MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to rise on a point of privilege, according to Standing Order 15 of our rules and procedure, and take a minute to lay out the point of privilege as I understand it.
It came to my attention this morning that apparently a member of this Legislature, supposedly from one of the Opposition parties, in the course of debate last night, in the events that occurred in this Legislature, where we did have - and we always welcome visitors to our gallery, because we would like for them to hear all sides of the debate, understanding that they are welcome as long as they abide by the rules, the same as we do in the Legislature.
I understand that after several incidents yesterday - and we have had incidents in the past several days, because we are debating a fairly contentious piece of legislation, and we have the right and we are elected to do so - that the Speaker, you, Your Honour, cleared this Legislature after several events, and you, who are the lone arbitrator of what happens in this House, declared after several warnings that if there was another disturbance the gallery would be closed permanently for the remainder of the parliamentary day. That was a ruling from the Chair, from yourself, Mr. Speaker; not a ruling from the government, not a ruling proposed by the Opposition, but a ruling from the Chair that we always abide by.
The information this morning - which really impedes our ability to perform our duties here in the House, especially when we have visitors, and especially if we ourselves are suggesting to the visitors that the rules are different than what they really are -, the statement on one of the open line programs this morning was that a member of the Opposition visited with our visitors in the main lobby - after the doors were closed permanently for the day, after three or four incidents, and at the instruction of yourself as the Speaker, the only person charged with responsibility to conduct the business of this House according to the rules -, a member of the Opposition, one of us, one of the elected members, went to the group and said: We would love to have you back in, we invite you back in, we are trying to get you back in, but the Liberals won't let you in the Legislature.
I contend it is a very grave breach of privilege for all of us if somebody knowingly misrepresents the rules of this Legislature. I would like maybe an opportunity now for someone in the Opposition to stand and acknowledge that, if that did occur, because it was only reported on open line. I don't know if it happened or not, but people believe it occurred. If that is the case, the conduct of ourselves as members, when we misrepresent our own rules - especially when we are in periods of heated debate, when we want to have the galleries full so people can hear all sides of the matter debated in this Chamber -, if we ourselves are going to misrepresent the rules and suggest that one side or the other of this Legislature determines if the gallery is opened or closed, then I believe my privilege has been offended as a member. Because somebody has misrepresented what occurs in this Chamber. It is serious. It was obviously deliberate if it happened, and I think all of us should feel offended.
I know you would rule on it at some point in the future after considering it. It is certainly an opportunity for someone who, if they did do it, to stand and acknowledge that they made a mistake, and apologize, so that we can proceed for the rest of the day with at least all of us acknowledging what the rules are, and those who have come to join us understanding what the rules are and your role, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all of us in enforcing the procedures in this Legislature.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you take that particular matter of privilege under advisement, and if appropriate at some future point, I would move the appropriate motion under our Standing Orders to have it investigated further.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, there is a due process. It is what debate in this Legislature is all about. I would contend that there is no point of privilege from this point of view. As the minister himself has said, he did not know if it happened, he did not hear it himself, but that he heard that it did happen from someone.
However, I contend there is no point of privilege, and that it is a reminder to everybody in this House. The reality and the truth of how the process in this Assembly works is that through our Standing Orders, standing traditions of the House, tested, held to be true, that provide for the appropriate amount of debate to take place on all matters and legislation before this Assembly.
I acknowledge as well, for all people in the gallery to understand as well, that the Speaker of the Assembly is the impartial Chair of this Assembly. He decides what is appropriate, he governs not only my behaviour, the Premier's behaviour - and sometimes he could control the ministers' behaviour a little better, but that is only an opinion - the ministers' behaviour, and all of us, and also the activities in the public gallery.
I will contend and say I believe the minister has no point of privilege. He has not laid before this House one single shred of evidence to suggest, in a definitive way, that such activity occurred. If it did I can only say this. We uphold and live and die by the rulings of the Chair, and that we will continue to do so.
For those people who are in the gallery today, it is a legitimate point. The debate will take place. At times debate is more heated than others because some legislation is more controversial than others, as is the legislation we will be debating today. If people want to see how members in this House want to vote then my advice, and the advice of our caucus is, to listen to the Speaker, listen to his rulings. You will see for yourselves before the day is over how members will vote on Bill 3.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I am a little surprised that the minister would use a point of privilege to levy accusations based on speculation to the opposite side of the House. Having raised the matter before Your Honour, I do not think it is a point of privilege.
Certainly I think all members of this House recognize that the Speaker has a right to make rulings and the public galleries are there for the public to view the proceedings of the House. I would certainly want to encourage anyone in the public galleries to act in the proper manner and act as observers. Because if that does not happen they will not be able to be observers of what is going on in the House. It is pretty important legislation, although it may certainly be very emotional as well. As the Speaker has ruled, members of the public gallery are not entitled to participate in the debate that takes place by encouragement or otherwise.
Having raised the issue of the clearing of the galleries by his point of privilege, I would like to ask Your Honour to rule, by way of clarification, what the situation is with respect to the press gallery as a separate and distinct gallery from the public galleries. Because I understand from media reports and from individual reports of members of the press gallery that after the public gallery was cleared, and after the House in fact had adjourned, the members of the press who were in the press gallery and who were not, to my knowledge at least, participating in any disturbance, were also ordered to be removed from the House.
While we do understand that the rules are very clear with respect to the public galleries, it is the first time I have ever heard of the press being excluded from the House. I find it very disturbing that that would take place. I do not know whether it was by ruling of the Chair or otherwise, but I think, for the sake of the notion of freedom of the press, and the fact that our deliberations are to be in public unless there are very extraordinary circumstance that calls for a private, confidential, closed session of the House - which is very unusual, and I do not know if there is any parliamentary precedence for it. I am not an expert in that field.
I do think, Your Honour, that it does raise a very important, significant, perhaps constitutional point, that demands clarification; because I do not think that is something we should treat in a light manner.
As I say, we understand the rules with respect to public galleries. I hope all members of the public who are here, whether they are nurses or other interested people, recognize that those rules are well known; but, with respect to the press, I think that it is a very important and significant point. I think that Your Honour could assist us all by clarifying that on the record.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to rise and associate myself with the essence of the remarks made by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the NDP arising out of, I think, the point of order, the point of privilege, raised by the Minister of Mines and Energy.
Indeed, it is a very important point and I suspect that the Legislature and the process is served by having this point raised and giving us a chance to reflect upon it and to respond to it.
Mr. Speaker, I concur with the Leader of the Opposition, and concur with the Leader of the NDP, in submitting to Your Honour the discipline of myself and all members on this side of the House in recognizing Your Honour's authority in this place, and recognizing that Your Honour is the sole authority who determines the presence or absence of visitors in the gallery. I am glad that has been acknowledged by my colleagues opposite and I think they have served the Legislature well in making that acknowledgement.
I join with both the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the NDP in suggesting to members of the public in the gallery, to visitors in the gallery, that the debate which will unfold this afternoon is an important one. It is unquestionably a controversial one, and if there is to be an opportunity for the public to view the debate, to hear what is being said, to watch the vote as it occurs, then it is important that the rules of the House, as has been suggested by both leaders opposite, be observed, and that Your Honour's authority be respected.
Mr. Speaker, I think that this dialogue, in advance of today's proceedings, is important and it serves to remind us all that at the end of the day this Legislature is here to allow vigorous debate on the floor of the Legislature. The gallery is served to allow those who are interested, and who have every right to be there, to observe that debate.
Mr. Speaker, one final point. I want to concur with concerns raised by the Leader of the NDP about the question of the press. Of course, again we submit to His Honour's judgement here. I, too, found it unusual, and perhaps in the heat of the moment it may well have been a mistake. I think we are well served in this place by those who serve us under trying and difficult circumstances, but I submit to His Honour's judgement that the press gallery was cleared when it was; but, again, that too is subject to the authority of the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will just touch that first point first, as I have already articulated to Your Honour, Speaker, my view on the gallery is that I feel certainly (inaudible) should be entitled to stay. I have already passed that observation on.
I would like to just add that the hon. Minister of Mines and Energy now raises a point here that he heard from a caller raised on Open Line. The Minister of Mines and Energy has been in this House since 1989 at least, and he should quite well know the basic rules of this House. I quote Beauchesne '31.(3), "Statements made outside the House by a Member may not be used as the basis for a question of privilege."
This is only a delaying tactic here in this House and he should very well know that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair will take the point raised under advisement and report to the House at a later date.
With regard to the point the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi raised, the Chair has had some correspondence from the press asking for clarification. I have not had an opportunity to communicate with them since I received that correspondence, but I guess I can do that now and say that the press gallery can remain. It will not be cleared unless there are obvious reasons for it being cleared. When the galleries are cleared, it will be the public gallery where the disturbance occurs from here on in.
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to take this opportunity today to inform the Members of the House of Assembly that the Voisey's Bay Environmental Assessment Panel has released its much anticipated report on the proposed mine/mill complex at Voisey's Bay, Labrador.
The government welcomes the release of the panel report. This report is the result of a precedent-setting process that began in January 1997 when a Memorandum of Understanding was signed between the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the federal government, the Innu Nation and the Labrador Inuit Association. From this MOU, the panel was jointly established.
The environmental assessment of the Voisey's Bay mine/mill proposal has been, to say the least, a complex task. On behalf of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, I would like to thank the individual panel members for the patience, understanding, and professionalism that they exhibited in this effort. I would also like to thank the many individuals and groups who participated in the process. While the work of the panel is now finished, ours is just beginning.
Honourable members of this House may recall that the procedure established to deal with the panel report entailed a thirty-day process of review and consultation with the Innu Nation and Labrador Inuit Association. It has since been agreed upon by the four MOU parties that given the anticipated number of recommendations and the complexity of the report, it would be reasonable to allow for a sixty-day period of review and consultation. This will be a harmonized effort involving consultations with the federal government, the Innu Nation and the Labrador Inuit Association. At the end of the process, recommendations will be made to the two levels of government.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I will respond with the clarity and conciseness that I feel the statement should have been given. I would like to thank the individual members of the panel, as well, and I understand why it has to go sixty days.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I agree, it was a complex issue to deal with and we certainly welcome the opportunity to review the panel's report and the submissions that were made to it. I do not know when we can expect to receive that. The minister, maybe, could provide us an answer.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.
MS KELLY: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to update my hon. colleagues on Americana '99, a bi-annual environmental technology exhibition held in Montreal last week.
During the exhibition, our delegation was part of an Atlantic Canadian pavilion, which proved to be an effective and economical way to position ourselves. Participation at the event was organized by my Department of Industry, Trade and Technology, in cooperation with the Newfoundland Environmental Industry Association, NEIA.
Several months ago, the Cuban Department of Science, Technology and Environment approached Seacom Consulting of St. John's on the possibility of organizing technical seminars for Latin America's Second International Convention on Environment and Development.
Americana '99 in Montreal was an excellent venue for discussions between senior Cuban officials and the provincial delegation regarding the seminars, which will take place in Cuba this June. It is anticipated that between eight and ten Newfoundland and Labrador companies will participate.
Americana '99 provided other opportunities for new business development.
Seacom Consulting Inc. of St. John's has a tentative agreement with a private company in Venezuela, as well as with a number of Peruvian companies, to provide emergency response planning and environmental consulting for the oil and gas industry.
Seacom also secured a tentative agreement with a Venezuelan national oil company for the supply of software. In addition, they will be supplying IT related products to the Peruvian government.
Genesis Organic held discussions with the Cuban Ministry of Agriculture on the potential of applying Genesis' composting technology to waste problems in their sugar cane industry. Further follow-up on this is expected to take place during the June mission to Cuba.
Pardy's Waste Management had promising discussions with the Cuban delegation on oily water and septic waste treatment and disposal. They too will be doing follow-up work during the June mission.
While at Americana '99, NEIA made contact with potential clients from Europe, Ireland, South America, India, China and Japan. Meetings were held with potential investors, environmental training consultants and suppliers of environmental equipment. NEIA is currently identifying local companies who might be interested in following up on these leads.
Mr. Speaker, this proved to be a very beneficial exhibition for the Newfoundland and Labrador delegation. Businesses look forward to the mission to Cuba in June to follow up on the initiatives that unfolded at Americana '99.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today - first I would like to thank the minister for a copy of her statement, although I did not have it very much before I got in my seat here today. I would certainly like to get them a little bit earlier.
I would like to say to the minister that not only, Madame Minister, should we be looking at Cuba but anywhere and everywhere that we have businesses in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that can make an impact on our Province, that we can seek out business, that we can find business to create employment for our own Province, whether it be in Newfoundland, in Nova Scotia, in British Columbia or in Cuba, we should always be ready and willingly available to seek out such initiatives. I wish you and our delegation good luck on your trip to Cuba.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I want to thank the minister for doing what I asked the last time she spoke, to give us a report on some positive progress. It is very exciting to see Newfoundland companies active internationally in various countries, particularly in Latin America, our former trading partners in the fishing industry. Our independence as a people depends on us having trading relationships all over the place, and I am delighted that we have seen some success in this particular field.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you.
Mr. Speaker, over the last several days there have been many questions concerning the nurses' strike, concerning the impact on health care, concerning the impact upon collective bargaining, and concerning the impact upon the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. Obviously, and it is clear to everybody in the House and those who have been taking an interest in the ongoing debate, government has taken a firm policy position with respect to not invoking sections 30 through close of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act which refer to binding arbitration.
I would like to ask the Premier this: In lieu of that firm position, which essentially says that they do not believe that those sections of the act will work, does the Premier have any plans to introduce legislation or amendments to formally remove those sections of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act from the law and from the books as it now exists?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Well, Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting answer. If the Premier has no plans to remove it, then could he enlighten the House, from his point of view, under what set of circumstances does he believe that section of the act would apply?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, when we have had the circumstances which we are now into in Newfoundland and Labrador where, after a long period of freeze - before I came back to this House, or had the opportunity to serve in this House, we saw a rollback of settlements because they could not be afforded, and subsequently saw a long freeze put in place where literally the public service was subjected to zero, zero and zero, year after year after year, and where the Province had, as it did in 1996, a deficit position of about $290 million, and where we said we would be the government, the Administration, for the first time in many years to go back to the collective bargaining table and to lift the freeze, to end the zero wage increases on an annual basis, but that we would do so within the framework of a fiscal plan that was sustainable and one that we could afford, and where we negotiated with all other public service bargaining units - with every other group that we sat down and negotiated with - more than thirty bargaining units, collective agreements, over thirty-nine months at 7 per cent, and where such agreements are consistent with all other public service agreements all across Canada - in fact, are at the high level of agreements all across Canada - and where in one case we were unable to conclude an agreement that we think is affordable and sustainable to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and where there is indication that if one agreement is reached that is dramatically at variance with that of all others it will cause labour unrest where labour agreements have already been reached, and where each 1 per cent will cost $16 million a year more, and where the last offer was 10 per cent higher than that settled by everybody else, and where such offer would result in a $160 million a year of additional labour cost, and where such cost would translate into up to $800 over five years, where all that occurs, I think then, but only then - and it should not be a precedent we should ever go back to, if it can at all be avoided - only then should this legislation be used.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Premier did not answer the question. He has stated that any settlement over 7 per cent - that is a collective bargaining issue. I am talking about binding arbitration. You cannot predetermine. Which seems to be the mental block that this government has, predetermining what an arbitrator is going to do.
I ask the Premier again: If this set of circumstances that exists today, if this in your view is not applicable to those sections of the act and you do not have any plans to remove those sections of the act, then could you please describe for everybody what set of circumstances would have to exist for you to invoke binding arbitration?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, personally I think that moving to binding arbitration when we have settled with every other group within a prescribed range, roughly agreements that reflect in terms of equity and fairness equal treatment across the public service, and you have one proposal before you which is two-and-a-half times greater than with that which has been settled by everybody else, that is not the time to go to binding arbitration.
It is important for us in the House to acknowledge that this is not a philosophical question. This is not a right-left question. This is not a Liberal question, a Conservative question or a New Democratic Party question. I have in my hand a copy of an act which was passed in the Saskatchewan Legislature five months ago. It is called The Maintenance of Saskatchewan Power Corporation's Operations Act, 1998. It is a legislated end to a strike and it is a legislated wage settlement imposing 6 per cent over three years; a legislated end to a strike and a legislated settlement on the employees affected.
Now that was done by the NDP Government of Saskatchewan five months ago. It is relevant, because the notion that this is something that has not been done by Conservative governments or NDP governments is simply false. It is something that should be done rarely. It is something that should be done with the greatest of reluctance, as it is being done here today, but where necessary, where other solutions have failed to reach a consensus, then government at the end of the day, with respect to an essential service, has to act. That is what we are doing after a unanimous request from the fourteen CEOs of all the health services boards in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Let me get it straight. We are now taking as an example and justification high-handed legislation in other jurisdictions for justification for what we are about to debate in this Legislature. Is that what the Premier is saying? The reality is again -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: - to confuse and destroy. We are now comparing a set of circumstances like hydro employees in the Province of Saskatchewan to nurses in our Province? Is that what the Premier is saying? Is that what you are doing? Mr. Speaker, he still has not answered the question. You have indicated to this Legislature today that you are not introducing legislation to amend the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act that would take those sections away describing binding arbitration.
I ask you again, what set of circumstances would have to exist for you to live up to the letter of the law with sections 30 through close in the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act? What set of circumstances would have to exist? Wouldn't you agree that the ones that are present in this Province today legitimise the notion of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, and the action that you and your government should be taking by referring to it, and that in doing so you would live up to the request by the hospital administrators and you could end this strike today?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree that the appropriate action today is to go to binding arbitration for all the reasons I have been giving over many days. I can repeat them all but I do not think it would necessarily enlighten the House. It would a repetition of what I've already said.
If the Leader of the Opposition does not want me to cite the actions of an NDP government five months ago in this country to legislate an end to a strike and to legislate a settlement, maybe he would like me to cite the speech of the leader of the Conservative Party and a Conservative premier, Premier Peckford, February 29, 1984, when he stood before this House in this jurisdiction -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: I do not believe Premier Peckford was a communist. I think he was a premier -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to read from that speech: In order to get our finances more in line, to get that deficit down in our current account, government has decided to implement a new wage restraint policy in that there will be no increase in the salary or wage scales of employees of the provincial government or its agencies for two years.
Mr. Speaker, that was unilaterally announced, zero and zero, by government.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, yesterday one of the deputy House Leaders, the Member for Lewisporte, was referring to an act brought in by a government he was a member of in 1981, and he referred to the provisions of that act. This was an act that also legislated, by the way, in the health sector, employees back to work.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, I will. Let me quote this section: Where an employee does not report to work at a hospital in accordance with section 10, the employer shall forthwith terminate the employment of that employee.
Mr. Speaker, this was a penalty which would not just fine somebody but terminate their job. That was proposed and supported by the member opposite from Lewisporte as part of the last Conservative administration in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: He strolled all around the ring, Mr. Speaker. It is interesting that the Premier raises the point of what happened in the Legislature probably over fifteen or sixteen years ago. It is interesting in terms of the comments he made, that we have to get our deficit down.
We have stood in this House in the last three years and listened to every Throne Speech. This is where we get to the issue of money. The Premier said yesterday it is about money, and indeed it is. We will get to it in a second. He talked about: We have had our three best years. We came off a year last year with a surplus, so the circumstances are different.
I would like to ask the Premier this. The Premier has been stating that any settlement over 7 per cent with nurses will have to be extended to others who have already signed contracts. That is if government decides to settle for over 7 per cent. Government cannot, and I repeat, predetermine what an arbitrator would do because nobody knows what the arbitration board would do.
Will the Premier acknowledge that this is not the case, that settling beyond is not the case? If he wants to talk about it, let's ask him this. Won't he admit that the collective bargaining units bargain individually based upon their own individual needs, based upon their own individual circumstances, based upon what may exist in an extraordinary set of circumstances? That binding agreements that are in place now are exactly that, binding agreements, and that there is no justification for re-opening contracts when different settlements are reached with different bargaining teams.
I want the Premier to clearly stand in his place and acknowledge - when he gets wound up with the political rhetoric - that such a set of circumstances existed a year-and-a-half ago, an extraordinary set of circumstances, different needs, different set of circumstances, to provide essential services to the people when he settled with physicians as a health care profession for 23 per cent. What is the difference, Premier?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition's question really betrays, in my mind, a lack of responsibility in this House. The Leader of the Opposition knows that when you start dealing with the numbers of teachers in the Province, the numbers of nurses in the Province, the numbers of people who fill some of the other public service unions, and the number of doctors and the availability of doctors, as time goes on - and let me say, because I know that nurses are listening - that as we need as a province to address the issue of an aging workforce, and the issue of having to provide the necessary incentives in the next rounds of contracts to provide for a retention and recruitment of nurses, that will become an issue in due course.
The Leader of the Opposition knows that we had a chronic shortage of doctors, that we were in a competitive basis with every other province of this country. He knows that the gentleman sitting to his right not only called for the additional monies that were provided in the health care budget to recruit the doctors, but the gentleman sitting to his right, more to the point, suggested that that amount of money was not enough, that doctors should get far more than that which was already provided.
It is the easiest thing in the world, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, to stand and, to every request in Opposition, from every group, say: I am your champion. One of, I think, productive things about having the galleries filled is that during the course of Question Period over the last few days we have heard members stand and ask for more, far more for education. We have heard members stand and ask for more, far more for health care in the area of dialysis and physicians' wages and salaries and new facilities. We have heard members stand and ask for more, far more for those who are on social services.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude. We have heard members stand and ask for more, far more for infrastructure, for roads, for water and sewer.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to conclude.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, governing is about making choices, informed intelligent choices. That is what government is trying to do even when they are hard choices.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Premier for the first time in this debate in the last eight days admitted that 7 per cent was not the benchmark, that there existed a set of circumstances under his Administration with the shortage of doctors in this Province, whereby they had to settle for more than 7 per cent. That the situation demanded a settlement of 23 per cent because of the shortage of physicians.
Premier, the point I am making to you -
PREMIER TOBIN: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: One second. I understand that, but you finally admitted that you -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Listen to me. The question is: In addressing the fundamental realities within the health care profession, surely you must acknowledge that there is a serious situation developing that exists, and is continuing to develop and compound itself, on recruitment and retention issues? Surely you must be briefed on the exodus of graduating nurses in this Province and, in understanding that and being briefed on that, surely you must acknowledge then that, like physicians, there is a set of circumstances that warrants a special set of responses?
Premier, the benchmark of 7 per cent will not meet the fundamental requirements for health care delivery in this Province. Will you stand and acknowledge that Premier, and do the right thing, send this dispute to binding arbitration?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, no matter how many ways the Leader of the Opposition would choose during the course of Question Period day in and day out to phrase the question, government has taken its decision. We are not going to send this matter to binding arbitration because we know it leads to instability. We know it leads to an escalation, a run on the public purse, which cannot be sustained and cannot be afforded.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the record of Hansard will show - and I invite those who watch the Legislature to examine it - that it has been the submission of the Leader of the Opposition repeatedly that the real deficit, he has told us many times - and I invite him to indicate today whether or not he is still of that view - he has said many times here, in press conferences outside the House, in statements inside the House, that it is his view that the real deficit of the Province is $200 million; up to $200 million.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
PREMIER TOBIN: Oh, yes!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, you cannot have it both ways. How much is it now, Ed?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TULK: One hundred and sixty now, he just said.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: Perhaps I can sit down and allow the Leader of the Opposition to tell us what he thinks the real deficit is.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: I very much appreciate the opportunity for a little bit of role reversal in the House today. Let the Premier ask me a question and I will tell him what his numbers are, based on his own numbers, no problem!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Last year's budget - not this year's now -
AN HON. MEMBER: Your numbers.
MR. E. BYRNE: Based on your numbers. Would you like to hear the answer?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: I am going to show you.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: No, yours.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member is on supplementary; I ask him to get to his question.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I understand now. We are playing a little bit of role reversal so I am going to answer the Premier's question. Is that what we are doing?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: You do not want it answered?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: You do not want the answer?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, if it wasn't for the $180 million cheque because the Canadian economy had improved, right here in government's own numbers, they would have been off $164 million this year; $117 million on gross expenditure and $46 million more on capital account. The Minister of Finance knows it. Everybody knows it.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question quickly, please.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what is even more important today is that last September I knew it and it was proven true.
Now to ask a question for another -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: No, I would like to ask the Premier another question.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: Well, it's true.
I would like to ask the Premier another question; because again, and it is clear to everybody sitting in this Legislature, he did not answer the question I asked before. He acknowledged that in the health care field government responded to an extraordinary set of circumstances on recruitment and retention of rural physicians in order to provide essential services in medicine and health care to rural Newfoundland and Labrador, and physicians generally.
In responding to that, government had to sit down, look at comparable rates across Atlantic Canada and offered 23 per cent.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question; he is on a supplementary.
MR. E. BYRNE: Will he not stand and answer the question I originally asked? Would you not acknowledge that nurses in this Province face some of the very same fundamental problems on recruitment, retention, comparability of wage and compensation? Will you not do exactly what you did for physicians, either act in the same way and, if you cannot, because you say you cannot afford to, invoke section 30 of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act and let an independent arbitrator decide and settle this dispute, Premier?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, separating all of the rhetoric on both sides, let us listen to what the Leader of the Opposition has just told the House. He has told the House that it is his conviction that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador - according to the Leader of the Opposition - in the absence of one-time equalization payments from the national government, is running a deficit of $160 million. How can the Leader of the Opposition maintain the position that the Province, according to him, has a $160 million deficit and turn around and ask for an annual increase in wages, if you equalize it at 17 per cent, of another $160 million? How is that being responsible in the House of Assembly?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions are to the President of Treasury Board. Madame Minister, the collective bargaining relationship between the RNCA and the government is not positive and, according to Dr. John Scott in his arbitration decision, this poor collective bargaining climate is the consequence of the tendency of government to confuse its role of employer with its roles as legislator and fiscal manager.
Government rejected the interest arbitration of Dr. Scott's arbitration board for a 14 per cent increase for RNCA membership. Why, Madam Minister, however, has government treated some members of the RNC management quite differently? Why did your government reclassify eight senior officers from lieutenants to inspectors with a result in salary increase of 9.5 per cent? Why did you make that change retroactive to May 9, 1997? And will you confirm that these officers, whose salary went from $48,000 a year to $54,000 a year, are still eligible for the extra 7 per cent offered to all other members of the RNC?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, reclassifications occur all the time within the public service. As a matter of fact, the member opposite was reclassified from Deputy House Leader to his current duty and the Deputy House Leader was reclassified from his former duty to his current job, and consequently had changes in salaries.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Quite obviously, either the members opposite do not know the answer or they do not want to admit to the truth.
Madam Minister, the newly classified inspectors will receive a compound salary increase of more than 17 per cent while others in the force receive 7 per cent over a thirty-nine month life of the new contract.
Madam Minister, all officers with the rank of constable receive an annual salary of $39,531.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question. He is on a supplementary.
MR. H. HODDER: I ask, Madam Minister: Why have you extended the reclassification of some other members of the civilian personnel in the RNC to give them an increase of $4,000 a year before you add the 7 per cent that you talked about? Why have you refused to introduce a new classification of senior constable within the force? Do you believe, by your decisions, that you were fair and reasonable to the RNC in your classification decisions?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Finance and Justice.
MR. DICKS: Mr. Speaker, there are great number of different ways that members of the public service get additional compensation. Pay equity has affected a large number of people in our public service, primarily women, who brought up the issue, who had an independent review, and who found that their pay was substantially increased. That includes nurses, for example, and we are well aware of that.
Secondly, members get step progressions. So members doing the same work, having been here longer, get additional step progressions. They also have the ability to reclassify if they believe that the compensation they receive is out of line with other parallel groups in the public service. The majority of people who get reclassified in the public service are not members of management; they are members of unions.
I say to the hon. member that he is distorting the facts here, that these are broad remedies available to anybody in the public service to ensure that every public servant is paid equitably. What he is proposing here is patently false on the basis of percentages.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I go again to the President of Treasury Board. I do not quite know who that is right now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Two different ones stood already.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. H. HODDER: Cabinet portfolios switch so often.
Madam Minister, I say to you that the Province pays 70 per cent of the cost associated with the RCMP who are stationed in Newfoundland and Labrador. Since 1991, while the RNC skills have been frozen, the RCMP personnel in this Province received a 22 per cent increase in their pay. If we do the 70-30 split, 70 per cent paid by the Province, 30 per cent by the federal government, it means the Province has paid 15.5 per cent of the increase to the RCMP. Why the difference, Madam Minister? Why do you treat your own RNC differently than you treat, indirectly, with your money the members of the RCMP in Newfoundland and Labrador?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Member for Waterford Valley, your line of questioning is absurd.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, what the member opposite is -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Waterford Valley is trying to ask a question which has no relevance to the RNC in comparison to the RCMP in this Province. Everyone knows that salaries for the public sector for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador are in line with what this Province can afford to pay. There are many variances between us and our Maritime counterparts and the rest of Canada. What we provide for our public sector, including in the RNC, is what this Province has the ability to pay.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Madam Minister, the salary for a RNCA constable was $39,531; for the RCMP it is $52,424. In 1991 the gap between the two people of equal rank was $6,213. That gap today is $12,893.
Madam Minister, aren't you concerned with the widening of that gap? Why does your government make decisions that continues to widen that gap? Why do you not fulfil your mandate to our police force, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, recently a non-binding arbitration board awarded an increase, a settlement, a recommendation to our RNC of 14.55 per cent. I would like to ask the member opposite, as he is a taxpayer of this Province: Would you be prepared to pay that increase?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) RCMP!
MS THISTLE: To the whole public sector. The RNCA's non-binding recommendation through arbitration was 14.55 per cent. We have nurses in our gallery today that want compensation of 17 per cent. I ask the Member of Waterford Valley, are you prepared to add that onto your tax bill?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Question Period has ended.
Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have six copies of four special warrants to be tabled today.
Thank you.
Notices of Motion
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to move the following private member's resolution:
WHEREAS we have celebrated the 50th Anniversary of Newfoundland and Labrador's entry into Confederation with Canada; and
WHEREAS certain benefits have accrued to Newfoundland and Labrador because of Confederation and tremendous benefits have also accrued to our fellow Canadians; and
WHEREAS Newfoundland and Labrador's limited power within Confederation to control matters affecting our destiny has often been the source of great concern, frustration and strife for the people of this Province; and
WHEREAS national policies relating to our own resources have often provided greater benefits to other parts of Canada and therefore have not been fair and equitable;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that this hon. House call upon the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to begin discussions immediately on adjusting roles and responsibilities for Newfoundland and Labrador within Confederation to give the people of Newfoundland and Labrador greater say in decisions affecting the overall welfare of this Province and to give to our people a greater measure of control of our own destiny.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is my pleasure today to rise and present a petition. I will read the prayer of the petition:
To the hon. House of Assembly in legislative session convened, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland.
Wherefore your petitioners urge the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to bargain with nurses in good faith, to be fair to nurses and to provide a better focus on patient care, to address the issues of casualization, to provide a fair and equitable wage and benefits package, and to live up to the commitments given by the Premier on the eve of the election to deal positively and constructively with nurses and their issues.
I might add that since the eve of that election, since February 9, there has not been positive direction to deal with the issues that are crucial to nurses here. We paid lip service in the election campaign. This very government here, the former President of Treasury Board back in 1991, stood in the House and said: We have reached a tentative settlement with nurses, and it should not "be considered as precedent-setting for all bargaining units..." Further, he said that "nurses are a special case." I will summarize his remarks: We have to close the gap between nurses and other sectors, and between nurses in other parts of this country and Atlantic Canada. That was the rationale. He said we have to "...stop the loss of nurses to other jurisdictions..."
The Leader of the Opposition mentioned today, and I have mentioned before, with reference to doctors, that we created a problem in this Province by allowing the disparity in wages of doctors to fall too far behind Atlantic Canada. We dug the hole so deep we cannot get out of it and we are going to do the same with nurses. The Minister of Health today, the former President of the Nurses' Union, back in 1991 said: Nurses are shocked that a government, whose Premier is a lawyer, would renege on a contract. She said: We are angry and quite honest. The fact that the collective agreement have been broken destroys our sense of trust in the collective bargaining system for what it is worth. She said: How can nurses go back to the bargaining table in the future only to have the government give you a star and take it away?
She went on to say that the contracts signed last March, and this is back in 1991, were not worth the paper it was written on. She said: The Provincial Budget shows government is only paying lip service. The Budget here this year told of the rosy economy in this Province, a $4.3 million surplus, the best in our history. The Premier stood and said we had the three best years in the history of this Province. Now he turns around and says: We cannot afford to pay nurses, they are just fair, and let the gap widen between here and Atlantic Canada?
Lowly Prince Edward Island, they pay a starting nurse 17 per cent more, and their contract expired on March 1 and is up for renegotiation. Nova Scotia pays 29 per cent. There is an out-migration. We have to start employing, not exporting, our nurses in this Province.
The current Minister of Health and Community Services, the former president of the union, stood and fought for nurses' issues here. She said: I feel for the nurses that are going to be left in the system when they talk about the 900 jobs that were cut back in the early 1990s. She went on to say that she is angry with government's perceived discrimination against women, saying: They deferred the $27 million they had committed then in pay equity. She said: We are not going to let government destroy the collective bargaining process without reviewing all of our options, and including a legal challenge.
That is what she said in 1991. I would like to know what she says today. The silence is deafening today. The only time she was front and foremost was during the election campaign, and then slipped into the back rooms from the public on issues that are of vital importance to nurses here. They have been betrayed, I would say.
The president fears government is misleading the public when they talk about the figures. They are playing with the same figures. Last week, or earlier this week, in fact, I think it was Tuesday, in a statement by this minister, 125 new nurses she said, transferring another 200 casuals into permanent nurses.
This is the issue, the thrust of the petition, that the people are calling on. They are calling to lighten the workloads, increase pay to nurses. Treating nurses fairly is what the petition is about. That is what it is all about, I say. I will have an opportunity in debate, too, this afternoon to address many more issues. I will do it. It is the thrust of this petition, and that is what I will do.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) abusing the rules of the House.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: A former Speaker of the House should know better than to interrupt a speaker when they are speaking. If he wants to stand, and has a point, let him do it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: A former Speaker should be setting an example here in the House, I say to him.
I am not going to be bullied and pushed into -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. SULLIVAN: - listening to what people are telling me.
MR. LUSH: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Terra Nova.
MR. LUSH: I do not want to interrupt the House. I have, on several occasions, told the Opposition House Leader, who is the member most guilty for presenting petitions that are entirely out of order, that presenting petitions is not a place to debate. I want people in the gallery to realize this. It is not a matter of not allowing their concerns to be presented to the House; there is a place for it. There will be a debate.
The Orders of the Day - when the hon. member is permitted to read from other letters that he just read from -
AN HON. MEMBER: There is not point of order.
MR. LUSH: There is a point of order. The point of order is that, when a member is presenting a petition, he is only to refer to the material allegations of the petition. He is not allowed to engage in any debate, not allowed to read extraneous material as he was reading. It was just provocative and that is not permitted in petitions.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
To the point of order, the Chair again wants to remind hon. members that when they are presenting petitions, under Standing Order 92 it clearly states, "Every member offering a petition to the House shall confine himself or herself to the statement of the parties from whom it comes, the number of signatures attached to it and the material allegations it contains."
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The petition makes several statements. It calls upon government to bargain with nurses in good faith.
I find it difficult that last Wednesday morning when the nurses went on strike, that within twenty-four hours we saw a huge advertising campaign. We saw the evidence of, on the one hand, the government saying: We are in consolidation and we do not want to have any comment because that would be the wrong thing to do.
When we got The Telegram, we had full-page ads. When the nurses go to bargain, they want to be dealt with fairly. They want to be dealt with in good faith, straightforwardly and honestly.
When the petition talks about bargaining in good faith, or accusing the government of bargaining in bad faith, that particular comment, I say to the Member for Terra Nova, is very relevant.
The petition calls upon government to be fair to nurses, to provide a better focus on patient care, to address the issue of casualization, to provide a fair and equitable wage and benefits package, and to live up to the commitments made by the Premier. That is the prayer of the petition.
Yesterday, the president of the nurses' association said in a written communication: We were told from the beginning that government would win. In fact, since the beginning of this process government has threatened nurses. They have used statements like: You cannot win. They told us we have the right to strike, but if we did they would legislate nurses back to work and impose a 7 per cent settlement.
That is what we call collective bargaining by this government's standards. It is a new kind of standard and it simply is new rules written for this particular occasion.
This petition here says very clearly that they want government to live up to their commitments. They want government to be fair, to be reasonable, to be straightforward, to come into a collective bargaining approach with the true meaning of the word "collective". You cannot come into collective bargaining and look across the table and say: Oh, by the way, we will win - and tell them in advance: If you do not go along with us, we have the power, we have the residual power in this Province. We have all of that on our side - you are just a Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union - and at the end of the day we will use that power to make sure that we get our way.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. H. HODDER: I say to the minister, I am quoting the very words of the president -
AN HON. MEMBER: No, you are not.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. H. HODDER: - of the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union when she says: We were told, you cannot win.
AN HON. MEMBER: That is a lot different than what you just said.
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, we want to say to government that it is not too late. As the Leader of the Opposition has said this afternoon, if government were to be fair to nurses today they would say: Let us impose the provisions of current legislation which says that we can have binding arbitration. We do no have to stay here.
We on this side have said to the government: If you want to change the rules, we will give you leave on this side so we can have this strike to binding arbitration in about twenty minutes. We would do that, willingly, if the Premier would stand in his place and say: I have seen the light. I now know what is best for the Province, I know what is best for nurses, and we will now change our mind. It would be an honourable thing to do.
Certainly we on this side would say, for the benefit of nurses, it would be what they want. It would solve the problem. We would be out of our current difficulties, and it would be what the laws of this Province provide for right now.
Instead, what we have here is a government that says: We do not like the current law so we are going to write a new one. Therefore, we will just recreate the law. We will just go out and say: We do not like the current provisions, with all the statutes you have over there. They do not let us do what we want, so we are going to go and say: Well, if they will not let us do what we want we will write a new one.
We have to ask ourselves: Where are we? What kind of machiavellian, banana republic are we in? This is Newfoundland and Labrador, not some small republic in Central America.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I appreciate an opportunity to respond briefly to the petition. Basically, as I understand, the prayer of it is suggesting that there has not been a meaningful negotiation between the employer in the Province, which happens to be the government, and the hospital boards, the institution boards, community health and service, and the nurses' union.
Hopefully, because we will have several opportunities throughout the day and the evening and tomorrow and so on as we go through this, to establish certain things...
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that we have established one thing today already, one thing for clear and certain already that has been established in this Legislature today, and that is that either somebody representing the nurses' union - and I don't say this to be provocative; I say this because it is a matter of fact - either somebody representing the nurses' union called an Open Line show and lied about what happened out here last night or somebody on that side of the House who was brave enough to go out in the lobby last night and incite the group would not stand up and admit it today. That has been established.
Now to the point of the petition, and they know which is which.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: To the point of the petition, no collective bargaining has occurred is the point. No collective bargaining is the point. We understand collective bargaining. We have already negotiated successfully with thirty-two groups. With the nurses themselves, we had negotiated successfully to the point that the negotiating team and the executive of the nurses' union had felt that they had made so much progress that they agreed to take it out and recommend it to their membership. Now that is not a sign that no negotiations has occurred. That is a sign that considerable negotiation had occurred, because it had.
Mr. Speaker, the members of this House, particularly the Opposition, were shocked last week - we have used that word a bit -shocked that there was actually a strike, and at the same time we did not want to talk about matters in the House because the negotiations were still ongoing, almost unheard of, but it showed again the willingness of this government to bend over backwards -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. GRIMES: - to continue the process, to provide every single opportunity to try to reach a negotiated settlement.
I understand that some people might have a different version of events. That is fair. I hope everybody stays today because they will hear these kinds of comments over and over again, because it happens to be the fact from a certain side of the argument, and the facts all need to be out there.
Mr. Speaker, we do not understand bargaining in the way the Leader of the Opposition does. Last week the Leader of the Opposition, with respect to workload issues, casuals being converted to permanent and additional permanents, suggested, backed-up by his right-hand man, the health critic, that we should not be negotiating that with nurses, we should have read it in the Budget. It should have been read in the Budget.
Their view was: You should not be negotiating this. As a matter of fact, the Leader of the Opposition is in Hansard as saying: You do not negotiate the number of teachers, you do not negotiate anything else, do not negotiate the number of nurses. Tell them in the Budget how many nurses are going to be there.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.
On a point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, it is clear it is going to be an interesting evening with the Minister of Mines and Energy on his feet a lot.
Let's be clear. It was not suggested by me; I actually told you, Minister, I did not suggest anything. The number of people who implement the health care system, who provide services, whether they be nurses, doctors, lab and X-ray workers, that is a government decision. It is not a bargaining issue.
Government decides on the teacher allocations, government decides on how many social workers, and when it comes to collective bargaining it should be constrained to the collective bargaining, the agreement that exists, in terms of compensation language and contractual language. You do not use, as your government did, the issue of how many nurses should be put back into the system.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to take his seat.
There is no point of order.
MR. E. BYRNE: More nurses for the sake of nurses. The reality is that it is appropriate and proper for it to be done in the Budget, and not to be used as a negotiating chip against your own employees, Minister.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of Mines and Energy made a statement in the House he attributed to me that is not accurate. The statement is not accurate. I said there was a responsibility for the government to announce to put more nurses in the system. They do not have to be going to collective bargaining for that. They have the power to do it and they should do it because it is needed, not because nurses want it. I said: Because there are sick people, and the families of these people want to see it. That is what I said.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member take his seat. There is no point of order.
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. GRIMES: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Not to delay the issue, because we will have lots of opportunities, but I appreciate the clarification from both members. They do not believe we ever should have even talked to nurses about how many nurses should be in the system. They clarified it. We will get to it many times before the day is over.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
No point of order.
I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise today to present a petition:
To the House of Assembly in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Newfoundland and Labrador humbly show that; whereas throughout the issues of education reform both the provincial government and the Avalon East School Board have assured all parents in the district of an enhanced and more efficient educational system; and whereas the Avalon East School Board has already been promised the sum of $15 million to carry out the necessary renovations to the existing schools and provide for a smooth transition to the new school system; and whereas the Canadian Union of Public Employees and its Local 1560 has already provided their employer with viable alternatives to layoffs which will essentially negate any additional costs for the school year; we, the undersigned, petition the House of Assembly to direct the government to intervene in this dispute and have both parties sit down with the view to settling this matter within the framework of the union proposal.
Mr. Speaker, this petition is signed by about 760 residents, mostly of the St. John's area, who support the position of the Canadian Union of Public Employees. Perhaps, by way of background, I should tell you that the Avalon East Board is in the process of laying off nine of its thirteen skilled trades people. That includes seven carpenters, one electrician, and one plumber. The end result would be that there would be only one mechanic, one plumber, one carpenter and one electrician to look after all of the eighty-two schools of the Avalon East region.
If you can imagine, eighty-two schools in the Avalon East region with over 33,000 students, and we have one plumber, one carpenter, one electrician, and one mechanic to look after all these schools. That is clearly not a viable situation to be in. The union involved, CUPE Local 1560, has presented a whole series of proposals to the employer to try to offer some alternatives to them, and they have done that. The employer to date has not responded. The Avalon East Board is responsible for managing the system and I acknowledge that. It has taken the position that they are going to try to get by with the four people instead of the thirteen they had.
Just by comparison, the Deer Lake board, District #3, representing Deer Lake, Corner Brook and St. Barbe, has thirty-eight schools with about 9,500 students - therefore, they have about one-third of the population, less than half the buildings - and they have four carpenters, one plumber, and two electricians, and they are discussing plans for a third.
Clearly something funny is going on here when the school board in St. John's sees that it is going to try to operate with one plumber, one electrician, one carpenter and one mechanic for eighty-two schools. Larger schools too, I might add, because they are dealing with a school population which is three times, for example, that of the Deer Lake, Corner Brook and St. Barbe board. There is something wrong with that.
There are alternatives to layoffs that have been proposed by the union, and the board to date has not considered them. They have offered various ways of dealing with holidays, dealing with other ways of filling in the positions, making some positions part-time, and doing other things that would maintain the school system at a cheaper rate.
One of the important things to recognize with this group, the thirteen people, the seniority level for these individuals is quite long. These are individuals who have worked for that board up to twenty-four years. The majority of them are in the range from sixteen to twenty-four years.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: I ask the minister to intervene and try to find a solution to this problem, to intervene in the dispute, and ask the board to be reasonable in coming to terms with the problem they are facing and the needs of the school board.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The focus of this petition I think strikes to the very heart of a situation that is more than layoffs. It speaks to a situation where I think labour relations within that workplace have deteriorated to a degree where cooperation is non-existent.
If you look at the numbers that are being quoted for eighty-two schools and four employees, then I think anyone in this House and anyone in the public can certainly understand that four trades' people are not adequate to look after the needs that eighty-two buildings filled with young people need to be maintained. There is going to be a concern from the parents of the children who attend these schools, simply because conditions will deteriorate to the point where they will become safety hazards or unsanitary conditions will prevail.
It is important also that in today's economy, with the unemployment level in this Province, for this government to take notice and have meetings with their school boards and give direction. In today's economy with the high unemployment level we face there have to be alternatives, rather than just going by a seniority list and laying off the bottom people, when there are alternatives available such as early retirement, attrition and other means.
I think it is very important that this government talk to this school board and instruct this school board to have more meaningful discussion with the union and to follow the framework of what the union has proposed to deal with this situation.
Thank you.
Orders of the Day
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Order 2, that the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker, I also move that we not adjourn at 5:00 p.m. nor at 10:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Finance has moved that the House not adjourn at 5:00 nor at 10:00 p.m.
All those in favour, `aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: Those against?
Carried.
On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.
Committee of the Whole
CHAIR (Oldford): Order, please!
We are into Committee on Bill 3. Is it, by agreement, ten and ten?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
CHAIR: Okay.
Shall clause 1 carry?
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am prepared again today to stand in my place and say a few words with respect to this bill that is going before the House today.
I have to make a few comments. I spoke on this yesterday for about half an hour, and I made a lot of points. We on this side of the House have been speaking on this bill for approximately twelve hours, which is roughly four legislative days. Not one member on that side of the House has stood in their place and spoke to this bill, other than the President of Treasury Board.
Early this morning - the wee hours of this morning - we had a vote on this piece of legislation on second reading. Everyone on that side of the House, who was in their place, stood and voted in favour of this legislation. Yet, not one of them has spoken and said why they support this legislation, other than the Minister of Mines and Energy, who was up approximately ten times yesterday on points of order on which the Chair and Speaker did not rule in his favour once. Not once was it a point of order - just completely abusing the time of the House of this issue -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: - and trying to be smart, zero for ten.
Mr. Chairman there was a certain minister on the Open Line this morning - I did not hear him but I was told - that he said that he heard the same speeches over and over again on this side of the House. At least, I say to you, Mr. Chairman, members on this side of the House had the guts and the gumption to get up and say why they are against this piece of legislation. Not too many on that side stood and said why they are in favour of this legislation.
I said yesterday that there have to be people on that side of the House - members on the government side of the House - who, down in their gut and in their very being, have to be opposed to this.
If they are getting one-tenth of the calls that I had gotten on this piece of legislation, and speaking to nurses and to the general public, they must know that the general public does not favour this legislation.
The Premier will stand in his place and try to make the case that it is 7 per cent across the board for everyone, and that is the way it should be; but, as I said here yesterday - and I got a note from the gallery from one of the nurses - some of the questions they were asking: Haven't the bargaining units already signed legal binding agreements? They have to wait until their agreements are up and then try to negotiate increases or changes to their collective bargaining agreements.
That is the process. It seems to me that the Premier, the President of Treasury Board, the people who are negotiating - and who have been negotiating, by the way, in bad faith, from my perspective, from what I have seen in the media - do not understand what collective bargaining is all about.
If the nurses - and, by the way, the RNC Association, who had binding arbitration -
MR. GRIMES: No they did, non-binding.
MR. J. BYRNE: Okay, non-binding arbitration. They had arbitration.
MR. GRIMES: A slight difference.
MR. J. BYRNE: So what is legally right and what is morally right are two different things, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy. What is legally right and what is morally right are two different things. They had non-binding arbitration. They went through the process and government ignored it. It is what they are doing here today.
There is a system in place now for binding arbitration when certain conditions fall in place. We have them now for the nurses and it is being ignored.
I find it more than passing strange when the President of Treasury Board got up to speak on this piece of legislation - I took note of the time. She started at 3:04 p.m. yesterday afternoon and stopped at 3:21 p.m. - seventeen minutes - seventeen minutes to introduce a bill that she said was probably the most important piece of legislation that has come to the House in many years. She spoke for seventeen minutes on it.
I can tell you this: If it is as important as she has said it is, and the impact it is having not only on the nurses but on other bargaining units within the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador... If I got up to speak, I could speak for seventeen minutes about my hair, and I don't have too much to speak about!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: To speak for seventeen minutes on a piece of legislation that is having the impact that this is having in this Province.
AN HON. MEMBER: You wouldn't have much to say there, Jack.
MR. J. BYRNE: I can speak seventeen minutes on it, I guarantee you that.
Mr. Chairman, seventeen minutes she spoke on it.
MS THISTLE: Sometimes you can say more in seventeen minutes than you can in seventeen hours.
MR. J. BYRNE: The President of Treasury Board just said that sometimes you can say more in seventeen minutes than you can say in hours. Well, I can tell you, President of Treasury Board, that you did not say a lot yesterday in seventeen minutes.
As a matter of fact, from what I saw on that side of the House, the people over there are telling me they do not support this. Now, someone is going to jump to their feet and say: No one told you any such thing; but, according to what the President of Treasury Board is saying, I can say this: Body language can speak volumes, I can guarantee you that, I say to the President of Treasury Board, who has introduced this bill.
There are so many things that you can get into with this piece of legislation, it is absolutely ridiculous. Just the penalties alone, I mean, really. We are living in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, which is a part of the Country of Canada. We are now celebrating fifty years in Canada; the number one country, for the past three or four years, in a list of countries -
MR. SULLIVAN: Chrétien got it pushed down (inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: Chrétien got it dropped down one or two, I suppose, to number two or three.
Here we are, and we are going to impose legislation that is going to require the union, if they decide to be so bold as to even question - to stay out and not to honour this piece of legislation - $100,000 a day.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island - let me handle this - the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island said in this House yesterday that he was going to get up and speak on this piece of legislation. I did not see him up yesterday. Twelve hours, four legislative days, and you have not been up yet. If you want to get up and speak for ten or fifteen minutes, I will take my place. I will gladly take my place, I say to the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island. It is not likely to happen but I would like to know, from your mouth, why you think this is such a great piece of legislation. You voted in favour of it.
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. J. BYRNE: Now, I say to the people in the galleries -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: The Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island is talking about back in the eighties. Do you want to go back to the sixties, the fifties, the forties? I was born in 1951. I was not here back in the eighties. How many here were in the eighties? Were you?
I say to the people in the galleries who want to be here and watch the vote that is going to be taking place - because there are going to be a number of votes taking place - we are starting here now in Committee and each clause - there are eight clauses and there will be what we call Division on each clause, and the people will have to stand in their place - it will not be just by voice - and be counted.
Yesterday we saw the galleries being cleared a couple of times. Last night they were cleared for the remainder of the evening around 9:00 p.m. or 10:00 p.m. We were here until 1:30 a.m., going on 2:00 a.m. I know because we were here. I remember coming into this House of Assembly oftentimes, sitting in the galleries, long before I got in politics, and looking down like you are looking down now, and saying: What is wrong with those people down there? I was totally disgusted with them; but it is hard to be down here sometimes, when you hear comments back and forth, and not interject back and forth. That is a part of the system to a certain extent. It does get out of hand sometimes, but that is the nature of the beast we are living with.
In the meantime, I say to you now, control yourselves the best you can; because there are going to be many votes and you can see for yourself what is happening in this House of Assembly with respect to this piece of legislation. It is regressive, it is backward, it is archaic. I do not what other words to use.
I could say that across this country, of course, in this Province in the past, there has been back-to-work legislation brought in. They have tried to twist it back on us on this side of the House with respect to back in the 1980s and 1970s, or whatever the case may be, when the Tories or the PCs were in power.
The previous government - the PCs - brought in the legislation that could be used today to settle this very argument that is going on, and that is binding arbitration that is there now. We brought that in. This Administration was trying to get rid of it.
When you see the Premier in his place, and in particular the Minister of Mines and Energy up and down like a yo-yo in this House of Assembly on points of order that are not points of order, they will try and twist it back on us.
The first day that we came in here with this legislation, I think it was Monday or Tuesday, the Government House Leader stood in his place and tried to force us to discuss this piece of legislation on that day.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the opportunity to again make a few comments and try to establish a few things for the record of Hansard and make sure that we are clear on what is happening in this particular debate. We are debating clause-by-clause this particular bill which we recognize as being rather controversial.
The previous member, the Member for Cape St. Francis, referred to the issue that the matter with the RNC is not yet settled at this point either. He neglected to point out that the legislation under which the government negotiated with the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association was established by the Progressive Conservative Party of Newfoundland and Labrador when they were the government. They had a full debate and decided that the legislation that governs bargaining for the Constabulary was fair the way it is written today, because they wrote it.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. GRIMES: No, I am just making sure that we are clear for the record, just to make sure everybody understands what is happening.
So they wrote the legislation -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: In the legislation, after a full, fair and open democratic debate like is going on here today, they decided - that group, when they were the government, decided - that the best and fairest mechanism for the Constabulary when they are negotiating is for them to not have the right to strike but to be able to go to arbitration. The arbitration would not be binding on the government. That was a law created by the members opposite.
They have the former Premier sitting in their midst, who made an impassioned plea last night and cleared the galleries with a speech that he made. They brought him back as their star candidate because they were so proud of the kind of legislation that they put in place when they were the government. They were so proud of the fact that they thought the best mechanism for the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association was to have arbitration that was not binding on the government. What we saw in the last few weeks was that piece of legislation being used to its full extent, being used as it is written. We abided by the law.
Mr. Chairman, guess what? The government abided by the law that they wrote. Do not miss the point - I am sure people are not - the government -
MR. H. HODDER: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: I have lots of time Harvey. I will be up lots of times today.
CHAIR: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, the member is only partially telling the truth; because he knows that in 1986 there was a commitment given to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association by the Progressive Conservative Government to give them binding arbitration.
He also knows, in 1992, the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Justice and this government, gave the RNC a written commitment again to introduce binding arbitration. They have interest arbitration. In 1991, the Picher arbitration said that process that he is talking about now is not working.
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. H. HODDER: He said it was not a positive relationship because the parties relied too much on the arbitrator's decision.
They gave a commitment to change it into binding arbitration in 1992. They did nothing about it. I admit that the Conservatives (inaudible) 1986 but something happened in 1989. It was called an election.
CHAIR: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
MR. H. HODDER: The minister only tells half the story. He twists the whole story.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will continue on and make my point in the context of where we are today, because the hon. member raised the issue of the RNC. The hon. member just made it clear - exactly confirmed what I was saying - the Progressive Conservative government debated this issue, brought in the law which is still the law today. His misrepresentation is this, Mr. Chairman: This government, when we wrote a letter appended to their agreement in 1992, did not say we would give them binding arbitration. We said we would undertake to bring the matter before the Legislature.
Since that time there has been a Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act, a brand new one, brought to this Legislature and considered and passed without a change. This government did what we said we would do. We considered it and considered it and came to the same conclusion that they did when they were the government: that the best mechanism for the RNC at this point in time is non-binding arbitration. So we abided by the law, and we abided by our commitment in the letter.
I know the public speeches are not saying that and so on, and people might be a bit confused; however, we abided by the law. The point that I make is this: When we abided by the law, the position of the Official Opposition is: The RNC do not like that, we are on the side of the RNC so we want you to change the law. He just got up and made another representation suggesting that we should change the law. When we abided by the law, there was a result that they did not like because the RNC say they do not like it and they support the RNC.
In this circumstance - now follow the argument - we abided by the law and they said: Please change the law. In this circumstance with the nurses, we are changing the law, we are bringing it here for debate, we are changing the law, and guess what the Opposition is saying this time? Do not change the law.
Now, because they are supporting nurses they do not want to change the law this time. Last week, and even today, when they jump up and say, we are supporting the RNC, the only way they can support the RNC and their association is to suggest that the government change the law, which is what we are doing today. That is convenient because that is what they want done for the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association.
We respect to nurses, we are about to change the law and their argument flips 180 degrees and says: Oh, we do not want you to change the law. Please, do not change the law. Leave the law like it is. Because that is the only way they can build a case to support the argument to support the nurses.
MR. H. HODDER: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, I will be back several times. There is lots of time in this debate. That is only the first point that I wanted to make today.
CHAIR: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, the minister can stand as often as he wishes and say what he wants to say. It is a free and open parliamentary democracy. He can live within the rules and he will be okay. However, he cannot misrepresent the truth.
The truth is that in 1992 the evidence had come in, he had been in office, he was a minister, and he was part of a decision of Cabinet that said: Please, would you attach this memorandum to the RNC's collective agreement whereby we will say that over the life of this contract - that is what it said - we will introduce legislation to give binding arbitration to the RNC.
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I do not have the letter here in front of me. I can certainly go and get it. I have it in my files. I can have it and come back with it and I will read it directly into the record. That is what it said, and you did not live up to your commitment to the RNC.
CHAIR: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, I assume my time of ten minutes has elapsed.
CHAIR: No, it has not.
MR. GRIMES: It has not?
CHAIR: The member has two minutes left.
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
AN HON. MEMBER: It just seems long, Roger.
MR. GRIMES: I understand, and it will seem longer before the night is over.
Mr. Chairman, the second thing in terms of trying to establish certain pieces of information - and I hesitate to do this but I will do it one more time for the record. I think we have established here today again that unfortunately either some nurse has phoned an Open Line show and lied about what happened here last night - because most people listen to the Open Line show and believe it to be true - or somebody on that side of the House who did what the nurse said has not been a man enough or a person enough today to stand up and acknowledge.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: They were brave enough last night; because I am willing to assume that the Open Line call was the truth, which means that somebody here today who was very brave last night and went out there and said, we would love to have you back in but the Liberals will not let you in, will not stand up today because it is on the official record today, to be followed historically for anybody who wants to look at this in the future. They will not stand up today in the Legislature, where it is written down, and admit what they did last night; because I believe the nurse that phoned Open Line. What it means is that there is somebody there - I am looking at somebody - who was brave last night, and now that the lights are on in broad daylight they are not so brave today.
It is very convenient to play to the crowd, be a big hero, show what a great supporter you are, but stand up - stand up is the challenge - stand up and debate the issues. Debate them fairly and openly and fully, like we will do for the rest of the day, and declare where you stand, on the record.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to rise again today and speak against this bill. I am glad to sit here - no, I am not really glad to sit here and listen again. I say to the people who are in the galleries today, do not be fooled by the Minister of Mines and Energy because he did the same thing last night.
AN HON. MEMBER: Was it you, Bob?
MR. FRENCH: No, if it was me I would admit it, Sir. I have more backbone than that, and more backbone than you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. FRENCH: Maybe we should get Viagra in liquid form for you.
Anyway, I am very glad to stand here in my place today and talk about this legislation. I have letters here today, some of which, if I have the time, I am going to read. I also have a poem which was sent to me. I know my colleague from Burin-Placentia West did not write this one. It shows the frustration of nurses, of a very dedicated group of people in our Province.
I hope the Minister of Health and Community Services listens to some of these letters because she should, if she does not, understand the frustration that some of her colleagues are going through.
I have a letter here which is addressed to I guess to just about every Member of this House of Assembly. The subject is, of course, back-to-work legislation. It says: As a Member of the House of Assembly, you were elected by the voters of your district to represent their best interests. A strong health care system staffed by a full-time work force, paid fairly for their duties is in their best interest. If you must legislate a resolution to labour disputes with the nurses' union, sending the matter to binding arbitration is the only acceptable alternative. It is the only acceptable alternative. It is the union's right and, more importantly, it is the law.
As well, this is a poem which I received which was written by a nurse. It goes something like this:
One time, I smoothed the fevered brow;
I have no time to do that now.
Once, I held the dying hand,
But now, no time - you understand?
I once had time to sit and chat,
No time left now for such as that.
You have a question? - it has to wait,
This man hasn't finished what's on his plate.
I wish he'd hurry; so slow to chew,
When I have so many things to do.
The lady there needs something for pain,
As my beeper rings and rings again.
Perhaps all she needs is a ready smile -
Mine seems to have disappeared awhile.
The man down the hall has wet the bed,
I'm not quick enough, is what he said.
I once had time to stop and talk;
Now I seem to run, not walk.
The paper work is still not done -
It remains a battle that's never won.
The doctor wants to make a round,
So I find the time that can't be found.
I tell myself I have just two hands
That try to meet with all demands.
Yet I leave my shift, always wondering about
Those things I've done - and those left out.
It seems, at times, things go from bad to worse;
One time I thought I made a good nurse.
I hope that especially the Minister of Mines and Energy was listening to that, because there is a message in there. It should tell you, as you were in another life, a professional, how professional some of these people are. I say to you, as a former union leader and somebody who should know, if he does not know, the difference of what labour negotiations are all about.
The legislation that we have seen here since yesterday afternoon would not be introduced in a banana republic. It is the low-down, dirtiest thing I have seen in this House since I have been a member. It is worse, I say to the minister, than the Kodak bill.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FRENCH: I am not talking about my colleague. I am talking to you.
I would now like to read another letter which was written, by the way, to the Premier. It says: Dear Sir, I am a registered nurse who came to Newfoundland from Ontario in 1972. I married a widower and we raised his three children, as well as a son of our own. I served on our local school board for fifteen years with no remuneration. I am fifty years old and money is not a major issue for me personally in this nurses' strike, but for others it has to be.
We expect all our young nurses to be university graduates. We are graduating well-educated young men and women who are forced to leave home because: (a) we are the lowest paid in Canada; and, (b) there are no permanent jobs offered to them.
Please note that the average age of the registered nurses in Canada is forty-seven years old. I work in community health care in Flower's Cove in your district. We have twelve nurses who work in our area. One nurse is sixty years old, five nurses are from fifty to sixty, five nurses are from forty to fifty, and one nurse is from thirty to forty years old.
Within five to ten years this Province will be forced to offer lucrative salaries and job incentives to foreign nurses because we forced our own sons and daughters to leave home. How embarrassing and how shameful.
When I was eighteen years old, I campaigned for the Liberal Party because I believed that we could work toward a just society; but you lawmakers who expect us to respect this letter of the law are the very people who manipulate the law to suit yourselves.
Until yesterday, I believed that we had a civilized democracy. I am embarrassed that I was so naive, so stupid for all these years. I now know that I will never vote Liberal again. That is a promise.
This letter, of course, is signed. On and on it goes, Mr. Chairman.
I have another fax which I have received from a bargaining unit in our Province, again asking me, as an elected member of this House of Assembly, to vote against this very, very - to me - reprehensive piece of garbage that has been laid on the floor of this Assembly.
I have never seen a government in my life that is out working so hard to drive unions, maybe in this Province, to civil disobedience. I go out and talk to people -
AN HON. MEMBER: (inaudible).
MR. FRENCH: You are going to get your chance, mouth over there. When you get up, you are going to tell us why you got fired!
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. FRENCH: I hope you are, anyway. When you get up, you are going to tell this House why you got fired! Hopefully, you can stand up here -
MR. WALSH: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island.
MR. WALSH: Not a point of order, a point of personal privilege, Mr. Chairman.
If the member wants to take this debate there, I am willing to go with you. You know that I did the honourable thing. I stepped down because there were rumours being spread, maybe by you and others, about something I may have done.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. WALSH: Let me tell you, Mr. Chairman, if you want to try to rekindle those rumours, you go right ahead. I did the honourable thing, and any member who has served in this Assembly knows that. I was also cleared of anything, so don't you crawl into the gutter. I think if you have any decency at all you will apologize.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: Order, please!
No point of privilege.
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FRENCH: To that point of privilege.
CHAIR: Order, please!
I said that there was no point of privilege.
MR. FRENCH: I would like to make a point of order of my own, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Or a point of personal privilege. I would say to the member that I certainly did not spread any rumours. I think the member knows me well enough and long enough that if I thought something I would certainly go and tell the member personally. I'm not that type of individual. He knows that, Mr. Chairman, so I do not have to apologize for anything.
The time will come when he stands in his place and we are going to see how he votes and where the backbone is on this very regressive piece of legislation.
CHAIR: Order, please!
No point of privilege.
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate another few minutes to again add to the points that I will try to make as the debate goes on. I think everybody in the Legislature was very taken a couple of days ago actually with the poem that was read, because it was presented in the Legislature by the Member for Waterford Valley, as I understand it, two or three days ago, I think, the poem that was read from the nurse in Gander that was repeated again by the Member for Conception Bay South. I think he described it as from a nurse in Gander, I believe, but it was the same poem you read the other day.
Again, the letter, with respect to manipulating the law, that was read as part of the debate yesterday and the day before, takes me back to restating a couple of points. This is a point I will make repeatedly as the debate goes on. The Opposition is in the position to be on everybody's side. Talk about manipulating the law. Today we are about to change the law, and I will just briefly restate the point I made in my previous submission. We are about to change the law and I will give more reasons in a future presentation as to why. I have done it before, but since there are new people here I guess and others who will want to hear it I will take the opportunity to do it again.
Today we are about to change the law. The proposition of the Opposition is: We want to support the nurses fully and openly and the only way we can do that is to ask you to not to change the law. A week ago when we used the current law which applies to the Constabulary Association they wanted to support the RNC, and they begged us in this Legislature to change the law. They have shown a willingness, depending on what the issue is, to change the law if it serves their purposes, and to insist that there is something wrong with changing the law.
The member that just spoke talked about garbage and awful legislation, the worst he ever saw. He obviously did not know the Member for Lewisporte back in the mid-1980s when he was in a Cabinet that had paddy wagons out in the front hauling people off to jail for people out there exercising their right. They were dragged off to jail. We talk about how bad it gets and we will see what happens over time. I hope that cooler heads prevail through the whole piece.
I indicated again, and I will repeat it just this time briefly, because it should be said for the record, the willingness for members of the Opposition, because they have the luxury to do so, to play to the crowd, but when given an opportunity today to admit that they did what was alleged today on open line, so far the Member for Conception Bay South said: I did not do it. I guess we will ask them all one at a time. The Member for Baie Verte has indicated from his seat that he did not do it. There are fourteen there, and two down there is sixteen. Two did not do it. There is fourteen left, and we will ask fourteen more questions.
Mr. Chairman, the next point, talking about the whole issue of negotiations -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: I want to make sure that the historical record shows what is going on here, because this is an historic, significant debate and all the points need to be made.
Talk about negotiations and the stand. I mentioned it earlier in response to the petition. There has been a lot of negotiations. At least we recognize negotiations as and for what they are. The Opposition again - let me characterize it, because they can say what they like, because they do not have to make any decisions. They can promise tax cuts and at the same time promise everybody a raise. They can get up like they did today and say: There is really a $160 million deficit, not a $4 million surplus, and still, knowing that they are convinced that we are giving the wrong numbers and they are giving the right ones, still suggest that everybody should get a raise.
I will talk now about negotiations. The issue of workload contained in two significant items, that being casualization being converted to permanent - discussed fully at a health care forum that I chaired on behalf of the government a year ago at Littledale. There were two issues that predominated. Casualization was one, and the government undertook to do something about it. We started doing something about it back in January. There is more being accomplished as a result of this round of bargaining. Also, the other issue that everybody at that particular forum agreed on was that we had a shortage of doctors. The government at that forum, and by the Opposition critic, was encouraged to do something that. We have done something about it. He keeps saying it is not enough, so he wants more for the doctors, more here, more there. Meanwhile, in the election they were going to cut $800 million in taxes. I don't know how they were going to get the money. So they were going to have less money and give everybody more. A little bit of magic but people did not vote for it.
I was delighted that today with the galleries full, both the Leader of the Opposition and the Opposition health critic, the Member for Ferryland, jumped to their feet to defend the position that the government should never have discussed workload issues relating to how many nurses are in the system with the nurses. Get up and say it again. If I am misrepresenting it, tell me again what you said. I heard it. It is in the record. It is written on a piece of paper. Everybody in this gallery heard it today. You said it, your leader said it, that it is no role for the government to negotiate that. Just like teachers, like in the Budget. The representation was: In the Budget you told the school boards how many teachers they are going to get. In the Budget you should have told the hospital boards how many nurses they were going to get. You should not be negotiating that.
Now they forget that normally we do not. In the past we never have. It does not appear in the collective agreement, but this time we were negotiating it because the nurses asked us to. At a request of the nurses arising from the health care forum last year, they said: We can advise you best, government, as to how many nurses should be in the system and how many casuals need to be converted to permanent.
We said: Okay, we will discuss that in the context of workload in the negotiation. We had made some progress, to the point that I will remind people again - and particularly those in the gallery - that the negotiating team and the executive of the union had thought we had made significant enough progress that they recommended the settlement to their members. That is not to be forgotten. A key part of it was because we addressed the issues that the nurses' representatives asked to address at the bargaining table. It included talking about how many nurses should be in the system.
The Opposition says: You never should have talked to them about it. If we were the government we would not be talking to them about it. We do not negotiate that. We just tell you how many you are going to have. We just tell you that.
Now when asked that for clarification last week, because I put it to the Leader of the Opposition at some point, I asked: Is that really your position, that if you were the government you would never have discussed that with nurses? You would not want the advantage and value of their advice? You would just sit down yourself and tell them how many they were going to have? He jumped up and said: Oh no, we would not dictate like you people, we would negotiate.
So one day he is saying: We should not be negotiating that because the government should tell you. When challenged on that, was that the real position?, he says: Oh no, we would not dictate. Guess when he gave that answer? It was the day after the Minister of Health rose and said how many new nurses are going into the system and said how many casuals were going to change to permanent. When we did what he asked us to do the week before - and it is too bad you were not here in the gallery, you would have seen it - the week before, three days in a row, the Leader of the Opposition, aided by his sidekick from Ferryland, the Opposition health critic, said: Do not negotiate that with nurses. Tell them! It is your prerogative to tell them how many nurses are going to be there.
The Minister of Health stands up after the negotiations broke off a second time - because we had a strike, we tried for three more days -, on the Monday after the Minister of Health stands and does exactly what they asked us to do on Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday. She announced how many nurses were going to be brand new to the system. She announced how many casuals were going to be converted to permanent. Guess what he said that day? I will repeat it. He said: What are you doing dictating that stuff? Why don't you negotiate those things with the nurses? You are negotiating in bad faith.
I am getting completely confused as to what the position of the Opposition is because they are bending over backwards so much, trying to be on everybody's side, that it has becoming very obvious.
Then today, better still: Always support the nurses. We all support the nurses in their cause to have better health care. We are trying to do it by giving them more people in the system so that their own individual workload situations will be reduced and diminished, better managed, so that they can provide better care. We all believe in that. Have we gone far enough? Maybe not. Have we gone as far as we think we can go financially at this point without again going back through an issue that I will deal with later? We will see. We have gone as far as we think we can afford, without doubt.
The other point that was being made on behalf of the nurses in the Legislature by the Leader of the Opposition and the Leader of the NDP was that this was not about money. Because the President of the nurses' union was saying: This was not about money, this was about other issues - workload, casualization. They repeated the statements in the legislature.
Today, for the first time, the Leader of the Opposition says: I do not believe the President of the nurses' union. Because guess what he said in one of his answers today: It is only about money. He said: I agree with the Premier, this is all about money.
Now he has decided he does not believe the President of the nurses' union. There are not any other issues. Today he is on the record. Get the written record. I challenge anyone to get out the verbatim written record and he will say: It is all about money.
CHAIR (Smith): Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be back.
CHAIR: Order, please!
Today being Thursday, I would just like to read into record the questions for the Late Show.
The hon. Member for Ferryland: I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Health re my question on the emergency room doctor funding.
The hon. Member for Waterford Valley: I am dissatisfied with the answer provided by the Minister of Health and Community Services re my question regarding the nurses' negotiations.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, that would be a great speech if it had any shred of credibility attached to it. Let's review the record he just put forward.
All during negotiations this government ran a public relations campaign while at the same time they were saying they were bargaining in good faith. During negotiations, three days before this legislation came before the House, the bargaining team on behalf of nurses in this Province indicated to me government said: You will have to take it, you cannot win, we will legislate it. Fact. If you do not, we will legislate penalties such that you will have to go back.
I had information that I dropped on the table here of what the fines were, and they were correct. Let's be very clear on what the Leader of the Opposition said. The number of nurses in the system is not a collective bargaining tool.
AN HON. MEMBER: Thank you, you have said it again. Thank you.
MR. E. BYRNE: The Minister of Mines and Energy indicates and attributes the fact that we said we would dictate. The reality is, I say to the minister - and in a question in Question Period - and I would gladly pass out Hansard - under direct questioning I asked the Premier this question. It was: If you stood in your place and lived up to the commitments made during the election and during the budgetary process, and on Budget day made the announcement of how many new nurses were going to be in the system - outside of casualization, outside of workplace health and safety issues, outside of the negotiations around the collective agreement over monetary benefits -, don't you think that that would go a long way at the bargaining table of demonstrating good faith?
That is the question that was asked. Of demonstrating good faith that your word, during the recent weeks in particular, during the election, and your word during the weeks following up to the Budget tabled, wouldn't you think that on Budget Day, if the Minister of Finance, on behalf of government, stood in the House and indicated what they would give back to the system in terms of extra number of nurses - they all know what they are, by the way, because the Budget process dictates it.
Every hospital board, through its institutions, whether it be community health or otherwise, sends through the Department of Health, then into Treasury Board and the Department of Finance, what the requirement is for front line health care workers. I have not seen that tabled, and we are not going to see it tabled, because what was released, or what was put back into the system, is not going to come anywhere near.
Just to be clear, that question was asked under this set of circumstances: Premier, would you not agree that if you lived up to your commitment and on Budget Day announced how many were going back into the system, don't you think it would be a significant sign of good faith, demonstrated clearly, and that that would go a long way to resolving the outstanding labour dispute? That is the context.
Secondly, on Monday the Minister of Health stood in the House, after negotiations had broken down, supposedly in good faith collective bargaining, and said about the additional nurses that were going to be put back into the system, and talked about, for the sake of perception, the 125 which were put back last year. One hundred and sixteen have already been placed so there is an extra nine to place. Clearly trying to leave the impression that the numbers were higher than they were.
Essentially what happened in this Legislature was no different than what was happening throughout the negotiations. Government came in through the ministerial statement by the Minister of Health and said this: Here is what we are prepared to do in casualization issues, that and only that. Here is the number of extra new nurses. That is it.
Government has already made weeks before, through their public relations exercise, supposedly while good faith collective bargaining was taking place, a public relations campaign on to convince the public, which obviously has not worked, and has probably cost all of us in excess of $30,000 or $40,000, but supposedly announced that 7 per cent was it.
What were the outstanding issues? There were no outstanding issues because government demonstrated clearly through their actions in this House that good faith bargaining was not on the table. That the 7 per cent solution, one size fits all, that they are talking about was dictated in this Legislature (inaudible) clearly over the last four or five days in particular.
We have demonstrated many exceptions government have made because of special circumstances, because of circumstances that warrant a special consideration. The Minister of Mines and Energy wants to stand in the House - he is apparently the lead dog today on the clause-by-clause debate. That is fine, he has every right to do it. I will sit and listen to him. I will not interrupt him, as much as I may find it laughable, and as much as I may find it insincere of him to do so when he tries to distort the real issues.
The real issues in this are very simple, that during good faith collective bargaining you do not run public relations campaigns if you are negotiating in good faith. You do not say to bargaining agents on behalf of people: It is our way or the highway. That does not occur.
Thirdly, during good faith collective bargaining, you do not intimidate, threaten and bully the other side by saying: You cannot win. Back-to-work legislation is coming. If we have to do it, we will do it. We will impose such fines on you that if you break the back-to-work legislation they will exceed $4.5 million a day. That is not how you negotiate collectively in good faith. That is what is very clear to everybody in this Legislature. No matter what spin you want to put on it, no matter how you want to distort it, no matter what you may try today, the people in this House will listen to you intently.
We are not going to interrupt and take your example on nonsense points of orders, but we will take the ten minutes allotted to each and every one of us to respond.
What is clear not only to the people in this Legislature, I say, Minister, but what is clear to the people of this Province, is that your spin on behalf of your government, and everyone else's spin on behalf of this government, is not selling to the public. That has restored more faith, from my point of view, in the confidence of the public of this Province to see through what your government is doing to nurses in this Province.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate -
MR. FRENCH: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Mr. Chairman, a few minutes ago while up speaking I made a comment concerning the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, about during his Cabinet portfolio. If I have offended the hon. member, I certainly wish to withdraw that remark, apologize to him most sincerely and leave it at that.
CHAIR: Duly noted.
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, if I could -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the Late Show is supposed to begin at 4:30 p.m. Since we are in Committee and debate is back and forth, and I understand most of the questions are on the same subject matter that we are debating, I understand that the Opposition has agreed that we will forgo the Late Show and just continue with Committee, by leave.
CHAIR: Is there an agreement?
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, to that point, yes, speaking for the Official Opposition. I do not know if the other group had any questions on; I do not believe they did.
CHAIR: No.
MR. RIDEOUT: Okay.
Speaking for the Official Opposition, we concur that we will carry on with the Committee and the ten to ten back and forth, rather than break -
MR. TULK: And adjourn for supper at 6:00 p.m.
MR. RIDEOUT: - and adjourn for supper at 6:00 p.m. and return at 7:00 p.m.
CHAIR: So noted.
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I believe that we are having a very constructive debate here today in terms of putting the positions forward for full public review.
The Leader of the Opposition just made a point with respect to the bargaining that occurred, because one of the claims has been that there has been no bargaining. I have spelled out a couple of times the extent to which collective bargaining has proceeded in this particular matter, and the fact that the government has bargained with every single group, even though there has been basically a notion that 7 per cent is as much as the government can realistically afford over the next thirty-nine months.
Thirty groups, thirty-two counting the two last weekend, have come to the bargaining table. Many of them - and I will deal with it later in more detail - have found ways to garner other benefits through the bargaining process that actually got them some money in their hands other than through change in the salary grid by 7 per cent. Those types of issues were also explored with the nurses' union, unfortunately unsuccessfully.
The Leader of the Opposition suggested that there was some bad faith bargaining and a number of the members of the Opposition and the nurses' union themselves have talked about the advertising campaign - how can that be fair - and so on.
Mr. Chairman, we had a media blackout in this round of bargaining at the critical final stages, up to a week ago on Wednesday, when in fact the nurses walked off the job on Wednesday morning. There was a media blackout. The media blackout was honoured by everybody involved in the process and no advertising appeared from either the nurses' union or the government until the strike had actually begun. There was a strike on.
Not only that, but I will put one other point to you. The media advertising that was done by the negotiators on behalf of the government on the first weekend, because we were still in a conciliation process, still in a mediation process, trying to find a solution before Monday morning, it did not contain any of the facts that were being discussed at the bargaining table. It was a generic ad, talking about fair approaches, common approaches. It did not mention any numbers about money, did not mention any numbers about the number of nurses, numbers to be converted from casuals to permanent. It was just a generic ad, talking about the fact that we though we had negotiated towards a settlement and that we had hoped and were disappointed and surprised by the fact that there was a strike. They suggest that is bad faith bargaining.
When the strike, as I determine it, started full-fledged on Monday morning - because nobody was talking to anybody - then the negotiators on behalf of the government did determine that it was time to put out in the public, through ads in the paper and otherwise, the position that the government had put on the table, and how it compared to other bargaining agents; but now there were no discussions going on, no negotiations going on. There was a full-fledged strike, which unfortunately continues.
Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition suggests again - because it is what the nurses' union would want everyone to believe - that is bad faith bargaining. Others have mentioned the fact that I have been involved, and I have.
I was involved with a union for some ten years. Most of my family have been involved in unions. One of my brothers is still a union leader. I was Minister of Labour for some three years, so I think I understand the process fairly well. It is standard procedure for everybody, once there is a complete breakdown in the discussions - which means the group is actually going through the ultimate sanction, withdrawing their services - then the gloves sort of come off with respect to the notion of who wants to say what about their position, and that is the kind of advertising that was done.
There was nothing bad faith about that, a normal process. Those who are in the nurses' union, on the negotiating team and the executive, know all about that because they are one of the best organized unions in the Province. They run some of the best campaigns, both generic campaigns, even when there is no bargaining, in terms of support of the nursing profession, health care. They do some of the best work, with respect to getting their message out to the public, of any group. In many cases they are the envy of many of the other unions in Newfoundland and Labrador because they do it so well. So we are not talking about people who do not know the process and do not know exactly how to use it.
Then, Mr. Chairman, to recap a few things before I try to put the thing into context, we have talked about the whole notion of the Opposition wanting to change the law one day, leave it the same the next day because it suits their argument. I do not have to go into the details again, whatever suits their argument. If it suits their argument to say change the law, they jump up and say change the law. If it suits their argument to say do not change the law, they jump up and say do not change the law, and isn't it awful that you are changing the law? They do not suggest it is awful to change the law when they want it to change.
Then, the willingness to play to the crowd. We have only identified a couple yet. I assume that the Leader of the Opposition is the third one who said that he did not do it. We will ask thirteen more questions before the day and the night is over - but not willing to go on the record. It is very painful, I would assume, for some people who do not want to hear, except one side of the argument.
Then the whole notion that the position of the Opposition last week was: Don't negotiate the number of nurses with nurses, dictate to them. Tell them. Put it in the Budget.
Restated again today. I do not care how many times and how many ways anybody tries to say it, the official position of the Opposition is that the government should never, never, never in the first place have talked to the nurses about how many nurses should be in the system. They should have just got up in the Budget - my colleague next to me should have read a speech and said the number of nurses is x and take it or leave it because that is what you should have done.
Then, of course, when the Minister of Health stood up and did that, after three days of them urging us to do it, they said: Shame, shame, shame. We would not dictate. We would have negotiated with the nurses. We would have negotiated everything.
Today, another revelation. All last week they were saying exactly the same thing that the nurses have been saying, that this is about more than money. This is about workload. This is about casuals being changed to permanent. This is about better health care. This is not just about money. Then all of a sudden today he jumps up, when he is in question and answer period with the Premier, and says: I agree with you Premier, it is all about money.
Today he turns his back on the president of the nurses' union, who has been saying it is not only about money, the same thing he had been saying all last week, but the people were here today. We have heard it. We have heard it for a full week now. The people were here today and heard it loud and clear. He agreed today that this is all about money. I will try to put that in context a little further.
One other thing not to be lost in this whole discussion, because I have a couple of minutes left in this particular representation... I will do a couple of more and then see where it goes from there. I may have made all my points by then but I will certainly check the list.
Today, there was an issue raised by the Member for Waterford Valley. He is the Treasury Board critic and he was talking again about the RNC negotiations. He brought up the issue of reclassification for some of the management people and suggested there was something wrong with that. The whole caucus, the whole Opposition caucus, suggested there was something wrong with it because when he raised the issue of: Why is it that the rank and file in the union, in the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association, only got 7 per cent but some of the others could get reclassified and get more? All these members said: Shame, shame! Everybody here heard it. They all said shame. The only thing you can conclude from that is that they feel that step progressions and re-classifications which are available to everybody, whether they are in unions or in management, today they said it was shameful because the step progression and re-classification process worked. It works every single day. There are people being re-classified today. Seventy-five per cent to 80 per cent of the re-classifications in the government happen in the unionized ranks, not in the management ranks.
Today it was brought up by the Opposition critic because it had occurred and because another group had gotten 7 per cent. They said: Shame, shame! Now we discover that the Official Opposition is against re-classification. They do not think it should occur.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, you can stretch the truth, can't you?
MR. GRIMES: There is no stretching the truth. I am just restating. I listen very intently to what occurs in this Legislature. I listen every time. Even when the hon. members do not think I am listening, I listen to them. I do not look them in the eye all the time, but I listen to them, and when he raised the issue of classification today he raised it in the context that there was something wrong with it.
AN HON. MEMBER: No, I did not.
MR. GRIMES: The members opposite joined in and said: Shame, shame! I do not what else we are supposed to conclude.
Mr. Chairman, I was always a math teacher, and in math one and one added up to two. Raising classification and saying: Shame, shame! adds up to: There is something wrong with it.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. GRIMES: I will be back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I rise in opposition to Bill 3. It is amazing to sit here today and witness what this government is doing. They are introducing a bill that will effectively end the nurses' strike and force them back to work on the terms and conditions that this government wants them to return under, and at the same time they are blaming everybody else for doing it.
First they were blaming it on Austin Deir. It was his fault that the nurses had to go back to work for 7 per cent. Then it was the Member for Lewisporte for something that happened twenty years ago, and it was his fault all of a sudden. Then it was the government in Saskatchewan. This may be April Fool's Day but there is nobody in this House being fooled about who is doing what, there is nobody in these galleries being fooled about who is doing what, and there is nobody in this Province being fooled.
We know who is causing the action that is taking place here today and it will not be forgotten, not only by the nurses but by all working people in this Province. I find it even offensive, not on a political level, but even on a personal level. I have been a member of the union all my life and I would probably say I am probably the only member sitting in this House today who is still paying union dues. So I value what my dues dollars do for me and I certainly do not appreciate legislation such as this government is bringing in place to do what they are doing to unions and the labour movement in this Province.
This regressive legislation is taking place in what is supposed to be a progressive society. The effects of this bill on collective bargaining throughout this Province is not just on the nurses' union, not just on the public sector workers in this Province; it has ramifications that will be felt throughout the entire labour movement, even into the private sector. Because when the private sector goes into bargaining the people who they will be bargaining with on the other side of the table will certainly be using what government has done to their advantage.
The Premier is famous for playing up to the media and cuddling up to the public of this Province and getting his own way. This is probably the first time in the Premier's history of politics that it is not working for him. Quite frankly, I do not think he knows how to handle that. I think he is having a big problem trying to accept the fact that for once the public of this Province is on the side of somebody other than him on the issue of the day.
Everybody throughout this Province has heard the Premier's comments during negotiations, when he promised the nurses that he would take care of them. The people believed that, and I guess a lot of the nurses did, because it was coming from a person who was supposed to have a lot of integrity, only to find out that when the election was over all of this good will and the promises fell by the wayside and things were back to normal.
The fines for disobeying this piece of legislation are such that it can be considered economic suicide for the union to disobey, and certainly personal bankruptcy for any union member to try and dare defy what this government says they must do.
They talked about a crisis in the health centre. Well, hello? Is there anybody home over there? Because the nurses of this Province have been telling you that for quite a long time. The crisis in this Province in our health care was not created since this strike began. It has been taking place on a day-to-day basis, around the clock, for a long time. It seems as if the only people who did not understand that are the people who sit on the other side of this House.
This bill is about more than forcing nurses back to work under circumstances the government wants them to return on. It is about stripping people of their basic fundamental rights. It is about tactics to break workers and their unions from being effective in collective bargaining. It is about a government which is so intent on having their own way that they are incapable of being rational when it comes to a point where they may not have it happen that way.
The Premier has been talking about the financial situation of the Province and bragging about how it is the best that it has been since Confederation. Now it is time, I would suggest, to put some of that money where their mouth is and do what is right and do what is honourable by way of the nurses.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member across the way has been told many times today that if he has something to say, rise like the rest of us.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. COLLINS: When are you going to do it? When everybody is gone? Tomorrow?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. COLLINS: The only thing that is missing - and I say this for the benefit of the Minister of Mines and Energy who is up after every speaker today - from this legislation, and many people here may not get my message in this but the minister will, is a so-called comfort letter. Everybody in Labrador West will know what I am talking about.
We are talking about revenue for this Province and how the government does not have money, despite that they say they do. Let me point out a couple of examples of where they could get money. They could get revenue from the 600 jobs that left Labrador West and are gone to the Province of Quebec, and all the workers that would have worked there paying taxes.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. COLLINS: They could get money by lobbying with the federal government to change the rules for the Come by Chance oil refinery. Here we are in a country with free trade with the United States and with Mexico, and yet an oil refinery in this Province is not allowed to sell one gallon of oil to anywhere else in the country.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Peckford.
MR. COLLINS: I do not care who did what is wrong, it is time for you, the government of the day, to do what is right!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. COLLINS: It is also, Mr. Chairman, about getting money from Hibernia. Five cents a barrel is the revenue that this Province gets from Hibernia. It is a complete disgrace.
It is about all the natural resources in this Province. If you line them up we have oil, hydro, forestry, mining and a fishery. We have more natural resources than most countries in the world. If you put our natural resources on a wall and looked at a map of the world you would not find too many countries with that number of resources. Yet no matter what happens it seems we are no better off.
I can tell you one thing that is wrong - and I do not think anybody in the galleries or this Province would disagree -, I think it is a shame for the resources that we have in this Province, in spite of that we receive more money from lotto tickets and video lottery machines than we do from natural resource revenue, from corporate tax or from corporate income tax. That is a shame for everybody.
Here is another example of where they could get money. There is an enterprise or a corporation that is registered in this country called Javelin Incorporated, with not one employee in the country. They have a post office box in Vancouver and they receive $2 million a year in royalties that is sent to that post office box. They receive that every year from the ore that comes out of Wabush mines, for a company that does not even have an employee in the country and their leader is probably hiding out in Panama.
There are ways and means for this Province to deal with this strike, and what they have to do is the hon. thing. They always talked about public opinion and gauged their actions accordingly. Well, public opinion in this Province today is clearly on the side to the nurses. That is what the people elected this government to do, to governor with democracy, not rule in an autocratic way. There is a big difference in that. The people of the Province have clearly indicated that they should do what is right for the nurses, and it is time for this government to treat this situation with the seriousness it deserves and do it.
Thank you.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate the representations made by the Member for Labrador West. I am delighted to see that he is still paying his union dues, even though he conveniently did not know anything about the negotiations going on in Sept-Iles, for which he was responsible.
Mr. Chairman, not to be diverted today, but I appreciate him referencing the comfort letter, because at a future point in the Legislature we will have an opportunity to have a full, complete and total debate like we are having today about the comfort letter, what it really meant, and how the hon. member, like a bit of a Judas, turned his back on it and disowned it when he knew exactly what it was and pretended it was something else. We will have a debate about that.
Mr. Chairman, just let me again, before I get to another point, because there are a couple more I would like to make as the day wears on, we have talked about the fact that the Opposition, when it is convenient, would like to change the law; when it is not, they want to argue that you should leave the law the same.
We have talked about their willingness to play to the crowd. I understand that the Member for Labrador West was not the person who went outside last night and suggested that the Opposition - he is shaking his head to confirm that, so we now have four of them off the list. We will soon get down to it. We will get down to it sometime today, because the nurse did not lie on Open Line.
Somebody here will admit, sometime before the night is over, that they went out there last night and suggested, when they knew the rules were different, that in fact they were trying to get the people back into the Legislature and that the Liberals were keeping them out; when, in fact, it was acknowledged here today that the Speaker runs this Legislature on behalf of all of them.
Mr. Chairman, let me talk about the issue of -
MR. COLLINS: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Labrador West.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
CHAIR: Order, please!
The Chair recognizes the hon. Member for Labrador West, on a point of order.
MR. COLLINS: I would think that there are bigger issues to deal with here today than witch hunting.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: There is no point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
They are getting a little nervous now because the list is getting shorter. The Member for Bonavista South just yelled across the floor, it was not me, so we have another one off the list and we will continue on.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. GRIMES: As childish as it be, it is important to be direct and back your views inside like you would outside these doors, Mr. Chairman.
Talk about negotiating and the stance of the government. Last week with respect to should the government speak to nurses and nurses' representatives about workload issues and about how many nurses should actually be in the system, all last week the answer for most of it was no. Afterwards, when the minister, as I pointed out before, announced, at the wish and the urging of the Official Opposition, they changed their view and said: You should not dictate, you should negotiate.
In case people think I am making it up, I invite everybody to ask - because it is a public document. It is called Hansard. It is the written transcript of the words that are spoken. My words will be in here a lot today, probably too much in some people's view, but there are going to be here because I challenge people to refute
what I am saying and give real, honest answers, and stand up inside when they have gone outside and said things that they knew were not right and correct.
Last Wednesday the Opposition health critic, in Question Period: We heard a Budget here this week that did not make any mention of this government hiring new nurses, none whatsoever. If this Province has to sit down and negotiate the need for more nurses in the Province, there is something wrong with the government. There is something seriously wrong if you negotiate that with the nurses. You should just announce it in the Budget.
Here is the record. I invite everybody to get the document, read it for yourself, do not believe me. You do not have to believe me. Read what the man said with his own words.
The next day, on Thursday, March 25, the Opposition health critic, in Question Period -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: You promised new nurses in the election campaign and you did not do it. The Budget is the place, not around the bargaining table. The Budget is the place to announce that. I am reading his words, not mine: Do not negotiate with the nurses. Announce it. That is the official position of the Opposition.
In case you did not believe, in case we did not believe - maybe they were trying to convince us - and in case nurses did not believe that was the official position of the Official Opposition, on Friday the Leader stood up -
AN HON. MEMBER: Everybody is laughing at you. Sit down.
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: If they are laughing, I suggest they should be outside on the street.
AN HON. MEMBER: You are making a fool of yourself.
MR. GRIMES: They know the rules. If they cannot listen as they are supposed to, I suggest that the rules be enforced - unless members do not want to enforce the rules; unless members, all of a sudden, do not want to enforce the rules. I have the right to speak; I am elected to speak. I will be heard many times this day, and I expect the rules to be enforced.
On Friday, the Leader of the Opposition, because the health critic had said it twice - I am reading his very words - no paraphrase, not me pretending that this was said - these are the words. Get the document. Ask for it. It will be delivered to you outside the Legislature. The Leader of the Opposition: The reality is that you can determine - he is saying this to the government, to the Premier - as you do with teacher allocations - I am not making this up, I am reading this word for word, it is verbatim - as you do with social workers, as you do with everything else. Government can set as a priority, as it does with everything else, how many more people are needed in the health care system. Why don't you stand, Mr. Premier, and do that today?
Those were the words of the Leader of the Opposition last Friday. Guess what happened on Monday? After all the talks were off, after it had completely broken down, the Minister of Health, after three days of urging... People suggest, oh, he is making that up. They are their words - twice with the health critic, once with the Leader, saying: Why don't you stand up and do it, Mr. Premier?
After all of our talks had failed, after there were no more discussions going on - the government sometimes takes the advice of the Opposition. The Minister of Health stood and told the people on Monday how many casuals were going to be changed to permanent, and how many brand new nurses were going to be put in the system.
Guess what he said that day? He jumped up very indignant and said: I cannot believe what I am hearing. There are supposed to be negotiations going on with the nurses. How do you expect to negotiate in good faith when you are standing up in the House - your minister is standing up - and dictating to the nurses how many nurses are going to be in the system? You get up and I will get the words again.
All of a sudden, when we did exactly what they said, they turned around and said: How do you expect to reach an agreement with the nurses when you dictate how many nurses are going to be in the system?
I challenge anybody and offer to anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador the written words of the Opposition. It is there for everybody to see.
MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Order, please!
On a point of order, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Last Friday morning in the House of Assembly, it was the Premier who used the word "dictate". He said: I will not dictate to the nurses how many nurses we are going to add to the system. That is the one who used the word "dictate". It was the Premier, in this House of Assembly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. HARRIS: A further point of order, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister not to attempt to provoke the people in the gallery to be thrown out. I would ask him not to do that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will continue on with my remarks in the few minutes that I have remaining available to me this time. I will be up again because I am not quite finished. Sometimes they distract and interrupt me and I will have to get back up again.
Mr. Chairman, what the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi just said is again partly true. The Premier did say that.
Remember what was happening on last Friday when the Leader of the Opposition was saying that he wanted the government to stand up and announce how many nurses there are going to be. Stop talking to the nurses about it, stand up today. Do you want me to read it again? Stand up today. Why don't you stand up now and tell them how many nurses there are going to be in the system?
Where were we? There was a strike but our negotiating team was still at the bargaining table trying to resolve that issue by mutual agreement with the nurses, despite the urging and the prodding of the Opposition to stop talking to the nurses. I have read it in their words: Stop talking to the nurses about how many nurses. Tell them.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. GRIMES: We said, while the talks are going on we will not tell them.
I will be back, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: I did not stand on a point of order. I wanted to hear the minister out. I will get my ten minutes uninterrupted too, I hope, to be able to put the truth right here in front of this House, I say to him.
It is a slick, orchestrated, political plan, because public opinion is not in their favour, to get this gallery cleared. I hope you do not fall for it. I hope you do not fall for that.
I will straighten out what I said on nurses and hiring. I will make it abundantly clear -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: - and Hansard, for the record, will show -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) in the gallery.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, and I will add the rest of it.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: That is his game, to prevent me from getting the truth out. I did not interrupt him.
MR. GRIMES: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, we are quite willing on this side, even though normally the time -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, we are quite willing, and I am sure everyone on this side will agree, to give them the full ten minutes uninterrupted to start over again because I was not going to interrupt. I want to listen to the hon. gentleman.
I fully believe - I have been here ten years and I do not know the quote and I should know the citation from our Standing Orders or from Beauchesne, but I am pretty certain I have heard it ruled in this Legislature many times that one member cannot stand up in an address, in a speech, and ascribe motives to another member's speech. I suggest that is what the hon. member just did, and I suggest that he should be ruled out of order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SULLIVAN: If the speaker rules that I have made a statement or imputed motives that are improper, I will withdraw it. I wait for the Chairman to make that ruling. If he does, I will gladly do it, I say.
CHAIR: Order, please!
I recognize the hon. Opposition House Leader and I understand him to say that if he has made any remarks that offend the minister that he is withdrawing them? Is that my understanding?
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman, you have not ruled whether it is a point of order. If you rule that it is an appropriate point, and if I imputed motives, as in this procedure, improperly, if the Chair decides I did - I do not feel I did - if it does decide I did, I will gladly withdraw it. If that is fine for the minister... Is that fine for the minister?
The minister indicated - I know where it is. I think it is 157, but I am not sure, imputing motives. I did not feel I imputed motives. Anyway, that is a mute point.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to have an opportunity, uninterrupted, to make abundantly clear what I said on each and every day. The Premier, I said, during the course of this election - let's get the sequence right. I do not want to have to go to Hansard because you will find it each day. I will tell you the day it was said, and where it is, I can tell the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. He can hold it up if he wishes. I said that the Premier said during the election campaign, he now sees the urgent need for new nurses in this Province.
I said on Budget day, on Monday before there was a strike, and I stood here in this House on Friday, I think he alluded to, and said: You realized, Premier, during the election campaign we needed more nurses. What better time to do it than Budget day, when you should set down your plans and your spending for the year on over $3 billion. That is the time to tell us. Not only nurses need more nurses, I said, it is the sick people around this Province who need more nurses.
The Premier told me that is not the place; it is around the negotiating table we will deal with nurses. Then, a few days later, the Minister of Health stands in her place, with a nurses' strike in this Province, and announces new nurses; the very thing that the Premier said is the wrong thing to do. That is what I said in this House. He has twisted the facts of this case -
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: That is what he has done.
PREMIER TOBIN: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, the hon. Opposition House Leader is a member whom I frequently disagree with but usually have respect for in terms of his respect for this place and the way in which this place functions.
The hon. Opposition House Leader knows that when we refused to make a determination on the number of nurses negotiations were still ongoing. When negotiations ceased, because the nurses' negotiating team left the table and asked to be released from consolidation and formally announced that, and only then did the Minister of Health stand in the House, after the talks had broken down as announced by the nurses' union, and announced the new allocation of nurses.
CHAIR: Order, please!
No point of order.
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I asked those questions of the Premier and I respect the answer the Premier gave that day. I consider that a fair response to my question. That is a fair response. I said the statement, and the Premier came up after - I do not know but he rose on a point of order or whatever - and he made that. I accept that as a reasonable explanation for my question. That is why I asked it.
The Premier one day said something: It is done in negotiation. The minister came up and announced it a few days later, what the Premier said should be done around the negotiating table. I accept that as a fair answer, I say. That is my line of questioning on that. For someone stand and try to interpret that as being different...
That is twice I have been interrupted in a few minutes. There are silly games going on, interruptions and foolishness getting on here, when there is an important issue out there today. I am a little sick and tired of that nonsense, pettiness, and silliness getting on here, diversions here, when we have an issue here to deal with, and that is legislation forcing these people back to work. It is ridiculous, it is disgusting. I'm not sure I even want to be here. We have, Mr. Chairman, listened to nonsense and I think it is about time we started listening to the truth and doing something.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: Order, please!
Before moving on to the next speaker, the Chair will address the point of order raised by the hon. Minister of Mines and Energy. To that point of order, the Chair has decided to review Hansard and make a decision on that point of order at that time.
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to make another brief representation with respect to this very important debate in Committee. I really do appreciate the sincerity of the hon. member opposite because I know exactly how seriously he takes his position in the Legislature and his duty and his role as the Opposition health critic.
When it comes down to the hard facts you cannot try to make a case both ways. I produced the actual verbatim transcript of his own words. If he wants to get up today and try to change them and admit that he wished he had said something else, then that's fine, but I produced the written record, Mr. Chairman.
MR. SULLIVAN: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.
I wish he would read all Hansards, the Friday and the following week, and put it in perspective. He is trying to stand in this House and make a statement that is not correct. I ask you to rule it out of order because what he is saying is completely false.
MR. H. HODDER: It is an absolute lie.
CHAIR: Order, please!
I heard the Member for Waterford Valley use an unparliamentary word and I ask him to withdraw it.
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the comment.
CHAIR: Thank you.
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I have indicated and appreciate - and if the hon. member wants to stand as he did and suggest that what I just produced, written and read his own words, is not what he said, then that is fine. I accept that completely. So that's not what he said, even though anybody that takes the written record and reads it will see exactly what I just read out loud.
Now, I have gone over this, and I will not drag it out ad nauseam because we should get on to the crux of the matter. I would like to point out one other thing we are doing here in procedurally. We are in a committee stage where we have a bill that has eight clauses in it. So far we are debating the first clause only. All that does is give a name to the bill. There are some real issues in here that I understand the Opposition wants to debate.
There are some real issues in here that we look forward to debating, but it needs to be set in context. Because there are people in the galleries, who have been referred to many times, who keep changing. They come in, they hear a little bit, they go back out, they hear something else. So far, because I have been there, it is not easy being on strike. I have been there, and I will get to that too, and I will talk about tears and crying a little later this evening, Mr. Chairman. I am glad that the hon. member raised it because it is always raised when I speak and I will get to that issue, because it is serious. This issue is that serious, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HARRIS: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The minister has indicated to the House that we are only debating clause 1, the title of the bill. That is not the full story. As Mr. Chairman knows, the tradition in this House, in Committee stage, is to have a debate on clause 1 which encompass all of the issues, all of the clauses. That is the nature of the debate that takes place in this House. I think it is misleading to the members of the public, who are not familiar with the traditions of the House, to say that. We are debating every aspect of this bill under the heading of clause 1. That is the tradition of this House.
CHAIR: Order, please!
No point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, it restates the point I was about to make. The vote which people will wait for to witness here today, because it is a very significant vote, will be called on each particular clause.
The Opposition has already indicated that rather than have normal practice, which the hon. member just described, which will be a full-ranging debate, and then most likely, unless someone is going to offer some amendments and so on, a vote not clause by clause, not a vote on clause 1, where everybody stands up on this side, everybody stands up on that side, and then clause 2 - but normally what we do is we debate the whole bill and then we have a vote on all the clauses together.
They have already indicated their plan today is to have a registered vote on every single clause. Because we have already heard the words in this Legislature today: There will be a lot of voting done today. The galleries have been invited to stay and watch how they vote on every single clause. We will get to that.
The debate always needs context. The unfortunate part about being outside the Legislature and hearing only a snippet on the radio, only a little clip on the television news, just an article in a newspaper that says part of the story, reading some ads, is that some people do not get the full context.
I would like to take some opportunities in the next hour or so, in three or four presentations, to give some context. The context so far - and I will not mention this many more times, because I think most people are getting the point - my view - I am entitled to give it, I am elected like everybody else - is that the Opposition - and I have seen it now for ten years; I have never been in Opposition, I have watched oppositions for ten years - always have the luxury of positioning themselves to support whatever they want to.
Here we have seen, with the RNCA, the only way they can support the RNCA was to suggest that the government change the law. So their position was: It is okay to change the law for the RNCA because that will help us be able to support the Constabulary. With the nurses, the only way they can support the nurses today is to say: You should not change the law.
We are in here today and we are proposing a change. This week they are saying: Do not change the law, that is bad. Last week they were in saying: For the Constabulary, you should change the law. I have made that point several times.
There is a willingness to play to the crowd. I understand that the Member for Ferryland, from his presentation and his sincerity, was not the person that went outside this Legislature last night and tried to pretend it was the Liberals keeping these galleries empty. Because I am delighted they are here. I really believe everybody should hear all sides of the story. So it was not you. So we have six people off the list, and ten more questions -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. GRIMES: Absolutely, but there are ten more that will be asked some time tonight, or tomorrow, or Saturday, or Sunday, depending on how long you want to risk not passing this bill and jeopardizing the health care system.
Then, Mr. Chairman, we talked about negotiate about the nurses, do not negotiate about the nurses. I put Hansard on the table. The health critic and the Leader of the Opposition, their own words, three days they say: Do not negotiate, you have a responsibility, tell them. The day that the Minister of Health and Community Services stands up and tells them they cry foul and say: I wouldn't do that, I would have negotiated.
We had another issue - and again if the hon. members opposite want to suggest as they did with the other issue - because I have said that for a week they have stood up and agreed with the nurses' union that this was not about money. This was about health care, this was about levels of service, this was about workload. Today the Leader of the Opposition jumps up and agrees with the Premier - everybody was here to listen to it - and said: I agree with you Premier, it is all about money.
Nice little change of position. Again today, the hon. critic for Treasury Board, the Member for Waterford Valley, pooh-poohs the whole notion, condemns the notion of reclassification, as if it was something dirty, something that should not be allowed, something that is improper, something that is sly, something that is devious, something that is wrong. When he mentioned it, guess what they all said? He mentioned reclassification and they all said: Shame, shame! The government let some people be reclassified. They cannot have it both ways.
Now let me get down to the context, because this is critically important. A year ago - and this has been the debate here for the whole week -, one year ago, April 1, 1998, we started a new fiscal year, this fiscal year that ended yesterday. We just started a brand new fiscal year today, for 1999-2000. The Budget had been introduced, everybody knew what was happening, and guess what? In the Budget itself the Minister of Finance, my colleague who sits to my left, stood in his place and announced in the Budget that after seven years of wage freezes the government felt it had finally gotten its finances into a good enough position that, for the first time in seven years, in the rounds of bargaining that were about to commence with all the public sector groups, the phrase that was used - and again, anyone can get up and challenge my exact words and I will go out and get the exact words and put them on the table - was: That we are pleased to announce, Mr. Speaker, that for the first time in seven years we can afford modest increases.
We did not say 7 per cent. We did not say zero-zero like Premier Peckford did when he stood in the Legislature in 1984. We did not announce a number. We said our finances have improved to the point that we can offer modest increases. The extent to which we can offer those increases will be determined through rounds of bargaining and so on.
As it proceeded, there was a suggestion here last week that if 7 per cent was all we could afford, sure, rather than have this racket - and we have had one racket, and this is the big one, and it is terrible that we are in this particular position, because positions have hardened to the point that we have to make a very tough decision in the next few days. After that, when we did not announce in the Budget what the number was, but suggested we could have modest increases, the Premier and the Minister of Finance met with the heads of the major unions in Newfoundland and suggested that it could be in the range of 1 per cent or 2 per cent a year.
Again, not giving a firm number, because the suggestion was made here that if you had real problems - I believe it might have been the Leader of the NDP saying: Why didn't you bring them in and have a chat with them about what they could realistically expect? I think the original number that they discussed was that we might be able to offer 5 per cent over the next two or three years or so.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
It is important to put it in context. I look forward to opportunities to come back to continue to put it in context.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have been waiting for awhile to get the opportunity to participate in the debate. I want to draw attention to the minister a signed memorandum that his government, the Liberal government of the day, gave to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary as part of their bargaining package back in the early 1990s.
In the 1980s, the member of the Progressive Conservative government who did more to promote, to expand, to encourage, to realign, to make into a better force, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, was the late Senator Gerry Ottenheimer. Nobody can doubt that, when Gerry Ottenheimer was Minister of Justice, he restructured, reorganized, and did a commendable job in the process of expanding and promoting and giving national recognition to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary.
Towards the mid-1980s, it had become apparent to the government that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary needed a bargaining process. They put into place a bargaining process which was called interest arbitration. It was recognized that the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary should not have the right to strike, and that is because of situations that we potentially could face in our Province this very day. When there is a need for law and order to be maintained, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary should not have the right to be able to strike.
Across Canada - there are a few police forces that do have the right to strike; most of them are municipal - it is generally recognized that police forces do not have that particular right.
When the Justice Minister of the day was recommending to his Cabinet - he said, we ought to do something for the RNC - he brought in interest arbitration. After that it became known and generally felt, that might not be the solution, because it became quite obvious that when they went to bargaining there was almost a reliance that they would rely and wait - a proposal was put forward - and it was not a dispute settling mechanism that everybody found satisfactory.
The Progressive Conservation government in 1986 said: Yes, we are going to look at binding arbitration. They gave a commitment. Then, before the next round of bargaining came on, they left office. They were voted out. Then the Liberal government of Clyde Wells went into bargaining with the RNC.
On January 31, 1990, the following letter was sent to the RNC: This letter acknowledges that the employer is committed to recommending to the House of Assembly the required changes in the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act which would provide for binding arbitration on all collective bargaining issues in future negotiations.
I will read it again - 1990. It says: This letter acknowledges that the employer is committed to recommending to the House of Assembly the required changes in the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Act which would provide for binding arbitration on all collective bargaining issues in future negotiations.
That was in 1990. In 1992, there was an attachment put to the RNC's collective agreement. It was signed on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen, in right of Newfoundland by the hon. Paul Dicks, Minister of Justice, Attorney General, and hon. Winston Baker, President of Treasury Board, in the presence of the witness hereto subscribing.
That was signed by Winston Baker as President of Treasury Board, and by Paul Dicks as Minister of Justice and Attorney General.
In 1992, when the new act came into force, that particular commitment went by the wayside. That is what we are talking about here. This government committed in writing - a copy of which I am holding in my hand - a commitment to the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, that they would introduce binding arbitration on all future collective bargaining between the employer, the government of Newfoundland and Labrador, on the one part, and the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary Association on the other part.
It is here, it is in writing; the document is in my hand. I do not know how much plainer the Minister of Mines and Energy wants it. That government gave a commitment to the RNC and they did not live up to it. That is what we mean when we say that this government does not abide by its laws, it does not abide by its commitments, it bargains in bad faith. The evidence is right there, and it is in black and white.
The issue before the House today is the issue of negotiations with the nurses' union. I spoke yesterday for a full hour, as is my duty as the critic for the Treasury Board. Since yesterday, Madam Minister, the President of Treasury Board, has not stood in her place and spoken at all. Yet, she is the sponsor of the bill. I find that somewhat unusual because in normal circumstances it is the minister who is responsible for the bill who will be piloting that bill through the House. That is not what is happening. Instead, the hit man today is the Minister of Mines and Energy.
That it is the right of the government, I should say to the people who are present in the gallery. It is the right of the government to decide who is going to speak for them, but we are departing from normal accepted procedure when the minister who sponsors the bill is the minister who would stand and defend it time after time and would pilot it through the House.
MR. TULK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Bonavista North.
MR. TULK: Mr. Chairman, I do not mind hearing the hon. gentlemen call people stuff across the House, and I know he will not find it in Beauchesne anywhere that "hit man" is one of those words that is listed as unparliamentary, but there are words, when used in certain contexts, which are considered to be unparliamentary and the Chair is free to rule whether it is unparliamentary or not. For him to call an hon. member of this House something that is related to a murderer, or the mafia or something - hit man. Mr. Chairman, I ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw it for good decorum in this place.
CHAIR: Order, please!
I think it is pretty well recognized by everyone here in the House that the term certainly has a connotation that nobody would want to be associated with, so I would ask the hon. member if he would withdraw and refrain from using such language in the course of the debate.
MR. H. HODDER: If it is the Chair's wish and if he, in his ruling, says there might be a connotation that may be negative to the hon member, I do not want to cause the hon. member any unnecessary grief. I certainly do not want to have him feeling bad. I, in all sincerity, apologize to him. If I have hurt him, to the extent that I have hurt him I will apologize, but only to that extent.
I wanted to return to the subject at hand with the nurses' negotiations. I was saying that Madam Minister has spent, in total, sixteen or seventeen minutes defending the legislation.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, not to belabour the point - I notice that we have some new guests in the gallery - I just want to cover very briefly a little bit of the ground that I covered before and then get to the context of this whole debate we are having today, because I believe we really should move to the debate. This is a very serious issue at a serious time.
I appreciate and recognize the point the hon. Member for Waterford Valley just made with respect to the letter and the RNC, and it is true - I made the speech last week as to wondering why, when the government had given such a letter to the RNC in 1992, then brought the piece of legislation in which it would be contained to the Legislature subsequent to that and did not contain it.
All of the discussions were held with the RNCA and they were told and they knew since 1992, seven years ago, that change had not occurred and that this government had considered it and was not going to make it. I expressed a little bit of amazement as to why, the next time that I heard of the issue - because I had been in Cabinet for the whole seven year period. I had heard of it in 1990, in 1992, and we had made our decision not to do it. We had communicated that to the RNCA, had changed the bill in this Legislature without that inclusion, and then I got a letter from their legal counsel during the election saying: Are you going to live up to your promise to change the bill?
We had already changed the bill without that in it. All of a sudden, they are trying to rekindle an old promise that has already been dealt with, already debated, and we decided to leave the act just like the Opposition made it back fifteen or sixteen years ago. When we debated it, we came to same conclusion they did - the exact same conclusion - and now they are trying to condemn us for it, but that is okay. That is not the issue today.
I understand we covered this ground. When it was convenient for the Opposition to support the RNCA, the only way they could do that was to suggest that we change the legislation, so they encouraged the government to change legislation. Today they want badly, and a lot of people do, to support the nurses. There is a lot of support on this side for their whole pledge and plea to improve the health care system and have better working conditions for nurses and other hospital staff as well so that we can have a better level of care.
We are at an impasse over money. Because we have taken a decision here in this Legislature which will finish off some time in the next two, three or four days - earlier than that if we listen to the plea of the operators of the health care institutions and so on - the only way they can support the nurses this time is to do the exact opposite of what they suggested last week. Last week they said: Please, please, please change the legislation because that enables us to support the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. Today, the only way they can be seen to be solidly supporting the nurses' union is to say: Please, please, please don't change the legislation.
We have covered that ground, and the willingness to play for the crowd; because the nurse did not lie on Open Line this morning, who said that some member of the Opposition went outside this Legislature last night and tried to leave the impression that it was the Liberals and not the Speaker who had closed the public gallery after repeated interruptions. They went out and said: We want you back in but the Liberals won't let you back in. That was stated this morning by a nurse.
Today, so far, we have had eight members of the Opposition deny it; because they are willing to play to the crowd, but when it comes time to stand in here and put it on the record in Hansard for the world to see, the actual record, so far eight people have said: It wasn't me.
We will have some time this evening to ask eight more questions, because if the other eight members say, "It wasn't me", then we will have to conclude that the nurse lied on the Open Line show. I am willing to assume that the nurse did not lie.
We will deal with that in eight more questions. The Leader of the Opposition did not do it. He spoke and said: It was not me. The Leader of the NDP spoke a couple of times and said: It was not me. The Member for Conception Bay South spoke and said: It was not me. The Member for Labrador West spoke and said: It was not me. The Member for Baie Verte said, from his seat - he hasn't spoken yet but he will: It was not me. The Member for Ferryland, the Opposition health critic, said: It was not me. The Member for Bonavista South said, from his seat - and I am sure he will speak later: It was not me. The Member for Waterford Valley, who just spoke, said: It was not me.
There will be eight more questions asked before the evening is over.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: Oh, it was you?
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Chairman, I never (inaudible). It is a childish thing. (Inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. CHAIR: Order, please!
I ask the member to take his seat.
I remind all hon. members that until you are recognized by the Chair, you do not have the right to speak in this House.
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So we do not have the Member for Waterford Valley denying it, but we do not have him standing up and admitting it either. He wants to leave some doubt. I will take him off the list. Now we have seven people we know did not do it. You protest maybe a little too loudly.
Let me deal with the context. Last week as well we presented a record from Hansard. Last week as well they said: Don't negotiate with nurses about how many nurses. Read it in the Budget.
On Friday, the Leader of the Opposition said: Stand up, Mr. Premier, and tell them how many nurses they are going to have. Do not negotiate that. Do not talk to nurses about it. No place for it at the bargaining table.
It is all on the record. I have invited people to take it and read it. Then, when the Minister of Health rose on Monday, after talks had completely broken down, and after three days of being asked by the Opposition to tell the world: Never mind talking to the nurses. Tell the world how many nurses you are putting in the system. Stand up - like the Member for Waterford Valley will not do and say he did it; he will stand up and say he might not have done it - stand up, he said, and tell them how many they are going to have.
On Monday, the Minister of Health stood and said how many were there. Then the Leader of the Opposition jumped up and said: How dare you dictate to nurses how many nurses there should be? Why don't you talk to nurses about it? If I was the Premier, I would negotiate these matters with the nurses.
After three days of saying: What are you talking to nurses about this for? Then he jumps up on Monday, when we did exactly what he asked, and condemned us for doing exactly what he asked.
Then today, after a whole week of saying it is not about money, it is about other issues, it isn't only money. Because that is the whole notion of what the president of the nurses' union was saying; it is not just about money. It is about other issues as well.
Today, in an exchange with the Premier, the Leader of the Opposition says: I agree with you, Mr. Premier. It is only about money and it is all about money.
Today, in the record of Hansard - I would invite anyone to get it and read it - another change of position because today it was convenient to say it was about money. Last week it was convenient to say it was about other things.
Then finally the Member for Waterford Valley, who does not want to say whether he did it or did not do it - he will leave the impression that he might have done it, but he is not proud enough about it, I guess, to stand up here and admit that he was the one who went outside the Legislature last night and suggested to the nurses that he was trying to get them in the Legislature and the Liberals were barring them, not that the rules of the House had been enforced by the Speaker. He does not want to talk about it today, all of a sudden, a big hero last night. That is the whole point, Mr. Chairman, play to the crowd.
Keep going. We will get to it. There are seven who have said, no. The Member for Waterford Valley does not want to talk about it. The nurses he spoke with, if it is him -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. GRIMES: He can deny it if he wants to - the nurses that he spoke with - I think it is him, but I will ask eight more questions before the night is over.
Today, the same member got up and put down the whole notion of reclassification and step progression as if it was something dirty, that should not exist in the public service of Newfoundland and Labrador, just because some of the management, some of the officers of the RNC - here is the context. The officers of the RNC had gotten reclassified, was his proposition, and the members had only gotten 7 per cent and that was shocking, that was terrible. How could the government let that happen? All the members agreed with him because they all said: That is shameful. Shame, shame, shame!
He found out today that the Official Opposition does not agree with reclassification, even though we have used it successfully in bargaining to find a way to give people more than 7 per cent with the thirty-two groups we have negotiated with.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will get back to the context in my next representation.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to stand to join in debate this afternoon on what has been a debate, in my view, to this point, an absurdity.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: It has been an absurdity, I would say, for most people, and an embarrassment largely for most members of this House of Assembly to have engaged in this type of debate here this afternoon. We have been talking about absolute absurdities; we have talking about non-issues; we have been talking about who said what to whom; we have been talking about what previous governments or previous premiers have done, or what they may not have done, fifteen, eighteen, or twenty years ago. It is a complete absurdity. What we ought to be talking about, each and every one of us, is this bill, and why, on either side of the House, a person will stand, he or she in their seat, and say loudly and clearly in this public Chamber, and to other individuals who have taken the time and the interest to be here this afternoon, why they either support Bill 3 or why they do not support Bill 3.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: We have heard absolutely nothing from members opposite, other than primarily one individual who - despite hours of debate this afternoon by one member, we have not heard clearly exactly what the position is from that particular minister.
I will tell you, I am one member who will stand here this afternoon and share with everybody here what I am going to do when it comes time to vote on each and every clause of Bill 3, and it is clearly to say, out of respect for the nursing profession in this Province, why I will vote proudly against it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: I will vote against it simply because it shows a complete lack of respect for the nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador and the nursing profession generally in this Province.
What does it do? It essentially takes away their legal rights and privileges. This is, for nurses in this Province, essentially the War Measures Act.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: For nurses in this Province, I say, it takes away from each and every one of them, rights and privileges which they have respected -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: - rights and privileges which have been safeguarded and respected under the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. It is legislation upon which their rights and privileges are grounded and are safeguarded in this jurisdiction.
Section 32 makes it quite clear that there is a legal remedy to resolve this ongoing dispute. It is clear, but it is only when the legislative hammer is invoked and when government says to ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that the law is not good enough for nurses and that nurses in our jurisdiction will not be respected will it then choose an alternative route, a route which I submit is offensive, and that route is essentially the thrust of this afternoon's debate. It is Bill 3.
It is offensive because it enforces upon each and every nurse in this Province to do something which legally he or she ought not to do and that is namely, under these present circumstances, have to resort back to the workplace when legally they have conducted themselves clearly -
PREMIER TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I have been surprised that an hon. gentlemen, who is an officer of the court, is suggesting that nurses defy back-to-work legislation. Is that the advice that is being given? I want to be clear about that.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
CHAIR: There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. OTTENHEIMER: There is legislation before this hon. House which I find offensive. I find it offensive, Mr. Chairman, because there is also other legislation before this House, namely legislation which has been enacted a long while ago, namely the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, which allows a provision to resolve this particular dispute.
PREMIER TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I say to the hon. member that we may strongly disagree. I know the hon. member is an hon. gentlemen. Because the issue is so serious, because he is a lawyer in this House, I want to ask the hon. gentleman - because I think I know the answer but I think it is important that everybody in the House, including the gallery, know the answer - whether or not he is recommending that once a bill is passed into law - Bill 3, as it will be later this day - whether he is recommending that nurses defy the law? That is the question I am asking. It is important.
CHAIR: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is again, unfortunately, the continuation of the absurdity that we have heard this afternoon. Clearly, the hon. Premier knows the answer to that question, but it is a continuation of the absurd degree of debate that has been taking place in this House.
I revert to my earlier comment that it is indeed an embarrassment to the nurses of this Province and indeed many of the individuals who are present, who have had to sit here and listen to issues totally unrelated to the issue before us, which is essentially what is in best interest of our nurses.
We are debating a bill - Bill 3 - which I have stated publicly in the past and have stated several times this afternoon that I will be proud to stand in my place and vote against because government has other alternatives, it has other means, it has other remedies available to it, to resolve this dispute now.
It could have done it, in fact, forty-eight hours ago, but it chose not to do it. That is why we are here well beyond the ordinary parliamentary day. We are here to debate something which we on this side of the House find offensive and unacceptable. If we look at not only what nurses themselves are saying but indeed what the vast majority of the people of the Province are saying, they too find it offensive and unacceptable.
There are a variety of reasons, I think. For example, section 7, the penal provisions of this legislation, to think that an individual nurse could be subjected to a fine of $1,000 per day or even a part of a day if, in fact, he or she chooses to defy legislation. To think that sort of hammer could be used against ordinary, well-intentioned professionals is really unexcusable, in my view.
The legislation is reprehensible. It goes to show that this government, when it does not get its own way, will do whatever it takes to ensure that it gets its own way and deny basic ordinary legal rights and privileges to ordinary, well-intentioned, hard-working, sincere individuals.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate again an opportunity to get to the substance of the bill, as the hon. member suggested, because I do basically concur with part of what is occurring, that there is a bit of embarrassment in this, but no bigger embarrassment than happened last evening where a member of the Opposition left the Legislature, walked outside, and suggested that it was the Liberals that were keeping people from the galleries. So far, I understand that the Member for St. John's East did not do it either. I appreciate the fact of that, because I have always respected his particular integrity.
The point that he makes with respect to the bill -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: The point that he makes with respect to the bill, how offensive it is and so on, I guess he never would have supported, then, the Progressive Conservative Administration - of which people he knew very well, including his seat mate a couple of seats up was a Cabinet minister - in which they did guess what? They brought in back-to-work legislation.
Now he is sitting in a group - they did it when they were the government - today, because they want to support the nurses and we understand why, it is offensive. It got to the point were he used very inflammatory rhetoric - unfounded, unnecessary rhetoric - comparing it to the War Measures Act.
When the security of the whole country was at risk, and the country invoked an act - it has only been used, thankfully, once in peace time and hopefully never again. To make that kind of comparison to a similar bill, a similar bill.
Unless he is going to say: I wish I was never a Tory; I do not support the PC Party. I would never have supported that group when they were in government. I would not have done that - because they did it.
Last night the former, former Premier, the Member for Lewisporte, talked about - and we will get to it today in the substance of the bill - the magnitude of the fines: $1,000 a day for any nurse who would not comply with the legislation; a fine of a $1,000 a day. He was saying how draconian that was compared to the $200 a day they brought in twenty years ago, how terrible that was, how awful that was.
Inflation alone would take $200 twenty years ago to about $1,000 a day, almost the same thing. Let me - because the Legislature cleared last night when this speech was made. When the speech was made by the Member for Lewisporte, the public did not hear anything else and he did not say anything else about the issue.
We had a disruption and the Legislature was cleared. He forgot a sentence before the $200 fine. How terrible, $1,000 fine, how awful, how draconian, how offensive, the member says today; cannot support it, very offensive.
The government that was here, the party that he proudly sits in today and supports fully, when they were in office and faced with a similar circumstance, brought in back-to-work legislation. It did not have $1,000 fine. Guess what it said? Where an employee - the Member for Lewisporte forgot to mention this last night, because they are always willing to play to the gallery. They are even willing to go outside and play to the crowd, but somebody will stand up before this night is over and admit that they went out and did something outside.
He conveniently forgot this. Maybe he could not read the full sentence: Where an employee does not report to work at a hospital in accordance with this bill, this back-to-work legislation - guess what? Never mind the fine - the employer shall forthwith terminate the employment of that employee. Nice, harmless, back-to-work legislation. Never mind your fine; you are fired first - fired - if you do not obey the back-to-work legislation they brought in. They thought it was wonderful. The first move is, fire the nurse. It does not say health care worker. It says: If you do not report...
The Member for Lewisporte, the former, former Premier for some forty days - he never, ever sat in the Legislature as Premier, by the way, although I saw a picture somewhere out in my district of him sitting in the Premier's chair in the old Legislature upstairs. He must have gone up and done some photo ops, because the Legislature was never open while he was Premier, in his forty days.
Last night, to criticize to a gallery full of people how awful it was that this government would bring in a bill to order nurses back to work and fine them $1,000; how terrible, how draconian, how offensive, we hear today. He forgot to mention something that we would not even consider: Fire the nurse.
Then, after you are fired, by the way, nurse, guess what? Then, when you have no job, you have no money, you have no pay, somehow you have to pay a $200 fine on top of it. He bragged about that last night, and today his colleague from St. John's East, who did not go out there last night and suggest to the crowd that it was the Liberals who were keeping people out -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. GRIMES: He did not do it. I am glad to hear, so we will have eight more people who will stand and say they did not do it and then we will know the nurse lied on the Open Line show.
The employee shall forthwith be fired. Here is the group condemning how draconian and how offensive this legislation is that we are debating here today, when they brought to the Legislature and passed a piece of legislation that said first and foremost you lose your job.
Now stand up, union man from Labrador West, and say what you would have said had you been elected then, about that kind of legislation.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. GRIMES: Absolutely, but now you are cohorts; you are buddies with these guys. You are absolute buddies with these guys, whose first move was: Never mind the fine, fire them. There is the standard we are trying to operate.
The context - because it is important to get to the bill - I was mentioning earlier, a year ago in the Budget we were proud to announce that we could have modest increases, first set at somewhere around 5 per cent.
After the first rounds of bargaining started, we discovered - because we had always monitored the financial circumstance - we would probably be able to afford a 7 per cent increase for the general categories of employees in the public service over the next thirty-nine months.
We did some fiscal targeting and, as a matter of fact, brought in a budget with a three-year plan. It was the first time it was ever done, the only time it was ever done, since Confederation in this Legislature, three-year budget projections in terms of what the government expected in revenues and expenditures over three years, the only time ever done. For seventeen years the Tories were in office and never even thought about it. They were so rapidly going into debt, they could not think of a plan three years ahead. They sank the place in the hole for seventeen years.
Remember this: A group challenged that. In the very early stages, a group challenged the 7 per cent. People tend to forget about it. We are caught in the middle of a most unfortunate nurses' job action that we hope to end because the health care boards have asked the government to please end it. Granted, they did not recommend how to end it; they just want it ended. It is our decision as to how to end it.
Everybody thinks this is the only strike we have ever had. We had a strike, and I happened to be Minister of Education at the time. There was a school board, District 8 in Clarenville, and their workers said: We are not taking the 7 per cent.
AN HON. MEMBER: Vista.
MR. GRIMES: The Vista board. It impacted three different districts - the Member for Bellevue, the Member for Trinity North, and, I think, the Member for Bonavista South. Schools in the whole area closed down for some two weeks, where those workers - I think they were NAPE representatives - said: We are not taking the 7 per cent.
The same argument is being used here. They said: The government cannot just come out and say we only get 7 per cent. We are allowed to bargain.
They went on to a legal strike for a couple of weeks. We indicated to them, it is your right to go out on strike. They stayed on strike for two weeks and then came back and talked to the government about how they might do some reclassifications and so on so that their members who were on strike and wanted to come back... They realized then that they were not going to get any more than 7 per cent because the government did not have, but if there was some way to fast-track reclassification - which the member today said is shameful, disgusting, should not use it - we used reclassification. We even changed some categories to bring them in line, because two school boards had merged and we brought the salary levels in line with a single new board and we solved the strike. We settled the strike. It was an inconvenient, painful, tough experience, but they signed the contract for 7 per cent after a two-week strike. It is not the only strike that has been on the go. This one is much more severe, much worse.
We bargained with the nurses along the same lines. We said: Listen, please understand that on your salary grid we can only offer 7 per cent, but work with us on other ways that we can get you other compensation but not on your salary scale.
We have not been able to do it. In the meantime, we cannot increase the salary grid by more than 7 per cent because this government believes that every other group that has settled with us on the basis that they believed and understood the government's argument that the amount of money, 7 per cent, projected over the next thirty-nine months would lead to an additional salary bill for the Province of so many millions of dollars extra.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will get back to the details of it just a little later.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to have the opportunity today to stand and say a few words on Bill 3 and, I guess, to say a few words on what I feel and certainly the constituents of Placentia & St. Mary's and indeed the nurses of Placentia & St. Mary's feel, to be the most important issue facing this Province today. It not only affects the nurses but it affects every man, woman, child and indeed every family in this Province.
We have watched over the past eight days as the nurses hit the streets to demand fair and equitable treatment for services rendered. We have watched over the last eight days - in their ninth day now - as the nurses' union came together in this Province like something that has never been witnessed before. I want to talk about that for a few moments because I think it is very important that we go back over the past week, and what has happened. I want to refer, if I could, to the Placentia area which I represent and the hospital and Lions Manor Nursing Home there.
The local newspaper last week, The Charter, had a headline which read: A unified stand. A unified stand not only by the nurses, the general public, and the people who depend on these facilities and depend on these nurses in the Placentia area - not only in the Placentia area but from coast to coast across this Province nurses have come together.
Even though the Premier stood last week and said he was quite surprised that the nurses were out on strike, I would say that much more surprising to the Premier was the fact that the nurses' union came together in a collective way, that they stood, one by one, side by side, up against this government. That, to me, is much more surprising, I would believe, in the Premier's mind, than the fact that they are on the streets; but, do you know something? Something much more surprising happened to the Premier, I am sure, and his government. Something much more surprising happened over the couple of days as the strike started to go into a few more days. That is the fact that the public, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, began to unite around the nurses, to unite and show their support. I believe this was the greatest surprise - maybe even more surprising than the fact that the nurses' union solidified - the fact that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador solidified behind them. They are not speaking when they are here in the galleries or out in the lobby. They are here representing everyone in this Province.
When I look at the results of a poll that was conducted, and you have 88 per cent of the people in the Province standing up and saying that the nurses should have the right to binding arbitration - 88 per cent of the people in this Province - that is an incredible amount of people speaking with the one voice.
Mr. Chairman, it is not only the nurses here and it is not only the nurses' situation that is being discussed in this House today. Health care in general in this Province is what is being discussed here today, and I am not going to get carried away with other things because I believe, as a representative of Placentia & St. Mary's in this Legislature, over the past couple of days and well into the night and beyond, we should keep the focus. The focus is what is happening in the hospitals, what is happening on the floors of the nursing homes in this Province. That is the focus. That is the focus and that is why, when we ran an election campaign a few weeks ago, we were told that health care was the main issue. Health care is the issue that faces everybody in this Province. It is the number one issue.
Therefore, we see the Premier travel to Ottawa and bring back - or supposedly brought back - $40 million plus to put into health care in this Province; but, when the dust settled, it was a little over $4 million. Forty-two million dollars became $4.2 million - maybe somebody moved the decimal point - but it was a far lot less than $42 million.
A few days after, we had the opportunity to stand here while the government opposite presented a Budget, a Budget that they titled the health care budget. It saw $40 million spent on health care to cover regional board deficits - politically, appointed, regional boards - $40 million to pay off their bills. This $40 million did not put one bed in a hospital in this Province, not one. It did not open one bed, not one bed. Most importantly of all, it did not put one nurse back in the system.
If we are going to have a health care budget, and we are going to stand in this Legislature, on either side of this House, and say that health care is the primary concern, let's put some meat on the bones, I would say. Let's back up our talk with some cash right smack into the health care system.
I want to touch, if I could, on a couple of the issues that have come forward in why the nurses are on strike. I talked back and forth to the people in Placentia, the people I represent, and I am fully apprised, or I feel I am. I do not know all the details or all the concerns out there but I am fully apprised, or just as knowledgeable as any others in the House, from the information I receive from the local branch in Placentia. They tell me time and time again that we need more nurses in the system, but they also tell me that we have to treat the ones that are there fair.
These people provide a yeoman service to the people in this Province. Very few of us here in the House, I am sure, have had the opportunity to be in hospital over the past number of years, whenever, or somebody belonging to us, and depended upon these very people to provide services, to provide the health care needs, to provide much more than that, much more than the hands-on, and they are always there. We depend on these people time and time again.
They have gone on the streets in 1999, for the first time in twenty years. For the first time in twenty years, the nurses have gone on the streets in this Province. I am sure they are not taking it lightly, I am sure they are not joking around, and I am sure that they will want to be back on the floors of the hospitals.
We have an opportunity - we had an opportunity and we still have - to put these people back to work, and at least put them back to work with some dignity. At least put them back on the floors of the hospitals on Monday or Tuesday of next week, or whenever, with some dignity attached, not what they have to go through in this Legislature, in the galleries, or out in the lobby, or on the streets of this Province over the past few days.
The way we can do that is in the law of this land today. We do not have to be standing here, sitting here, debating this issue. We did not have to be here until almost 2:00 a.m. debating this issue.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. MANNING: We can do it under binding arbitration, and I call on the government to take that step.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In my last representation I was dealing with the background of this whole circumstance that leads to this bill today. I listened intently to the hon. member when he spoke about the united front with respect to the nurses' union, which we are all glad to see because, I think, having been in that position before, once you reach an impasse and any particular union calls upon its members for support and a certain course of action, then, of course, for the sake of the whole group they need solid support because otherwise the organization itself might start to fall into some disarray. That is not in anybody's best interest, whether it be a nurses' union or anything else.
Mr. Chairman, I am interested in the comments with respect to returning to work with some dignity. Again, not to be overly political about this but to make the point, because there has been a fair bit of politics played in the last week or so while this unfortunate strike has gone on, I want to just address it one more time before I get back to the substance and the context of the bill.
Talk about dignity, Mr. Chairman, talk about dignity on two fronts. One, the hon. member sits in an Opposition caucus of Progressive Conservatives that, when they dealt with the same issue, rather than bring back a piece of back-to-work legislation with fines, they brought back a piece of back-to-work legislation that said, if you do not obey you are fired. What about dignity?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. GRIMES: It is okay to talk about dignity today. So, you are suggesting you are a Conservative today but you never would have been when that happened a few years ago. That is the only thing we can conclude, Mr. Chairman.
I am delighted to say that he did stand and, while standing - because I issued the challenge earlier - did not suggest that he had anything to do with the dignified action last night of standing outside the legislature and trying to suggest - when the difference was known clearly - that it was the Liberals that had closed the gallery instead of the Speaker of this House.
He clarified that today. We know it was not the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, just like it was not the Member for St. John's East, it was not the Leader of the Opposition, it was not the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, it was not the Member for Conception Bay South, it was not the Member for Labrador West, it was not the Member for Baie Verte, it was not the Member for Ferryland, and it was not the Member for Bonavista South, because they are all on the record and we understand that we are committed to saying the truth here. They have all said today: It was not me.
We are not sure about the Member for Waterford Valley yet, not sure. We are narrowing in on the fact that either it was the Member for Waterford Valley - three more have to speak yet, we will find out - or the nurse lied. It is simple deduction: either the nurse lied, so far, or it was the Member for Waterford Valley last night who affronted our privileges by going out and suggesting something that did not occur.
MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, the minister is talking about people lying. He is conducting himself in a way which I do not why anyone on this side would even dignify his process with a response or a comment.
AN HON. MEMBER: You responded.
MR. HARRIS: Indeed, I did not.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, so it might be you (inaudible).
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. HARRIS: He said I did, but he likes to put words in people's mouths. Nobody should dignify that type of tactic with any kind of comment at all. It is a witch-hunt tactic, Mr. Chairman.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. HARRIS: You can put me on your question mark list if you want. You can do want you like with that list, too, I say to the hon. minister.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I appreciate that. I am glad to see that the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Leader of the NDP, who earlier told me it was not him, now wants to try to suggest that it might have been him.
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: Talk about the process we are going through. Dignity was the point I was making. Last night there was so much dignity associated with this, and somebody here was so proud to step outside and suggest that it was those scurrilous Liberals. That is how proud they were last night. They did not hide behind a process that he finds offensive today. They did not hide behind any process last night and say, we should not dignify what the member is going through. That is not what they said last night. Last night, whoever did it, walked out there as proud as a peacock. Today I have not seen any head rise yet saying how proud they are.
Now, all of a sudden, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, because he wants to make sure his union buddies think it might have been him -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. GRIMES: Earlier he said: It was not me.
I put him on the list and now he wants off the list. So the conclusion now is - I will get back to the bill - it is either the Member for Waterford Valley, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, or four more to ask the question to, or the nurse lied. We will get to it before the night is over.
I understand that others might not share the view of the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi because they might be proud today, like they were proud last night, or they might want to say, no.
MR. HARRIS: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: The point of order is for the minister to advise the House whether this tactic or approach he is using here in trying to identify someone - is this a Russian-Communism approach or is this a German-Nazi approach?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
CHAIR: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will just make the point again, because I only have to make it three more times before the night is over and we will have asked everybody. There is no tactic. It is very logically. Whoever was so proud last night - the only question I am asking - why are they not so proud today?
The lights are on, we are all here, and there is a written record. There was no record last night. The only record that we had from last night, in which I raised a point of privilege today, was a call from a nurse to Open Line, who believed with her heart and soul that the Liberals were keeping her out of the Legislature.
Whoever said it knew that it was not the case and they were proud to present that seed, that kernel of thought, that idea. They were very proud to say that last night. Well, it is daylight. The lights are on in here; it is still daylight. You always have to be willing, in the light of the day, to look at yourself - all of us - in the mirror, and do in the daylight what you do in the dark. My mother always told me that. She always told me that.
Here we have a group now running away from it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: I am not trying to play a game. I am very serious about this, because all of our privileges are going to be abused if we are going to play games, if we are going to play to the crowd, and then, when given an opportunity to stand in the Legislature where you are elected, to get on the public record of the Province and say what you did, say what you stand for, say what you believe in, to run away and hide. Is that it, Mr. Chairman?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. GRIMES: We have the Member for Waterford Valley running away and hiding so far.
The Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi said to me: It was not me. Now he thinks I am playing games. I will put you back on the list, because I do not believe you lied to me. I am not suggesting you did. That would be unparliamentary.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I will be back.
CHAIR: Order, please!
I believe the agreement is that we are going to recess until 7:30 p.m. Agreed?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
CHAIR: We will be back at 7:30 p.m.
Recess
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Chairman, a point of privilege, please, very quickly.
CHAIR: On a point of privilege, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: I have had enough calls that I should bring it to the attention of the Legislature. I believe all members know, I spoke to the Member for Bonavista North earlier. I do not want to overdramatize this. It is a sensitive issue but it is an important one. My understanding is that the doors of this building are locked tonight.
AN HON. MEMBER: That is true.
MR. E. BYRNE: One second. We do not all need to get into debate on it, because someone needs to explain themselves.
I have been in the Legislature six years. Whenever this House has been open, the doors of this building have been open as well, unless there has been a perceived -
PREMIER TOBIN: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: One second, Premier.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: - unless there has been some perceived threat or real threat to the safety of people within the Legislature building or the galleries. My understanding is that the front doors are locked, the side doors are locked, there are only 140 people allowed in the Legislature - in the galleries - and the main building outside can accommodate 250-300 people.
I understand that a decision has been taken to do this for the interest of public safety - or the prevention. I would suggest that the very thing we are trying to prevent may be the very thing that we may create with such a move.
I would suggest that somebody give it some serious consideration right now, that the front doors be open and the number of people that the fire limit permit to be in the lobby - where people have been in the lobby all week - be allowed in the lobby right now, as they were last night, as they were all day, for the last six or seven days.
I can tell you from the phone calls I have just received - I have talked with some people - people are very angry. This is a controversial piece of legislation. We do not need to add insult to injury, or even be perceived as adding insult to injury.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: That is what I am saying. That is the reason I am rising here tonight, because I think we all need to be very careful in what we are about to do.
On a point of privilege, I ask the Chair if there could be some accommodation made that people be allowed in the lobby. If the fire limit is 200, then let 200 in and then lock the doors. That is standard practice and tradition.
If I may, I will just sit down and someone will have an explanation.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Justice.
MR. DICKS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
To the point of privilege, as the hon. member well knows, the doors are generally locked in the building at approximately 5:30 or 6:00 each evening. It is not within the House's purview -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. DICKS: Excuse me?
The House does not control the building. That is the responsibility of the building security. What happens inside the precincts of the House is within the jurisdiction of the Speaker to keep order.
The building, as I said, normally the front doors are locked at 5:30 or 6:00 each evening and access to the building is controlled. When the House is open, as it is this evening, the police have decided that, because of security reasons, they will allow people to fill the galleries and as a person leaves they will allow someone else into the building; but they decided, along with building security, that for purposes this evening the lobby will be closed.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, to the point of privilege.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, to that point of privilege, I heard the Minister of Finance state that the buildings are closed at 5:00 p.m. The practice of this House, which has been told to me many times by the security guards, is that when the House is in session at least one of the front doors is left open to provide public access to the peoples' House.
What we have right now - we have just been told there are enough people in to fill the galleries, but that is not the case. We see the galleries not filled, and we know there are people outside seeking to get in.
The situation that has just been described to us by the minister is not one that exists to the eyes of the Speaker, and I would ask that some further accommodation be made.
The people I have spoken to feel they are being unfairly discriminated against, and treated in a manner that they have not demonstrated they ought to be treated, during the whole course of this strike and dispute.
I think it is a serious point, an important point, that needs to be made here. I share the concerns of the Member for Kilbride, the Leader of the Opposition.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier, speaking to the point of order.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, I just want to reiterate the point that has been made by the Minister of Justice and I would ask the hon. members to consider the point.
The decision with respect to the security of the building tonight is not a decision made by any member of this House, nor by the Speaker. (Inaudible) decision with respect to the Chamber - indeed, the Speaker's authority - on all of our behalf. The decision with respect to the building has been a decision made by the police, and I can say no more than that.
CHAIR: Is the hon. the Opposition House Leader speaking to the point of privilege?
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am.
I think it is an obligation of the Chair to ensure that the public have access to the galleries. The galleries are not full, and there are people waiting to get into the galleries here.
Traditionally, when this House has sat - and I have been here on numerous occasions - people have had access. The front door has never been locked, it has never been guarded.
Normal access to the public has been denied here, when the people have behaved very orderly here today, very orderly in the lobby and very orderly in the gallery. They have not been spoken to once by the Chair. We feel that normal access has been denied to people, and I think it is an obligation of the Chair to ensure that people have adequate access to the Legislature, particularly in dealing with this particular issue.
I made a reference in this House before; someone said they were at home listening to the radio, at 1:00 in the night, as an example, and heard the Legislature was sitting, so left and came into this building to sit in this Legislature when it went on overnight.
This normal access is being denied here tonight, and I think it is a responsibility to ensure that does not happen.
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: I rise to make one further point in response to what the Premier said, that the decision was not made by anyone in this House and was made, in fact, by the police.
I spoke to a police officer who told me, and it was told to other people who were trying to get access to the building, that the police were not making the decisions; that the decisions were being made and they were given their instructions from the Department of Works, Services and Transportation. This is information that I was given, Mr. Chairman.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. the Minister of Justice.
MR. DICKS: Mr. Chairman, I have to correct two things.
The hon. the Leader of the NDP -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. DICKS: Mr. Chairman, if members are genuinely concerned about the order in the House, I think they should be very careful about the statements they make.
I say, with respect to the hon. Opposition House Leader, access to the House is not denied, and that is very clear. As members leave from the gallery they can be replaced by the members of the public, and they can come in from outside. There are people in the lobby. If you stop for a minute you can hear them.
I say, with all due respect to the Leader of the NDP, if he wants to find out who made the decision he should speak to the RNC officers in charge.
AN HON. MEMBER: He did.
MR. DICKS: He did not speak to the officer in charge because I spoke with the officer in charge who advised me that he was closing the building for reasons of security. I do not want to put the officer's name on the public record. If the hon. Leader of the NDP wants to come here, I will tell him who it was. He can leave the Chamber, speak to him, and come back and tell me whether or not what I say is true.
I say to hon. members that they should be very careful. I heard the hon. Leader of the Opposition say there are so many angry people out there. The police have an obligation to keep order. His solution to open up the House and the building to as many angry people who will fit into it, I suggest before the House, is not a reasonable position to adopt. It is not aiding the cause for any people, including this House which has a responsibility to debate matters reasonably, fairly, and without undue passion.
CHAIR: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: In listening to the Minister of Justice, if he has indicated that he has received the word from the officer in charge, I certainly accept that word; but I was told something different by someone else. I was not speaking to the officer in charge. I am just reporting to the House what I have been told. I accept the word of the Minister of Justice that the decision was made by the officer in charge.
CHAIR: Thank you.
To the point of privilege, as hon. members would be aware, raised in Committee, it will be noted by the Chairman and reported and brought to the attention of the Speaker.
Order, please!
The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Some of the incidents that we have witnessed over the past number of days are shocking. I am not going to point any fingers at who locked the doors to this building, but we are dealing with a group of professionals. We are dealing with a group of professionals who are being ordered back to work.
We have been told that there is no immediate crisis. We have been told by nurses that if there were an immediate crisis they would voluntarily go and see to that crisis and then return to the picket lines.
We are breaking a strike by nurses, a professional group in this Province, when the existing legislation has in place a remedy to put the nurses back to work immediately through binding arbitration. That is a position that we on the Opposition side of the House - I speak for members of the PC caucus, and I know the members of the NDP caucus feel the same way. It is a position that the nurses have agreed to, and it is a position that the people and the general public of the Province feel good about. In fact, a recent survey shows that 88 per cent of the people in the Province feel that the nursing profession should be given binding arbitration.
I am proud, as a member of this House, to stand in my place and speak on this issue. I am not doing it politically. I am doing it because I feel it is the right thing to do. We have been accused by members on the government side of the House of being political, playing to the gallery, playing to the public, and that is not the case. We feel strongly about this issue, and that is the reason we have sat around the clock two nights in a row on this issue.
The nursing profession in this Province has been put through a great deal of stress in recent years. They are no less essential than doctors who have been given a significant increase in salary, far more than what has been offered to nurses. If we go through with this legislation in this House and order nurses back to work, we are going to see a group of professionals who are seeing stress within their profession and are battling low morale, forced back to work. We are going to see the nursing profession sink to an all-time low state of morale in this Province. There is only one way the finger points, to the government side of this Legislature for doing that.
There is not much more that can be said on this issue - we have debated it for many hours - but I hope, especially for the new members on the government side of the House, that you think very carefully before you vote tonight, that you think about what you are doing. Instead of going with the party line, think very carefully how you vote.
I say to the Minister of Health, who during the recent election, we were told, was the voice for nurses, that you remember where you came from, you remember your profession, and you remember that you were the head of the nursing union. You think about that when you vote tonight. The Premier, who is married to a nurse, I ask you to think very carefully on how you are going to vote tonight, sir; and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who was a nurse, I ask you to think very carefully on which way you are going to vote tonight.
With that, I am going to give leave to another member of our caucus. We have said just about everything that is to be said on this issue. I know when I vote tonight I will be voting in good conscience.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
CHAIR: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just have a question for the minister on clause 4. I just wanted an interpretation of clause 4. That is the only other question I have on the Committee stage. Clause 4 says: "Immediately upon the coming into force of this Act..." I am not sure if the Minister of Health and Community Services is going to respond. I want to know what we mean by "immediately" when this bill is finally passed, given royal assent. What would the word "immediately" mean in interpretations, and what would we expect? That it occur at 10:00 tonight, 1:00 tomorrow morning, or 9:00 tomorrow morning, whatever? We would like to know what "immediately" means and so on before we conclude this Committee stage of the bill.
CHAIR: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Our intent, with respect to the legislation, article 5, what we have discussed with the health care association as well, is that we would expect nurses to return to work tomorrow morning as scheduled. What we are asking, because of the stresses in our health care system - and as a matter of fact, at 5:00 this evening we had another update. We know that in certain other institutions, particularly, and in our community health programs, that we are experiencing a lot of stress this evening. Based on that request, we are asking nurses who are normally scheduled to work from 8:00 p.m. tonight to 8:00 a.m. tomorrow morning to call in and to ask their employer if they are needed to report for work at midnight.
We, again, are stressing that we are asking nurses to cooperate with this request. We ask this because we are again concerned about the health care, as has been outlined to us by the Newfoundland and Labrador Health and Community Services Association this evening.
With respect to fines for non-compliance with the legislation, they would not be imposed until after 8:00 tomorrow morning. We do ask that if nurses are scheduled to work 8:00 p.m. to 8:00 a.m. if they would call their employers to see if they are needed at work from midnight to 8:00 a.m., and that, again, this request be respected, I guess from a professional perspective, to see if they are needed to provide health care services.
CHAIR: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I stand to conclude the remarks from the Official Opposition side with respect to the Committee stage of the bill. I want to say to all members that it has been a stressful week, but not nearly as stressful as it has been for people within the health care system. This legislation, and this strike, is more about, fundamentally, the weaknesses within the health care system than it is about anything else.
The questions we have asked in this Legislature, the debates we have had in this Legislature surrounding the collective bargaining process, surrounding what took place behind closed doors, surrounding what took place publicly while good faith bargaining was on going, is all a matter of public record. Somebody at some point in time will have a look at whatever was said in this Legislature during this debate on this particular piece of legislation. We have said that it is high-handed. We have talked about it being draconian. There has been a thrust and throw in terms of the merits and demerits of using the arbitration process as opposed to government taking a fundamentally different position.
Before we vote on this particular stage of the bill, I want to conclude with this remark again. The strike itself underlines clearly the weaknesses that are evident each and every day in the health care system. It is evident what people who - nurses in particular, because it is the strike we are talking about that has brought us to this debate and brought us, unfortunately, to this piece of legislation. It underlines, fundamentally, that it will not stop here, that conclusion of this particular piece of legislation will not stop the debate from ongoing. Because the weaknesses are still going to be there this time next year, unless we fundamentally come to terms and grips with recruitment-retention issues and the realities that people are facing within the system as they try to deliver a very efficient, sound, publicly administered, health care system for the benefit of us all.
Unless we fundamentally come to grips with the issues that we have talked about here then we will be back here next week, we will be back here next month, we will be back here in June, we will be back here in September, October, November, discussing and talking about the very same things.
Again, somebody told me, when I first got elected to this Legislature six years ago - and I will conclude with this - that it is not important where you sit in this Legislature, it is most important where you stand. I am proud to say that each and every member of my caucus, when asked to vote on this particular piece of legislation, will be standing all right, dead set against it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Hear, hear!
CHAIR: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I do want to say just a few words on this Committee stage of the debate, as I have not spoken on this stage of debate. My colleague the Member for Labrador West outlined very clearly this afternoon the shortcomings of this legislation.
Since it is a clause by clause study I want to say that we are dealing with a piece of legislation which only contains eight clauses. Aside from the first two, which are about definitions and the name of the act, the clauses of this act are very reprehensible. When you look at the details you cannot but be appalled by the draconian approach, the heavy-handed approach, the exercise of raw power that is contained in the clauses of this legislation.
We are dealing with perhaps the most peaceful, the most respectful and the most well organized and publicly appreciated public sector strike in the history of this Province. That is evident from the conduct of the members on the picket line, the service they have been providing to the public, to the employer, to the patients throughout. As we heard a few moments ago, expected, in the heat of the anger, in the heat of the legislation that is being put before this House right now, still expected, perhaps counted on, by the government and by the Minister of Health and Community Services, that the nurses will in their professional capacity, despite all that has happened, continue to provide the service starting at midnight tonight.
They are on strike because they are concerned about its deterioration, about their role in its deterioration. Because when you deteriorate respect for nurses and for the professionals who are providing the service by not paying them a fair wage, when you treat them unfairly in collective bargaining, when you deny them the opportunity to be judged fairly in terms of their worth, when you diminish the respect that other people have for working in the nursing profession in Newfoundland because they go somewhere else to get a job where they are paid commensurate with their ability, with their training, with their experience and responsibility, then you have diminished the health care profession.
I just want to end this stage by saying that I find the action of government in this legislation reprehensible. I find that just looking at the types of fines and approaches taken by government as to how are we going to enforce this legislation on the most peaceful group of pickers and public sector workers that I have ever seen in this Province, they have chosen the heaviest hand that has ever been used in terms of what would happen to the union, to the individual members, to the officers, if they dare to defy the legislation being passed.
What I want to say is that the government may think that by passing this legislation they have won the strike and defeated the nurses, but what I say to the nurses of this Province is that they have won. They have won in the court of public opinion. They have won in their determination to stick together and stand up for what they believed in. They have won in the judgement of the public about what the fair, reasonable and decent thing to do was. They have won because they and their leaders have stuck together, united, to pursue what they believed and have the confidence of standing up and fighting for, and that they will win in the long run. What we have here is not an exercise in democracy, Mr. Chairman, but an exercise in power.
On motion, clauses 1 through 8, carried.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
CHAIR: Order, please!
MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, a point of order.
CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader on a point of order.
MR. FUREY: Could we revert to clause 8, because clause eight was already carried? We will revert to clause 8 so that there is a clause for division.
CHAIR: Agreed.
Shall clause 8 carry?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!
CHAIR: Against?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!
CHAIR: Carried.
AN HON. MEMBER: Division.
Division
CHAIR: All those in favour, please rise.
CLERK: The hon. the Premier, Mr. Tulk, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation, the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services, the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment, Mr. Walsh, the hon. the Minister of Finance and Justice, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy, the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods, Mr. Lush, Mr. Oldford, the hon. the President of Treasury Board, Mr. Barrett, the hon. the Minister of Education, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour, the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands, the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Wiseman, Ms M. Hodder, Mr. Mercer, Mr. Reid, Ms Jones, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Sweeney.
CHAIR: All those against, please rise.
CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Rideout, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Ottenheimer, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. H. Hodder, Mr. Fitzgerald, Ms S. Osborne, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Tom Osborne, Mr. Manning, Mr. Hunter, Mr. French, Mr. Harris, Mr. Collins.
Mr. Chairman, twenty-six `ayes' and sixteen `nays.'
CHAIR: Carried.
A bill, "An Act To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation Of Health And Community Services." (Bill 3).
Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill without amendment, carried.
CHAIR: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee rise and report progress.
On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): The hon. the Member for Port au Port.
MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have considered the matter to them referred, and directed me to report that they have adopted a certain resolution, Bill 3, and recommend that a bill be introduced to give effect to same.
On motion, report received and adopted.
MR. SPEAKER: When shall the bill be read a third time?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Now.
MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the bill, `aye.'
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye!
MR. SPEAKER: Against.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay!
MR. SPEAKER: I declare the bill carried.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I move third reading of Bill 3.
MR. SPEAKER: It is moved and seconded that this Bill be now read
a third time.
The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In the past months, and particularly in the last number of days, the nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador have been through a very traumatic time. Newfoundlanders and Labradorians from all of the bays and all of the coves, from central, and west, and east, and north, and south, have all said that they care about health care and they care about nurses.
We on this side say that nurses have not been treated fairly. They are the people who are there to give us that hand we need. They are people who are there to help us when we need help. They are people who are there to reach out. Nurses have the respect of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians tonight like perhaps they have never realized in years.
We say on this side that the process has been unfair. We say on this side that there has been a great deal of unnecessary effort put into passing legislation when we had an alternative. We on this side also say that, while we disagree with government, fundamentally we also respect the right of the parliamentary democracy to function.
We have asked the questions. We have tried to stand up for those things that we believe are good and valued. We have tried to convince government of the error of their ways. We have said there was a pretension to collective bargaining in this process. We have felt the pain, we have felt the effects of bargaining in bad faith, and the insincerity; however, this process is now drawing to a close. We are now at the third reading stage.
I want to say to nurses who are in the gallery, to their families, and to all others who have reached out to them - to the ladies and gentlemen who have driven by their picket sites and passed them caring packages, to all of those who have honked their horns on the parkways, to the people who were on the picket line yesterday in Stephenville in a snowstorm - to all of those people in all of their ways, and they have been many and varied, who have tried to tell this important sector of health care givers that they care, I want to say thank you to these people. For they have tried to return to nurses that sense of caring, that sense of compassion, that sense of outreach, that sense of being there, that they do to all of their patients every day.
As they go back to their jobs, we encourage them to do what their profession does best. That is to continue with the kind of integrity, the kind of passion, and the outreach that they give; because Newfoundlanders and Labradorians tonight are on your side, I say to the nurses, and you have our care, you have our love, and you have our respect.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have made many points over the last few days and I will certainly keep brief and to the point what I have to say today. I find it very difficult when we stand here in this House with a budget and tell the people of this Province we have had three of the best years in the history of our Province. We have our second surplus in our history. We applauded, and the business community came on television and in the media and told us what great shape and what a job we are doing with the finances of our Province. The Minister of Finance and the Premier took great pride in that, that we have helped build the economy of this Province for a better future.
The value that we place on society is measured by how we take care of our sick. We have nurses here in this Province who have been overworked, underpaid, and seen the disparities grow between their counterparts in Atlantic Canada, the rest of Canada, and North America in general.
We have seen lowly Prince Edward Island, whose contract expired on March 1, pay 17 per cent more than we pay our nurses in this Province - a province not even one-quarter our size. We have seen Nova Scotia pay 29 per cent more. We have seen provinces up as high as 50 per cent more for a starting nurse.
We saw the same thing happen and the same disparities occur among doctors. As a number of unfilled position in rural Newfoundland grew from twenty, thirty, and forty to seventy - and some were so long they haven't been filled, they are not even considered vacant any more.
We took some desperate measures, 23 per cent - even though a little over a four-year period - to close the gap so we will stop the out-migration of doctors to other parts of Canada and the United States. We had to take extraordinary measures because we failed to act when we should have acted.
Today, we are telling nurses that in spite of being so vastly behind the rest of Canada - it is little wonder only one got a permanent job here out of the last 164 who graduated. It is little wonder the families are sending their children to the United States and the rest of Canada to get work.
We are going to see the disparities grow so great that somebody will stand in this House in two, three, four, or five years time and tell us: We have to take extraordinary measures because - as the President of Treasury Board said in 1991 - nurses are different. We have to stop the out-migration. They are unique. They have a different case to put forth.
I think the current Minister of Health and Community Services said it quite well when she said, back in 1991, we are angry, to be quite honest. The fact that collective agreements have been broken destroys our sense of trust in the collective bargaining system for what it is worth.
She did very aptly say, pointing to the 1983-1985 wage freeze instituted by the then PC government: At least it was negotiated by the government of the day. They did not legislate their way out of contracts.
Ladies and gentleman, Mr. Speaker, I think it is a sad day that we stand and take draconian measures in Bill 3 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.
We need to take care of our sick in this Province. Nurses are front-line people. Every single person here knows that. What bothers me is the commitments that were given during an election campaign, commitments that you now realize the shortage of nurses in this Province and are going to do something about it. They are the type of measures.
To come back in a Province our size - 125 new nurses - I would say, to get the same effect as what has been put in Ontario we would need 600. We had 900 cut back in the early 1990s; 900 taken right out of the system in one fell swoop.
We expect an increasingly aging and sick population to be cared for when they are in hospitals today - 100 here in the City of St. John's who were medically discharged have nowhere to go. The nursing homes are blocked. You cannot get someone into a nursing home here in the city. That is the type of thing we need to be addressing here, before it becomes a greater crisis than we have in our system today.
That is why I oppose Bill 3, the strong measures, and why we will continue to fight for better health care, better pay for nurses, and better working conditions.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is with great regret, I guess, that we are here tonight witnessing what is happening. It is sort of ironic on my part, given the fact that I am a new MHA to this House of Assembly, and from a labour background, that the first thing we have to deal with is back-to-work legislation.
It is probably a good thing that I am from a labour background, because if I was not used to fighting the things that governments do to workers for a long number of years, and if I was not used to fighting the things that the multinational companies and large cooperations in this Province are doing to workers, then I probably would not have had the fortitude to come back to another session. I think my background has prepared me well for what is taking place in this House tonight. Again, it is a sad day not only for nurses but for anybody in this Province who works for a living.
I know one thing, and that is that the nurses of this Province have not lost the fight. The government of the day may have won the battle, but the war is far from being over. I can assure you that the nurses and workers from all unions in this Province, for them this issue is definitely not finished, and it is something that I can assure the hon. members on the other side of this House they will hear time and time again in the foreseeable and the coming future.
In closing, I have to say to all hon. members of this House, to the people in the gallery and to the people of the Province, that I think it is a sad reflection on the way that the people who provide health care, and the people who work in other health care institutions in other occupations - I think it is a slap to everyone. It is not something that I feel proud about saying here tonight, but I did not feel I had any choice but to say it.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is the last time I will have to speak on this legislation now before the House. In doing so, I want to go back to late last fall when a tentative agreement was put before - in a democratic fashion - the whole body of nurses in this Province, as to whether or not they were prepared to accept a tentative settlement.
The nurses, as is their democratic right - it is understood in the labour relations field, in the spirit of collective bargaining, and having a say in the terms and conditions of your employment, they had the right to vote. They voted and expressed their vote as to whether or not they wanted to accept that agreement, and they said no.
The next step was whether or not they were prepared, as they were required to do by law, to authorize their leaders to conduct a strike, to enforce their demands and to insist on a fair collective agreement. They voted, once again exercising their democratic right to vote. Ninety-seven per cent of them said: We are prepared to go on strike, and to authorize a strike to insist that we have a fair collective agreement.
Then the election came around. During the election, and during the lead-up to the election, the nurses - and I think for the first time, because we had been hearing in this House for many weeks, for many months, in fact several years, a lot of stories about people complaining about the deteriorating state of the health care system, about the inability of the system to respond to the needs of patients, about overcrowding, about people staying in beds who should be in long-term care homes, about the inadequacies of the system.
Then we had nurses themselves saying that they are unable to give the care that they have been professionally trained, hired, expected, want, and indeed feel they have a professional duty to perform. They described a system that was not responding to patients' needs and not responding to nurses' needs either. They made it an issue in the election campaign. They made it an issue after the election campaign by insisting, under the law, following the rules, carrying out every law to the letter - and I might say spirit and beyond - in terms of their professional duty, in terms of their roles in the caring professions. What have they gotten from this government? What they have gotten is reprehensible treatment.
They went on strike and, without prejudging the vote - although I have a funny feeling that the members opposite are going to vote the exact same way they did fifteen or twenty minutes ago. If they do once again, the strike may legally be over very shortly.
If you want to talk about who won this strike, I will tell you, there is no doubt in my mind who has won this strike. The government has not won this strike. The nurses of this Province have won this strike. The nurses of this Province and their leadership have together defeated this government. They have defeated this government's credibility. They have defeated this government's claim to be acting in the best interest of the health care profession. They have defeated this government's claim that they place the health care system first. They have won because they have been judged by the concept of fairness and decency of the people of this Province, and they have overwhelmingly received the support and encouragement and positive judgement of the people for their cause.
While nurses are angry tonight, and have every reason to be, they should also be very proud. They should be very proud of the fact that they were prepared to take on this government, to stand up to this government who was telling them: If you go on strike, we will legislate you back to work. If you go on strike, you cannot win.
Well, Mr. Speaker, they have won. When 88 per cent of the people of this Province support the position of nurses, that they are entitled to fair, binding arbitration in existing legislation; when, on a raw question - Do you support the government or the nurses in this strike? - 88 per cent say the nurses; when they have succeeded in showing that they could, with their leadership, conduct themselves in a manner that, aside from the odd over-exuberance in the galleries here which is more symbolic than anything else, have conducted themselves in a manner that no one in this Province can criticize, they have won.
The nurses of this Province have won this strike because they have acted honourably and the government is acting dishonourably. They have had and they still have, I say to members opposite, an honourable way to solve this dilemma to get nurses back to work and to declare the strike at an end. That honourable way is to follow the existing law. Show the same respect for the law that the nurses of this Province have shown. They still have that honourable way to resolve this dilemma.
I want to say to the nurses who are in the gallery, to the nurses who are rallying outside this building, to the nurses up in Labrador West who are rallying at the Two Seasons Hotel, to the nurses all over this Province who are watching with great anticipation the activities in this Legislature tonight, that they have won. This strike may be over but the struggle will continue, because they know that they are right and the government is wrong.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be now read a third time?
All those in favour, `aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.
AN HON. MEMBER: Division.
MR. SPEAKER: Division.
Division
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Is the House ready for the question?
AN HON. MEMBER: We are ready for the question.
MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motion, please rise.
CLERK: The hon. the Premier; Mr. Tulk; the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation; the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs; the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services; the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment; Mr. Walsh; the hon. the Minister of Finance and Justice; the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy; the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods; Mr. Lush; Mr. Smith; the hon. the President of Treasury Board; Mr. Barrett; the hon. the Minister of Education; the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour; the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology; the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands; the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs; Mr. Wiseman; Ms. Hodder; Mr. Mercer; Mr. Reid; Ms Jones; Mr. Parsons; Mr. Sweeney.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please rise.
CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition; Mr. Sullivan; Mr. Rideout; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Hodder; Mr. Fitzgerald; Ms Osborne; Mr. Hedderson; Mr. Osborne; Mr. Manning; Mr. Hunter; Mr. French; Mr. Harris; Mr. Collins.
Mr. Speaker, twenty-six ayes and sixteen nays.
MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.
We have just passed third reading of the bill. Could we have the bill read a third time now?
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation Of Health And Community Services," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill 3)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, His Honour is detained at another public function, and will be detained for some time, so I would ask that the Clerk bring the bill to Government House.
MR. TULK: As per agreement.
MR. FUREY: We have spoken to both leaders - and have it signed into Royal Assent - and the Speaker, of course.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We certainly agree with that, taking the bill to His Honour, the Lieutenant-Governor.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I move the House adjourn until Wednesday, April 28.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Wednesday, April 28.