie, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Oram, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Ridgley.

CHAIR: Those against the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Grimes, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Langdon, Ms Jones, Ms Thistle, Mr. Reid, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sweeney, Ms Foote, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Harris, Mr. Collins.

AN HON. MEMBER: Laughing again, Danny Boy. You are loving this.

MR. REID: Loyola, the people of Fogo Island (inaudible) hospital, if you have any worries about it.

CLERK: Mr. Chair, thirty-one ayes and fourteen nays.

CHAIR: The Chair reports the Clause carried.

On motion, Clause 6 carried.

MR. REID: Go out and ask them. (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please!

MR. REID: (Inaudible) Minister from Ferryland.

CHAIR: Order, please!

CLERK: Clause 7.

MR. REID: Laughing now, laughing at the people of Fogo Island. You should be ashamed of yourself.

CHAIR: Order, please! Order, please!

If members continue to interrupt, the Committee will have no other choice but recess the House until members settle down, and then we can get some form of peace here whereby we can carry out the people's business.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is not this side.

CLERK: Clause 7.

CHAIR: Shall clause 7 carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

Carried.

MR. GRIMES: Division.

CHAIR: Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Williams, Mr. Edward Byrne, Mr. Ottenheimer, Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Rideout, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Sullivan, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Ms Sheila Osborne, Mr. French, Ms Burke, Mr. Tom Osborne, Ms Whalen, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Denine, Mr. Manning, Mr. Harding, Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Jackman, Ms Johnson, Mr. Jim Hodder, Ms Goudie, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Oram, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Ridgley.

CHAIR: Those against the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Grimes, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Langdon, Ms Jones, Ms Thistle, Mr. Reid, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Sweeney, Ms Foote, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Harris,; Mr. Collins.

Mr. Chair, thirty-one ayes, fourteen nays.

CHAIR: Clause 7 carried.

On motion, Clause 7 carried.

CLERK: Clause 8.

CHAIR: Shall Clause 8 carry:

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

MR. GRIMES: Division.

CHAIR: All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Williams, Mr. Edward Byrne, Mr. Ottenheimer, Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Rideout, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Sullivan, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Ms Sheila Osborne, Mr. French, Ms Burke, Mr. Tom Osborne, Ms Whalen, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Denine, Mr. Manning, Mr. Harding, Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Jackman, Ms Johnson, Mr. Jim Hodder, Ms Goudie, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Oram, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Ridgley.

CHAIR: All those against the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Grimes, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Langdon, Ms Jones, Ms Thistle, Mr. Reid, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Sweeney, Ms Foote, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Harris, Mr. Collins.

Mr. Chair, thirty-one ayes and fourteen nays.

CHAIR: Clause 8 is carried.

On motion, Clause 8 carried.

CLERK: Schedule A.

CHAIR: Schedule A.

Should Schedule A carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

CHAIR: Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Williams, Mr. Edward Byrne, Mr. Ottenheimer, Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Rideout, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Sullivan, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Ms Sheila Osborne, Mr. French, Ms. Burke, Mr. Tom Osborne, Ms Whalen, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Denine, Mr. Manning, Mr. Harding, Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Jackman, Ms Johnson, Mr. Jim Hodder, Mr. Goudie, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Oram, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Ridgley.

CHAIR: Those against the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Grimes, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Langdon, Ms Jones, Ms Thistle, Mr. Reid, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Sweeney, Ms Foote, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Harris, Mr. Collins.

Mr. Chair, thirty-one ayes, fourteen nays.

CHAIR: Schedule A carried.

On motion, Schedule A carried.

CLERK: Schedule B.

CHAIR: Shall Schedule B carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division, Mr. Chair.

CHAIR: Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Williams, Mr. Edward Byrne, Mr. Ottenheimer, Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Rideout, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Sullivan, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Ms Sheila Osborne, Mr. French, Ms Burke, Mr. Tom Osborne, Ms Whalen, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Denine, Mr. Manning, Mr. Harding, Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Jackman, Ms Johnson, Mr. Jim Hodder, Ms Goudie, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Oram, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Ridgley.

CHAIR: Those against the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Grimes, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Langdon, Ms Jones, Ms Thistle, Mr. Reid, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Sweeney, Ms Foote, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Harris, Mr. Collins.

Mr. Chair, thirty-one ayes and fourteen nays.

CHAIR: Schedule B is carried.

On motion, Schedule B carried.

CHAIR: Shall Schedule C carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay

CHAIR: Carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Division.

CHAIR: Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Williams, Mr. Edward Byrne, Mr. Ottenheimer, Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Rideout, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Sullivan, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Ms Sheila Osborne, Mr. French, Ms Burke, Mr. Tom Osborne, Ms Whalen, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Denine, Mr. Manning, Mr. Harding, Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Jackman, Ms Johnson, Mr. Jim Hodder, Ms Goudie, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Oram, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Ridgley.

CHAIR: Those against the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Grimes, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Langdon, Ms Jones, Ms Thistle, Mr. Reid, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Sweeney, Ms Foote, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Harris, Mr. Collins.

Mr. Chair, thirty-one ayes and fourteen nays.

CHAIR: The Chair reports Schedule C carried.

On motion, Schedule C carried.

CLERK: Be it enacted by the Lieutenant-Governor and House of Assembly in Legislative Session convened, as follows:

CHAIR: Shall the enacting clause carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Motion carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Division.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Williams, Mr. Edward Byrne, Mr. Ottenheimer, Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Rideout, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Sullivan, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Mr. Sheila Osborne, Mr. French, Ms Burke, Mr. Tom Osborne, Ms Whalen, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Denine, Mr. Manning, Mr. Harding, Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Jackman, Ms Johnson, Mr. Jim Hodder, Ms Goudie, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Oram, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Ridgley.

CHAIR: Those against the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Grimes, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Langdon, Ms Jones, Ms Thistle, Mr. Reid, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Sweeney, Ms Foote, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Harris, Mr. Collins.

Mr. Chair, thirty-one ayes, fourteen nays.

CHAIR: The Chair reports the enacting clause carried.

On motion, enacting clause carried.

CLERK: A bill, An Act To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation Of Public Services. (Bill 18)

CHAIR: Shall the long title carry?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Division.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Williams, Mr. Edward Byrne, Mr. Ottenheimer, Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Rideout, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Sullivan, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Ms Sheila Osborne, Mr. French, Ms Burke, Mr. Tom Osborne, Ms Whalen, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Denine, Mr. Manning, Mr. Harding, Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Jackman, Ms Johnson, Mr. Jim Hodder, Ms Goudie, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Oram, Mr. O' Brien, Mr. Ridgley.

CHAIR: Those against the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Grimes, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Langdon, Ms Jones, Ms Thistle, Mr. Reid, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Sweeney, Ms Foote, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Harris, Mr. Collins.

Mr. Chair, thirty-one ayes, fourteen nays.

CHAIR: The Chair reports the long title carried.

On motion, long title carried.

CHAIR: Shall I report the bill carried, without amendments, and ask leave to sit again?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Division.

CHAIR: Order, please!

Is the House ready for the question?

All those in favour of the motion?

CLERK: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: The House is going to have to take a brief recess. There have been so many Divisions that the Clerk has run out of paper, so we are going to just take a brief recess and we will continue with the business of the House.

CHAIR: Order, please!

All those in favour of the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Williams, Mr. Edward Byrne, Mr. Ottenheimer, Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Rideout, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Sullivan, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Ms Sheila Osborne, Mr. French, Ms Burke, Mr. Tom Osborne, Ms Whalen -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

CHAIR: Order, please!

CLERK: Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Denine, Mr. Manning, Mr. Harding, Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Jackman -

MR. BARRETT: (Inaudible).

CHAIR: Order, please!

I ask the Member for Bellevue if we would allow the business of the House to proceed, please.

CLERK: Ms Johnson, Mr. Jim Hodder, Ms Goudie, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Oram, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Ridgley.

CHAIR: All those against the motion, please stand.

CLERK: Mr. Grimes, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Langdon, Ms Jones, Ms Thistle, Mr. Reid, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Sweeney, Ms Foote, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Harris, Mr. Collins.

Mr. Chair, thirty-one ayes, fourteen nays.

CHAIR: The Chair shall report the bill carried, without amendments, and ask leave to sit again.

On motion, Bill 18 carried without amendment.

CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chair, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

CHAIR: The motion is made that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

CHAIR: All those against, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

CHAIR: Carried.

On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matters to them referred, have directed me to report Bill 18 passed without amendments and ask leave to sit again.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chairperson of the Committee of the Whole reports that the Committee have considered the matters to them referred, have directed him to report Bill 18 passed without amendment.

When shall the report be received? Now?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Now.

MR. SPEAKER: Now.

When shall the said bill be read a third time? Now? Tomorrow?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: On tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: On tomorrow.

On motion, report received and adopted. Bill ordered read a third time on tomorrow. Committee ordered to sit again on tomorrow.

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

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

I move that the House do now adjourn until 2:00 p.m. tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that this House do now adjourn until tomorrow, April 28, at 2 o'clock in the afternoon.

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, ‘nay'.

The motion is carried.

This House does now stand adjourned until tomorrow, April 28, at 2 o'clock in the afternoon.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, at 2:00 p.m.