May 3, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 26


The House met at 1:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

This afternoon we have some visitors in our gallery. We have some students from Centreville Academy in Bonavista North. They are in Grades 6 to 8, twenty-five of them, I understand, with their teachers Charmaine Collins, Chris Jackson and Michelle Estekantchi. We have chaperone Connie Hunt and bus driver Wilson Hunt. I am sure all members would like to welcome these students.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: To the Speaker's left, in the gallery, we have also some students from the Brother T.I. Murphy Centre. They are here at the invitation of the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi. They are high school students, and there are seven of them, with their teacher Bruce Peters. I am sure members would like to welcome them as well.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Members

MR. SPEAKER: Under the category of Statements by Members, we have statements by the following members this afternoon: the Member for Mount Pearl, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, the Member for Burin-Placentia West, and the Member for St. John's Centre.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, I would like to pay tribute to two distinguished individuals in Mount Pearl.

Each year the City of Mount Pearl, in conjunction with the Kinsmen Club, hosts a banquet at which they select someone from the community as Citizen of the Year. This year is a very unique situation, as the judges could not come to a final decision and now we have two Citizens of the Year, and that speaks very well of both.

Mr. Speaker, to be nominated Citizen of the Year is a reward in itself. It is a reflection of a person's commitment to enhancing the lives of others.

First we have Mr. Michael Mooney. Mr. Mooney was involved with the Soccer Association and chaired numerous committees; the Big Brothers/Big Sisters organization; the Mount Pearl Seniors Independence Group; the Mount Pearl Frosty Festival; the Mount Pearl Sports Alliance; the Mount Pearl Junior Blades; executive member of the host committee for the World Under Seventeen Hockey Challenge; member of the Newfoundland and Labrador Mission Staff for the 2003 Canada Winter Games; and, winner of the Queen's Jubilee Medal for community involvement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. DENINE: By leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. DENINE: Next, we have Mr. Noel White. Mr. White is also an individual who is always available and has volunteered endless hours.

Mr. Speaker, some of Mr. White's volunteer activities include: He is a Deputy Grand Knight and Program Director with the Father John B. Kent Council of the Knights of Columbus in Mount Pearl; Past Chairman of the Kenmount Park Community Centre; he is an active member of Mary Queen of the World Parish; he is also involved with the Children's Lunch Program at Mary Queen of the World. He and his family, Mr. Speaker, were selected Family of the Year by the Knights of Columbus of Newfoundland and Labrador in 2003. He was also awarded the Queen's Jubilee Medal for community service.

Mr. Speaker, I think that the volunteer efforts of these two individuals are exemplary and I commend them both.

Mr. White and Mr. Mooney, I congratulate you on your award as Citizen of the Year for 2003, and wish you both every success in the future.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate Ms Emily King on being named Grand Falls-Windsor's Citizen of the Year for 2003.

Ms King was nominated for this prestigious award by members of the Aliant Pioneers and the Aliant Pioneer Partners Exploits Club. She is described by her fellow volunteers as a "Good-Will Ambassador" for being the driving force behind the success of the club's many community projects in the Grand Falls-Windsor area and beyond.

Ms King has been committed to the "Keep Kiddies Warm" program that supplies warm clothing to less fortunate children, and she has been praised for her involvement in the "Hug-a-Bear" program, where hand-made teddy bears are distributed to the RCMP, ambulance and fire departments, to bring comfort to children during traumatic events. Ms King also oversees the "Talking Bear" program, where speakers are inserted and wired to a microphone to help children open up and talk about what is bothering them.

Outside her involvement in the Aliant Pioneers Partners Club, Ms King is a very active person in her church.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Ms King has represented the Town of Grand Falls-Windsor during the Badger flood with arranging meals, and has been volunteering her time with many groups in the Central area.

Mr. Speaker, Ms King's dedication and personal commitment to the residents of our community and our Province has been outstanding and I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating her on being named Grand Falls-Windsor's Citizen of the Year for 2003.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the organizing committee for the 2004 Newfoundland and Labrador Summer Games which are being held in Marystown from August 7 to August 14. The official opening of the clubhouse was held on Friday night past, with the blessing of the property conducted by Rev. Robert Peddle.

Thanks to the partnering between the provincial government, the federal government, the Town of Marystown, the Town of Burin, the Marystown Kinsmen, and various other support groups in the area, these games are shaping up to be an extraordinary showcase of the organizational abilities of the local area and the athletic abilities of the Province.

Following the opening of the club house, the games flag was raised at the Marystown Council Office site. As well, the games theme song, The Summer Games Are Here At Last, was launched. I want to extend congratulations to Jennifer Walsh, a student at Marystown Central High School who wrote and performed the song. It is a catchy tune, one that you all will hear throughout the summer -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. JACKMAN: It is a catchy tune, one that you all will hear throughout the summer and throughout the games.

Mr. Speaker, the countdown has begun. There are ninety-five days to the start of the games. We hope to see many of you in Marystown from August 7-14.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to inform this House and all hon. members present of the annual Salvation Army Red Shield Appeal. This fundraising initiative is traditionally held on the first Monday in May.

Tonight there will be volunteers going door to door in communities all over Canada and right here in our Province to seek financial assistance for the many community programs that the Red Shield Campaign funds.

In the City of St. John's and surrounding area, there will be over 400 volunteers seeking our support to help the community based outreach ministries that the Salvation Army provide right here.

This program has been ongoing since 1940, when $1 million was raised in the first campaign held in the United States. Since that time, the Red Shield Appeal has grown immensely, with financial objectives continuing to rise out of necessity.

The Salvation Army are well recognized in our Province for their assistance to those in need and I ask that all hon. members and citizens of this Province remember them when they come knocking on your door tonight.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to inform this hon. House of a new youth initiative developed by the Council of the Federation which consists of all provincial and territorial premiers. This summer two participants from each province and territory will be selected to participate in a Youth Forum aimed at increasing youth engagement in Canadian public affairs.

Mr. Speaker, youth between the ages of nineteen and twenty-two are invited to submit an essay addressing the following question: What do you think governments and the Council of the Federation could do to capture your interest and involvement in Canadian federalism and public affairs?

The essays, which must be received no later than May 15, will be reviewed by the Institute for Public Administration of Canada and winners will be notified by June 15. The forum will take place June 28 to June 30 as part of the Council of the Federation Annual General Meeting.

Mr. Speaker, this initiative is critical as the future of our Province and country hinges on youth participation, involvement and education. Throughout this invaluable and unique learning opportunity, the Council of the Federation aims to engage youth in meaningful dialogue on issues relating to Canadian federalism and public affairs.

I am very, very pleased to announce this initiative today and I am proud of our Province's involvement in the forum. Mr. Speaker, I would like to encourage all interested young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians to submit essays. I am excited to see the outcome of this opportunity and I am confident that the Province will be well represented.

The forum will take place at Niagara-on-the-Lake and the Council of the Federation is delighted to provide financial support to all youths who are selected. For more information on the Youth Forum, please visit www.gov.nl.ca.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, having just celebrated a birthday yesterday, I can tell you if I was in this age category instead of where I am, I would be applying. I would certainly send in the essay and talk about the virtues of the Council of the Federation.

Mr. Speaker, it is important to note, the Council of the Federation was an initiative which - I guess the name of it, and the Premier would confirm this - largely came from some work done in Quebec, but it was very largely supported. The idea for it came from Newfoundland and Labrador and British Columbia in an opportunity to give the provinces a greater and more equal say in their dealings with the Government of Canada. I am delighted to see our Premier, on behalf of Newfoundland and Labrador, a full and active participant in the Council.

I must say, I do commend the Council as well, the premiers and the leaders of the provinces and the territories, in terms of recognizing one thing, that you need to have the young people of the country informed as to what the initiative is, informed as to what the Council actually stands for and what it is trying to accomplish. This is a great way, as I see it, to allow that to happen.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I commend all of them for coming up with this initiative to give the young people in this age category, nineteen to twenty-two, an opportunity to participate. I am sure they will learn a lot and they will be great supporters of a greater and more equal say for the provinces and territories involved in dealings with the Government of Canada as we try to make the country a better place for all of us.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to say that I, too, support the notion of this type of forum and way of young people to participate in a new - if I may call it - institution, I guess, of federal-provincial relations, the Council of the Federation. It is an important step in trying to have the provinces have more say in our federation and more influence with the Government of Canada without changing our Constitution at this stage. It is a good way for young people to understand and contribute to how that institution may make for a better Canada. So, I support this initiative and I certainly hope that the Council of the Federation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

Does the member have leave?

MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. HARRIS: I hope the Council of the Federation, when it meets the end of June as part of its annual general meeting, that it may have some greater success in influencing the Government of Canada to increase funding for health care which is so greatly needed across the country, and it requires significant federal initiatives to do that. I hope that the Premier and the other members of the Council of the Federation will be effective in achieving that goal.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to, briefly again, ask the Premier, on behalf of the government, if he would confirm that it is, indeed, the government's intention today to proceed with the passage of back-to-work legislation?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as indicated on Thursday, when we last met in this House, we decided that we would - actually decided on Wednesday - extend the time period for negotiation. We did do that and we extended it out until today. During that period, if I remember correctly, I think on Friday we received an offer from Mr. Puddister and NAPE which was considered by our officials, the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury if his officials consider it. They actually then met on Saturday and we had discussions on it with regard to looking at various modifications and counter proposals that we could come back to the union with regard to sick leave. We did, in fact, prepare those. We did, in fact, prepare those. We did, in fact, meet on Sunday morning - and I say we, I was in the building, however the minister and one of our negotiators met with Mr. Puddister and Mr. Reynolds. That meeting took two and a half hours. I think every possible alternative was explored, at least the ones that were left on the table. Unfortunately, the parties could not come to a mutual agreement, and at that point, I think, negotiations had virtually come to an end.

Of course, the day is still on and there is still time left, and if there is another position that has to be put forward we are always open to that position. The government's intention, today, is to proceed with the legislation which is before the House.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, could the Premier or the President of Treasury Board, as the chief negotiator for the government, confirm that union negotiators and the government have exchanged correspondence, or a letter, that could form the basis for settling the school board hours of work issue which is commonly referred to as the Warren Report? Is that true or not?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can just speak from the government point of view, and from the government point of view, no, we have not exchanged anything that indicated that is the case.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Strange! That is the exact opposite of what is reported in the media, Mr. Speaker.

I will go on to the next question. Can the Premier confirm that he, in fact, personally, according to the media reports - because that is what I go by, I don't go by secret meetings as is suggested by the government - has offered the unions a sick leave arrangement which is significantly different from the arrangement that is actually in the back-to-work legislation that we are going to be debating today?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We put numerous different options out there. We have publicly indicated the one that was the twelve, eighteen and twenty-four. We threw other options out, available on Sunday, a whole variety of options, and we have indicated, you know: Could we get settlement on this issue, on the school board issue, the wage issue and so on? If we could, on one hand, recognize savings in one area, we could look at making some marginal movement on the salary basis, if we can effect changes in these two other areas. That was in the context overall.

Yes, we did put and support numerous proposals. We spent most of the two and a half hours on Sunday dealing with different options. We broke and they discussed it, and we went in and discussed options and came back to the table again, but we didn't get any compromise on the sick leave whatsoever. We did not get to the other two issues because sick leave predominated that, and we hadn't come to any conclusion on it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to finish his answer.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, can the Premier, or again the President of Treasury Board, confirm the media reports which suggest that the government has expressed a willingness to offer a modest increase above the salary proposals that are in the legislation before this Legislature today? Is that true or not?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If he was listening, I just answered that in the previous question's response. I said that if we could get an arrangement on sick leave that would have some savings, and on the Warren Report, we could be prepared to move a bit on that, but we cannot give out with one hand if we cannot get savings on the other hand. I have answered that in his previous question, too, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question again by suggesting to the government, for their consideration, that we consider today an opportunity which we, as the official Opposition, would offer to revert to the Committee stage and allow the government an opportunity to put into the legislation, which they seem determined to pass, their latest offer to the unions with respect to sick leave, their latest position with respect to the hours of work, and their latest position with respect to salary and wages for the four-year period.

Our commitment - and I ask if the government would be willing to reach out to the workers in this manner. Would the government be interested in putting its offer to these workers, through their unions, into the legislation, by agreement and without debate from us, rather than debating and trying to pass, which they can some time today, a bill that actually gives them less than they have said at the bargaining table that they are willing to offer to them? Would they like to take us up on an opportunity to revert today, no debate from us, no delay, put in the legislation what you have offered at the bargaining table, yes or no?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have indicated that the issues outstanding, we were discussing all of the issues, if we could get an agreement on all issues, that one was dependent upon another; because, how can you give out salary on one hand if you do not get savings on the other hand?

My answer to that, are we going to revert? - we have had ample time, and they have had ample time, to voice their opinion - the answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is no. We have been four months dealing with this issue. In four months the unions have not moved one bit on that issue of sick leave. We have made numerous proposals on sick leave. He was concerned and talking about the workers. The workers did not have a chance to voice their opinion on any of our offers, Mr. Speaker. Not one single offer did they get a chance to voice their opinion on and vote on.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me see if I can get the point across by asking the question this way. Today, as I understand it, is May 3. The items that are in the legislation reflect the position of the government on March 31, with respect to sick leave, the Warren Report, and the salaries. There have been countless exchanges at the bargaining table since.

Would the government not consider, in fairness to the workers, the employees whom they value, in fairness to the process, that it makes more sense and is more just to put into the legislation the last position that they discussed at the bargaining table, rather than putting into law the position that is now over a month old?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There was also a five-year proposal on March 31, I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition. Discussions at the table, I made it quite clear, and we were very clear in all our written presentations to them, they were discussed as an entire package. Even previous ones were mentioned as an entire package. We discussed numerous options at the table and they were not prepared to move on any of these, Mr. Speaker.

Quite clearly, what is in the legislation is in the legislation. We tried everything we could to move and get a compromise and get them to move on issues that we were prepared to discuss. It did not happen, Mr. Speaker. It is unfortunate that it did not happen. What is in the legislation is in the legislation. He is only playing games to go back now and discuss something that was discussed last week and so on. That is not logical, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Again, Mr. Speaker, let me try just one last time on the issue to see if we can get some reason into this, instead of just the my-way-or-the-highway approach.

The government acknowledges that they have made some very different offers in the last thirty-two or thirty-three days. Rather than punish the workers, the 20,000 public employees, because they did not agree with the position, why does the President of Treasury Board and the Premier, why do they both not see the logic of putting into the legislation - which they are going to do today anyway - their last offer of the last weekend and the parking lot, rather than an offer of some thirty-three days ago that is less than what government voluntarily offered these same people in the last two or three days?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is not as simple as that. We have tried several different types of solutions, several variations, several creative formats, in order to try and reach an agreement on sick leave. The conversation that myself and Mr. Puddister had on the parking lot was a compromise which we felt was a very, very fair compromise, a very reasonable compromise; one, in fact, where we would achieve twelve days in the first ten years, the next fifteen years would be a compromise position of eighteen days, and then twenty-five going forward after that would be twenty-four. We would get the twelve that we needed on the front end, the union would get the twenty-four that they needed on the back end, when people were older and people needed more sick leave. We felt that was very fair.

The President of Treasury Board and Minister of Finance this weekend came up with a proposal, which was a modification of the twelve days, which talked about the twelve days which we have on the table, and also looking at an exceptional circumstance situation, if someone had a very serious illness, where we could find a way to accommodate them in that particular manner.

The other thing we have done is that we have set benchmarks whereby if certain benchmarks were achieved then the twelve days would be pulled off the table, but this was all part of a package of proposals. We were talking about salary, we were talking about Warren, we were talking about sick leave variations. We have done everything possible to come up here with a reasonable compromise. Mr. Puddister knows that, Mr. Lucas knows it, Mr. Reynolds knows it. We have done everything to get a negotiated agreement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to conclude his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

That opportunity was there all weekend. That opportunity was there during the two-and-a-half hours which they met on Sunday. It was not accepted. The union obviously does not want it and would not accept it, and therefore we had no other alternative than to proceed.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me try one more time, because it just seems that we are up against a brick wall here, which I can understand what some people deal with sometimes. The Premier himself just described a new package as being one that is very fair. He is going to dictate, and order by law, a resolution. There is no agreement in any event. If he thinks the last one, if he thinks the parking deal, is the right one, is the fair one, which has a very different sick leave proposal, offers some more money and settles the school board issue, why won't they today, with our agreement and without any delay, dictate that settlement that he just described as being a total package and very fair, rather than one that is five weeks old and is a whole lot worse?

If it is fair for the 20,000 employees, why don't they put it on paper today and ram that one through the Legislature instead of one that is unfair and is five weeks old? That is the question. Put your own fair proposal that you just described on the table today. There will be no delay from us. You are going to dictate something anyway. Dictate the latest offer and stop trying to be punitive and vindictive with people because they stood up for what they believed in.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We looked at numerous options. We have said to the -

MR. GRIMES: The last one (inaudible).

MR. SULLIVAN: I will get to the question if he would give me time, Mr. Speaker.

We said to him: Look, let's start and everybody keep twenty-four days. Let's keep that until December 31, 2005, one of the options we put forward as a possibility. We indicated, Mr. Speaker, that then if we do not get to the targets, twelve days will kick in. We never gave those options contingent on salary increases. The previous option we figured there could be movement and so on, if we can get compromise. We went beyond what we ever anticipated we would move to try to get a settlement in many options. They were discussed at the table. They were not firm offers. They were options we discussed at the table, basically, that is part of an entire package. The Leader of the Opposition is trying to take them now and trying to piecemeal hear and there. He should understand that if you are paying out money on one hand, you have to be able to save it on the other hand because we are in a difficult fiscal situation -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister to complete his answer.

MR. SULLIVAN: - the worst in our history because he played a big part in putting us in this situation.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just as I thought and suspected all along, there is no reason or rationale or logic. It is just a matter of putting in something that was put in a bill that was there a month ago, regardless of what has happened since. I am sure we will be interested in seeing the group opposite today stand up and defend that to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

One last question, a different one altogether, Mr. Speaker. The Government House Leader on Thursday past gave notice that the government today intends to adjourn the Legislature and take a break for the remainder of this week. Could I ask the Premier: What is the real reason for us taking a recess now? We are going to ram this offensive legislation through today. There are twelve pieces of legislation that the government already has on the Order Paper. We have not even started debate. We have not debated the Budget. We have not seen the auto insurance reform. What is the real reason that the government thinks we need to take a break from the Legislature when the place has not been open for a full year, Mr Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows, normally during Easter there is a recess of approximately two weeks when time is taken off. That was evaded this year. That was past by and it was not taken. We still have a government to run. We have to get on with doing the business of government and there is a lot to be done. For example, the alternative today of being in Houston, a conference that you have attended yourself on several occasions. It is a very, very important conference to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but I have decided that in the interest of what is going on in this House today that I have stayed here. However, as you can appreciate as a former Premier, there is lots of very important business that has to be done. We need to take two days from the House of Assembly, as a Cabinet and as a caucus, to deal with the business of government and to deal with the business of our constituents. But we will be back next week and we are prepared to go right through the night next week, if that is what you so wish and, if necessary, we will go right through until July.

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

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Is the Premier suggesting then, and did he just say - I thought I heard him say - that he, and the government that he leads, cannot govern Newfoundland and Labrador and have the Legislature open at the same time? Is that what I just heard?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We spent the last month here debating the Budget, and we have been caught up in very, very important matters. The public sector strike is a huge issue and of course it has taken a lot of our time and a lot of our energy, as we have devoted every single ounce of energy that we have in our collective bodies to try and get a resolution of this particular dispute. But, there are matters that are backed up. There were numerous people who could not get into this building because they could not cross picket lines. There were meetings that were cancelled, several dozens of important meetings that were cancelled. These people now need to meet with government and we need to make ourselves available. That is why there will be two working days taken off in the House of Assembly.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on last Thursday I asked the Premier a very important question and he sloughed it off to his Finance Minister. So, now Mr. Premier, you have another chance today to stand on your feet and tell the people of this House and the people of the Province: How much has government spent on media ads, overtime, meals for management, image consultants, public opinion polling, police protection, riot gear, rented decoy vehicles, and your personal bodyguard during the recent, unnecessary strike?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There are lots of expenses that are incurred through different departmental budgets, that is obvious. Lots of the costs do not come in for some time down the road. I can tell you what was spent totally on advertising. I am aware of what was spent there. Including giving advanced notice, what public services are available and road conditions and response that you have seen to the offers of the unions, in total there was a little over $200,000, of which the majority was spent on letting people know -

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. SULLIVAN: If the Member for Bellevue would permit me to answer, Mr. Speaker, I will try to do that..

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: The majority of that $200,000 - just slightly over $200,000 - was spent on making people aware of what services were available to the public, whether it be health or road conditions and those types of things. That was the majority of that $200,000. Less than $100,000, I would tell the member, was spent on the whole advertising thing, including making people aware of public services.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I can tell you that your government will be held accountable on that.

Mr. Premier, in your new approach budget to growing the economy your way, your Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board slapped 150 increases in fees and licences on ordinary people in this Province. Now, today, we hear you have a new plan to shaft the small businesses of our Province. You are expecting them to pay upfront in order to sell salmon and small game licences. I ask the Premier, does he realize the problems his government is causing for small businesses around rural Newfoundland ? Do you realize that creating this situation, where people must pay upfront, that you created a situation where only large chain stores will be able to sell those licences?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the last five years government has lost almost $200,000 because of some vendors not paying the fees.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, if the members across the floor would allow me to answer the question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, in the last five years government has lost almost $200,000 because of some vendors not paying. All retail outlets, Mr. Speaker, pay upfront for their retail goods. All retail outlets pay upfront for - whether it be beer, confectionary items, this is no different. The retail outlets are making $3 per licence. That will continue. They do not have to buy all of them upfront. They can buy a certain amount and as they run short, order another amount. We will continue -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer, quickly.

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

We will continue to provide these licences to the retail outlets, of which they make a commission on.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Mr. Premier, it is clear that you consult with no one; not your urban Cabinet, and for sure not your caucus. In fact, I do not say you consulted with anybody in rural Newfoundland and Labrador before you brought down this policy today.

Premier, you are known to have an extensive background in business and you are the Minister of Business. When you consider - I want to know what your take on this is: Do you think this is a fair deal for small business owners in rural Newfoundland? If they are going to sell government salmon licences and small game licences, they have to put their money upfront. They are going to lose 3 per cent or 4 per cent if a customer comes in to use their visa card. They have to do all the paperwork. In fact, there are three copies for a salmon licence and the tags to go along with it, then they have to wait sixty days to be reimbursed from the government. Now, Mr. Premier, will you tell your minister to cancel this stupid policy?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Our government has one of the lowest small business taxes of anywhere in the country. Twenty-some-hundred businesses, in addition to that, were exempted from the payroll tax - many in there. So, we are very conscious -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we are very conscious that no extra costs in taxation would be put and hurt small businesses in the Province, because small businesses are the backbone of this economy. We want to help small businesses grow in this economy and make Newfoundland and Labrador more prosperous.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture.

Over the weekend, Mr. Speaker, we have seen what appears to be another failed attempt by this minister to settle the impasse between fishermen and processors. Today we have heard that there are fishermen on the water fishing for crab and in a few days they will be landing this crab in Nova Scotia.

I ask the minister: What does he plan to do about this?

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

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the member is talking about; another failed attempt. First of all, Mr. Speaker, talks, as I understand it, just before coming into the House, are still ongoing down at the Fairmont. We have appointed three people as a mediation panel between processors and the Fishermen's Union. As far as I know, that process is still ongoing. My understanding is that both parties are very close on monetary issues, but there are some outstanding issues. We hope sometime this afternoon to have a deal, Mr. Speaker.

As for boats that are sailing, Mr. Speaker, the member knows that is not an uncommon occurrence. That has been going on for quite a number of years from the southern part of 3O and 3PS. There were many instances over the past couple of hundred years where boats have sailed to Nova Scotia to sell catch.

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

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about talks being ongoing for over a month, just like they were with the public sector unions, but even today we still don't have an agreement.

Mr. Speaker, the public of the Province knows that there are -

AN HON. MEMBER: Look at him laughing. Gerry, look at the Premier laughing at you.

MR. REID: Exactly, because the Premier doesn't mind what happens to the plant workers and the fishermen in the Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member is asking a question, I ask the co-operation of all members of the House to allow him to ask his question without interruption.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order raised by the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Just to set the record very straight, a light remark was made the Member for Grand Falls and I smiled in response to that remark. I was certainly not smiling about the issue, and it is a shame that they are trying to distort that to represent that. It was just a jovial comment made between two hon. members.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

The rules of this House apply to everyone, including the Premier. I would respectfully ask the Chair - the rule is, you don't disrupt and make points of order during Question Period, and the time that the Premier took away during Question Period ought to be added to Question Period.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will rule there is no point of order.

Again, I say to hon. members: When we have points to be made during Question Period we should not raise them during Question Period unless it is absolutely necessary, and this time will be added to the length of Question Period towards the end.

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the public of the Province know that there are a number of fish merchants out there from this Province who own crab processing facilities in the Maritimes. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Falcon Group of Companies which operates the plant in Burgeo has moved the crab processing equipment from that plant to Canso, Nova Scotia, where they could be processing Newfoundland crab in the next couple of days.

I ask the minister: What do you have to say about this and what are you going to do about it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, maybe if the previous ministers had done something to address the fundamental problems in the industry over the past five years, maybe we would not be confronted with this today.

Mr. Speaker, as I said when we rolled out the Dunne Report on February 4, there are fundamental problems in this fishing industry that need to be addressed. We laid out what government is going to do from a policy perspective. The matter that is before us today, both in the shrimp industry and the crab industry, is a dispute over price. That is an issue which must be resolved between the union and the processors. We have stepped in on numerous occasions over the past couple of months to try and help facilitate the process to get this fishery opened. We have allowed, or encouraged, a Final Offer Selection, binding arbitration mechanism, to take place on shrimp, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the minister now to complete his answer quickly.

MR. TAYLOR: What happened then, Mr. Speaker, we found that when the decision came down, one side would not live with the outcome.

Mr. Speaker, the former minister knows full well what the situation is in the crab and shrimp industry here in this Province, and we are doing everything that we can to encourage the fishery to take place.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member talks a lot about the past, while doing nothing. We have evidenced that here for the last month in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen too many of our resources go elsewhere to be processed. I ask the minister: What is he going to do to ensure that the plant workers in this Province are the ones who get to process our crab, rather than the plant workers in Nova Scotia?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before the minister answers, I would remind the minister to keep his answer short because we do have obligations time wise to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture and Labrador Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as the member is fully aware, any boat in this Province that can steam across the Gulf is free to go over there and land their crab, but there will not be any relaxation by this government or this minister of the provincial requirement that fish landed in this Province must be processed in this Province. It will not be allowed to go across the Gulf, Mr. Speaker, consistent with the policy that has been in place for many years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

What we have been hearing about over the last number of days, and here in the House this afternoon, is merely a failure of negotiation, which does not justify the kind of paternalistic, autocratic, punitive legislation that is contained in Bill 18.

Does the Premier not acknowledge that he is here today using a sledgehammer that will have the effect of destroying the house-called collective bargaining in the public sector by passing Bill 18 today? Will he not acknowledge that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are proceeding with this legislation today because we have to. We have done absolutely everything we can to try and reach an agreement. You cannot reach an agreement with a party that does not want to reach an agreement with you. We have done everything possible to try and reach an agreement. We have provided several alternatives, several options. It was all about options, it was all about packages, and that has been going on for a considerable period of time. We now have no other alternative but to proceed with this legislation. We did not want to. We did not want to in the beginning. It was a last resort. We said that from day one. Now we are on the last day and we have to proceed.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

One of the big failures, of course, is the failure of the Premier to realize that the unions had no mandate to negotiate a two-tiered system and could never agree to it.

Mr. Speaker, if this Premier is insisting on passing legislation today, and has refused the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that they negotiate the last offer, will he not acknowledge that the legislation is, in fact, punitive to workers in the Province and is really designed to try and drive a wedge between the leadership and the membership of the public sector workers?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting the hon. members opposite are now asking us to go back to a Committee so that they can vote in favour of something that they voted against the other evening at second reading in Committee, because that is exactly what you did. That is exactly what you did.

With regard to any kind of a wedge that has happened between the union leadership and the union membership, Mr. Speaker, that wedge has been self-inflicted. We take no responsibility whatsoever for that, no responsibility whatsoever. We put a proposal forward that we feel, if it had gone to the membership, would have been accepted as a very, very fair, a very reasonable and an affordable proposal from government's perspective. We can do no more than that. It is up to the unions, their leadership and their membership to pull together on that side. We have no control over that.

Mr. Speaker, on Friday we received a proposal that was signed by the President of NAPE. We received a press release that talked about a moratorium for thirty to forty days from CUPE. We received a second-hand oral offer from CUPE, which came from the other side.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to finish his answer quickly.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Offers are coming all over the place. Collectively they are not together. It is impossible to negotiate with that kind of a group.

MR. SPEAKER: We have time for one quick supplementary question.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The failure of negotiations does not call for imposed terms and conditions of employment by this Premier. Will he not acknowledge that what he is doing here, really, is getting his own way through legislation because he could not get it at the bargaining table?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I find it kind of ironic that all the people on that side of the House stood here after two months of negotiating at the individual tables, almost 200 pages of agreed items in Schedule C, each of them stood and voted against putting into this legislation items that were agreed on by both sides after two months. They did not want that here. Now, they stand up again and ask questions to go back and amend it, to do what? To correct what they did when they voted against everything that was agreed on? That is politics, Mr. Speaker, that is politics.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time allocated for Question Period has expired.

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

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, a point of order, actually, touching on two issues that were just raised by the Premier and the President of Treasury Board, because it is critically important to the debate we are going to have for the rest of this day. It points out again the Premier either does not listen, Mr. Speaker, or does not understand what he is being told.

He suggested that we, as the Opposition - the proposition I put forward in Question Period - wanted to go back to the Committee stage to vote for the changes. That is completely wrong. I never ever said that, Mr. Speaker.

For the record, and Hansard will show this, what I said is that if the government, out of a sense of fairness, would put its latest package, that he described as fair, on the table today, we would not delay the debate. We would not debate it and we would not delay it. We are never going to vote for it. We did not vote for it the last time, the last eighteen votes, and we are not going to vote for it today. Again, he did not understand. Maybe that strikes to the very root of the issue and the problem in bargaining, Mr. Speaker, either not listening or not understanding.

The second one, and the President of Treasury Board has said this three or four times, the amendments in Schedule C, which are the items that have been agreed to at the bargaining table, in these collective agreements by the parties, there are some items in here that they have reached an agreement on, and the President of Treasury Board stands up and says: We do not want those to be put into place.

He should know, if he is going to stop misleading the people, that at any point in time -

MR. SULLIVAN: You voted against it.

MR. GRIMES: We did vote against it, he said, and we did.

At any point in time, if he would stand up and acknowledge it, the parties, even the first day after a new collective agreement is signed, by mutual agreement - which is what has happened with this; they have mutually agreed to make these changes - you can make those changes any time by mutual agreement. You do not need a piece of legislation to do what has already been agreed to.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, make no wonder they have made a mess of the whole process.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition would know that points of order should relate to some procedural problems that the House might have. There is no point of order, because obviously this is continuing a debate and has carried over from Question Period. It might be a point of explanation, but there is certainly no point of order.

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

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, a direct question to yourself, as the Chair: Would you rule it is a point of order about procedure if we are asking for clarification that the very fundamental of the debate that we are going to have for the rest of this day and tonight hinges upon answers given by the Premier and the President of Treasury Board, and that the answers that they have given are both absolutely, totally false? Isn't that a point of order in terms of how we proceed for the rest of the day?

We are supposed to proceed based on factual information given by the leaders and spokespersons for the government. They have both given an answer which is absolutely and totally false. They know the difference. Why won't they stand up and acknowledge that so we can have a sensible debate for the rest of the day, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

First of all, we have to be always cognizant that when we address each other we do so in terms of words that respect the integrity of all hon. members.

Secondly, while the Leader of the Opposition may very well have a point of view, the Chair has no role in determining what should be the subject of negotiations between the respective House Leaders. If House Leaders can meet together and can decide on issues and the way in which this House should proceed, but it is not for this Chair to decide the manner in which this House proceeds to handle issues that come before the House. The Chair has no role, whatsoever, in deciding how the House will proceed today but only assuring that the rules of this House are respected and appropriately applied. I ask all hon. members, again, in addressing each other, please try to respect each other and give each other the integrity that we all deserve as parliamentarians.

The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe you ruled on that particular point of order. All I wanted to say is that it certainly was not a point of order. It is the Leader of the Opposition, under the guise of a point of order, taking an opportunity to debate an answer he did not like earlier in the day, and that is clearly against the rules.

MR. SPEAKER: I thought the Chair had made it quite clear that there was no point of order because there has been no infractions of the parliamentary process and the Standing Orders, and any other references that we have.

Presenting Reports by Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to 26.5(a) of the Financial Administration Act, I am tabling one Order in Council relating to funding pre-commitments for the 2005-2006 fiscal year.

Notices of Motion

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on tomorrow I move the following private member's motion:

WHEREAS there has been no comprehensive study which shows reorganization of the school boards in this Province will either save money or result in better educational delivery;

WHEREAS this restructuring has been undertaken in a hasty and unorganized fashion that could result in many problems within our K to 12 education system;

WHEREAS political patronage has been used to appoint transitional chairs to replace duly elected school chairs;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House of Assembly calls on government to halt any school board reorganization until proper studies and proper public input can be obtained.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Petitions

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

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to present the following petition on behalf of the students and parents of Carbonear area:

WHEREAS parents and students in Carbonear do not want to have their school close and unnecessarily bus students to Harbour Grace; and

WHEREAS existing school boards now cease to exist; and

WHEREAS the decision to close St. Mary's primary school in St. John's has been reversed; and

WHEREAS the new school in Carbonear is necessary;

WHEREUPON the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon the House of Assembly to reverse the decision of the Avalon West School Board to close St. Joseph's school, reverse the decision to bus students to Harbour Grace and commit funds to construct a new school in Carbonear.

Mr. Speaker, this past Saturday hundreds of people gathered in Carbonear to voice their concerns through the means of a massive rally and a motorcade throughout the town to show their concerns to the public, and the Town of Carbonear, just how important it is that they maintain their school system. Presently, as it stands, St. Joseph's school and Davis Elementary are in the vicinity of thirty-five years old; both of them have major deficiencies.

The school board last year, through the appeal process - the parents won the first case. The school board went back through the appeal process and decided to close the school of St. Joseph's. Shortly after that was done, an announcement was going to be made that the students from K to 6 would be bussed to Harbour Grace and the other school, Davis Elementary, would accommodate the balance. The problem with all that, Mr. Speaker, is that the school in Harbour Grace - St. Francis is not ready. There are major deficiencies at that school. Davis Elementary, as it already stands, has been the subject of a number of engineering reports stating that the school is not up to standard - by any standards - for today's children to receive proper schooling.

I was in a classroom last year where you had to climb in over desks to get to the inside of the school. It was part of a library in that school which was chopped up to make an extra classroom. The desks were packed in so tight that the students were not able to walk in and walk down an aisle, or in any orderly manner to get to their seats. They had to climb over each others seats. Mr. Speaker, it is a fire hazard to say the least. The parents are saying that there is nothing unreasonable here to maintain the status quo for at least another year to give the new board - which was appointed by this government just a little while ago - amble opportunity to review the situation again and just look at the foolhardiness of what is happening here in this particular situation. The parents and students all agree, and not only the parents and students, but all the school councils in the area have all met and condemn the actions of that school board. I have been a part of this process, and I say to the parliamentary secretary, to the Minister of Education, he has been part of it for the past two years.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. SWEENEY: By leave to clue up, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: A moment to clue up. Leave has been granted.

MR. SWEENEY: I just wish to conclude by saying that I have a feeling this will be one of many petitions to come. There is a tremendous amount of interest in both communities out there. As a matter of fact, in all of the communities, as this whole picture unravels and the necessity of making the right decision for that particular area becomes more and more important.

Thank you, Mr. speaker.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition on behalf of residents from the Southwestern region of this Province, particularly from Rose Blanche to Stephenville, concerning the health care suggestions that there may be a downgrading in terms of the services available at the Dr. Charles L. LeGrow Health Centre at Port aux Basques, or in the clinics in the Codroy Valley and in Rose Blanche. It is signed by about eighty people. This is number eight petition that I have presented in this House, by about 2,000 people to date.

There was a meeting last evening in Port aux Basques and there are some photographs circulating, in fact, today about those who were not there - some empty chairs and some names on them. People were very disappointed at the meeting. It was a public meeting, well advertised. Government representatives were asked to attend. All government members declined, for the second time. The Minister of Health declined, the Premier declined, and the Member for Stephenville East was not present. I just say to those members that the people at the public meeting were very upset - not with the fact that they did not get answers to their questions, but the fact there was no one there even to ask a question of.

We have parliamentary secretaries to ministers, to either one of the ministers named. We have parliamentary secretaries. We have departmental staff who could certainly have made themselves available. The Deputy Mayor of Port aux Basques went through twice and had made written requests to government members to at least show up and tell us where they stand on this issue, or tell them what the facts are. That was refused on both occasions and no one showed up.

It is not bad enough that the issue does not get dealt with or cannot even be dealt with until later down the road when the HAY committee comes in, but that does not do away with the disrespect that the people of Western Newfoundland are shown by at least not having someone turn up to give some kind of answers. I cannot put into words strong enough, the displeasure and the disappointment with the people there from my district, from the Member for Stephenville East, who vocally said, and it all was recorded - who did not have the courtesy and decency to show up and at least answer or try to answer some of the people's questions.

I have about another fifty such petitions to present in this House, and until such time as someone in this government is prepared to acknowledge that Southwestern Newfoundland exists, and that we have some problems, I shall continue to make this point and press this point to the people of this Province.

Contrary to the laugh and the smirk that the Member for Ferryland has on his face, health care is very serious to the people in Western Newfoundland, and we shall continue to make our point.

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the hon. the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: I was speaking with the Leader of the Opposition there, on that. I was not directly making a statement to him at all. If, in any way, he took offence to that, and thought it was, I certainly apologize, but I was just having a conversation with the Leader of the Opposition sitting next to him. If I offended him, I apologize for that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

I ask the hon. the Opposition House Leader if he is finished his presentation. There is about twenty-five seconds remaining.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I have finished for today. I just wanted to make the point that this is a very serious issue and it will not go away. Someone should have the decency to let those people out there know what the government's position is, or what the facts are.

I cannot tell them because I have been refused any information. I have been asking this minister in this House several times in the past three or four weeks. I just implore you again to at least acknowledge to the people on the Southwest Coast of this Province that they exist and they are valued.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Pursuant to Standing Order 32, I move Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the Acting Government House Leader has risen on Standing Order 32. It says, "A motion for reading the orders of the day shall have preference to any motion before the House."

I do believe that it has been a practice here that this is consistent with Standing Order 32. I read that to mean that the government is now ready to proceed with the Orders of the Day. If that is the case, then the Chair has to recognize that Standing Order 32 applies.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

A point of order and clarification, I guess.

The Acting Government House Leader has risen to invoke rule 32. Just so people in the Province understand, and I guess it is our understanding over here, what government is doing here is cutting off the ability of the Opposition to present petitions of the people in this House, which takes three minutes, according to our rules, to present a petition, of which there was one more to present; three minutes, in a day, I might add, that we already have been given notice of last Thursday, that is not going to end at 5:30 p.m., that is not going to end at 10:00 p.m,. and we have the government, with its heavy-handed hobnail boots approach again, saying that this member over here cannot be given three minutes to present a petition from his district. I just want to clarify, that is the type of approach this new government, with its new approach, is taking.

Thank you.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have no way of knowing whether the Opposition has one more petition or 100 more petitions to present. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition will have until July, if they want it, to present petitions, but at the moment the government is moving, under Standing Order 32, that we proceed with Orders of the Day.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I assumed that the Acting Government House Leader was speaking to the point or order which has been raised by the Opposition House Leader.

In this particular case there is no point or order because the Standing Orders of our House are quite clear. Whether or not the government gives leave to the member to present his petition is entirely up to the government, not up to the Chair.

I call again on the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move Motion 6 and Motion 7, which would be that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m., nor will the House adjourn at 10:00 p.m.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I do believe that we have to have a motion that the Orders of the Day be now read, because it says here, "A motion for reading the orders of the day...".

Therefore, we do need a motion that the Orders of the Day do now be read, before we can proceed to any other business.

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32, I move that the Orders of the Day now be read.

MR. SPEAKER: It is moved that the Orders of the Day be now read.

All those in favour of the motion, aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, nay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to move Motion 6 and Motion 7. That is that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. nor at 10:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Do we have consent that both motions would be handled together? The motion is, that they would be handled together. Or, shall we handle them separately? Do we have agreement?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Together.

MR. SPEAKER: Handle them together.

It is moved, pursuant to Motion 6 and Motion 7, that this House not adjourn at 5:30 today nor at 10 o'clock in the evening.

Persons in favour of the motion, aye.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, nay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motions are carried.

The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, Order 2, please, third reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 2, third reading of a bill, "An Act To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation Of Public Services." (Bill 18).

The hon. the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to speak to third reading of Bill 18. I will not take a long time.

Government, Mr. Speaker, over the last several days, have not been in any rush to move this piece of legislation through third reading. We have taken a number of days since we finished the second reading debate and the Committee debate to give the process an opportunity to work. Over the course of that time, as I understand it from my colleagues the Premier and the President of Treasury Board, there have been a number of discussions take place between both parties with a view to bringing the negotiations to a successful conclusion.

I think it is now obvious, Mr. Speaker, to all concerned, that is not possible. The reasons why it is not possible, I guess, depend on which side of the question you are on. The fact of the matter is, it has now become obvious that it is not possible to bring the negotiations to a successful conclusion. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in view of that, I believe it is fair and right and proper that government proceed to do what it has to do.

We know that under our collective bargaining laws the old contract can stay in place until a new one is negotiated, we know that, but, Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of things agreed to between the parties that are beneficial for the public employees of this Province, and this piece of legislation will do that. It will allow to become operative, to become the law of the land, those areas of negotiations that both parties agreed to. There were a whole number of those, I believe, included in the schedule to the bill that was passed here in this House a few nights ago. So, this legislation will allow that to happen.

A couple of other things that it will allow to happen, Mr. Speaker. It will give certainty to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that the public services of this Province will be provided by the public servants for the next four years. People will not have to be on the kind of on again, off again - is it today, is it tomorrow, is it next week, is it next month. It will bring certainty and clarity to the resumption of public services in the Province.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is right and proper that the government proceed to finalize this legislation with a view to putting in place those areas that have been agreed to and putting in place, also, a legislated contract in areas where there hasn't been agreement.

Mr. Speaker, having said those few words, to begin the debate on third reading, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I move that this question be now put.

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

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

MR. HARRIS: Perhaps it is a point of order in terms of how we proceed from here, but I understand that the acting Government House Leader has moved what is called the previous question. I had prepared an amendment that Bill 18 be recommitted to the Committee of the Whole with instructions to reconsider Clauses 5, 6 and 7 for the purpose of ensuring that the punitive, regressive and unnecessary measures that do not contribute to the goal of stability in the public service be removed by amendment or deletion.

I understand that not just the measures that have been agreed to are being put to the House, and in fact the amendment I was about to propose cannot now be put, the acting Government House Leader having moved what is known as the previous question, and that as a result of that everybody in the House can only speak once and that no amendments of any kind can be put.

Is my understanding correct in that, Mr. Speaker, and is that perhaps why the acting Government House Leader moved it.

MR. SPEAKER: Speaking to the point of order, the Acting Government House Leader.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I have to concur with the observations of my friend, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, that their amendments will not be allowed. Members will be allowed to speak once for twenty minutes; except the Leader of the Opposition and the Premier, I believe, are allowed to speak for sixty minutes each. As I say, I moved the previous question before I took my seat.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair concurs with the analysis put forward by both members. Once we move to the previous question, than there can be no further amendments. In fact, it clearly states and says: The previous question, until it is decided, shall preclude all amendments of the main question, and shall be in the following words, "That this question be now put." If it is resolved in the affirmative, the original question would then be put forthwith after that decision is made. The practice of this House is that when the previous question is put forward, that the Leader of the Opposition can have an hour to debate it, so can the Premier of the Province. All other members have twenty minutes. There can be no further amendments put forward when this matter is put before the House under Standing Order 43. So, the Chair rules that whatever negotiations might take place, it is not for the Chair to decide. However, when Standing Order 43 is put forward, it is the Chair's function to make sure that the rules of the House and the Standing Orders are complied with by all members.

The debate on the previous question, the Member for Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise again today to speak on Bill 18 which - in terms of the bill itself and the procedure in this House - has made history in our democracy in this Province in that, I guess, it is the first time that a bill was ever brought before the House before any debate and closure was brought in, and what we see with the House Leader today in third reading of a bill which eliminates any of us from putting forward any kind of amendments to the bill, rules it out of order and we are not able to have any input in terms of what should be in this particular bill.

For the people around the Province, I was out in my district - as a matter of fact, I was in Trinity-Bay de Verde attending a cadet function on the weekend and people were coming up to me and saying: Percy, isn't it amazing? You are in there debating a bill, An Act To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation Of Public Services, and we all know that the public service went back to work last week. There is no need to have this bill. Normally, in a bill in the House - for people around the Province who are not used to parliamentary procedure - normally there is the title of the bill and then there is a purpose for the bill.

One of the things that happened when this bill came in, there was a title, An Act To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation Of Public Services, but there was no purpose of the bill. I guess in the debate over the last week or so we know now what the purpose of this bill was. It is not outlined, and what the government had indicated was that the purpose of the bill was in the title of the bill, An Act To Provide For Resumption And Continuation Of Public Services. There is nothing further from the truth. I mean this statement and this bill is not about legislating or putting public employees back to work. They have already gone back to work. So why are we here today? Hon. members and people in TV land, we are here today because the bill now should be changed to: An act to force a contract on public employees. That is the title of the bill that we are debating today: An act to force a contract on public employees.

When we hear the Minister of Finance and the Premier on the media talking about: We are going to legislate an agreement. What foolishness! These are the people that we put in charge of running this Province. They are saying, we are legislating an agreement. An agreement has never been legislated in a democracy. There is no such thing as legislating an agreement. You cannot legislate an agreement. An agreement in the Webster's dictionary says - and, Mr. Speaker, a former teacher like yourself knows quite well what an agreement means. An agreement means that when two parties sit down and they come up with a compromise. They write down what the agreement is. That is what a collective agreement is. It is called a collective agreement.

What we are doing here today, with the iron fists of the Legislature, with every rule that is in the book - and serving in this Legislature as a Deputy Speaker for many years, and serving in the Chair. What we have here is not a democracy, it is every rule in the book - this government has used every rule in the book to limit debate and to bring closure on this particular bill. We could see it last week, Mr. Speaker. You could probably see, An Act To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation Of The Public Services of the Province. When this bill was read for the first time you could see that. We had health care workers around this Province out on a work stoppage, on a legal work stoppage.

The Minister of Health was up one day saying everything in the health care system was fine. No problems whatsoever, and the next day they came in and brought in this particular bill: An act to force people back to work, and if they did not go back to work, the union itself would be fined $250,000, the union leadership $25,000, and the employee who did not go back to work would be fired. That is what we are talking about here today. So it is not emergency legislation anymore. There is no reason for this bill to be in the House today. As a matter of fact, two or three weeks ago the Opposition recommended a way to resolve this particular dispute, and the law was already there in the Collective Bargaining Act to send the issues to binding arbitration.

Even over the weekend, the one issue that was outstanding, the leaders of NAPE and CUPE indicated to the government, they said: Okay, we will sign off on the things that we have agreed on and send one issue only, the sick leave, to binding arbitration. The answer from this government was: No. Why? Because their intent in the first place, right from the beginning, right from the time that this Cabinet was sworn in in October until the Premier went on provincial television with his presidential address, that was their objective right from the start.

I brought in a private member's resolution some three weeks ago calling on government to resort to meaningful negotiations and not to legislate them back to work and everybody on that side of the House voted against that. When I read that - at that particular time, three weeks ago - that this was the objective, I was hoping I was going to be wrong, Mr. Speaker. I had hoped that I was going to be wrong, but I guess I was right. That the real intention was to force a contract on the public employees of this Province.

The other disturbing thing I heard on the weekend is that the Premier, again, is putting another wedge in the union movement in this Province, because I think this Premier is out to break every union in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is his objective, to break every union in this Province.

When I heard him on the news media saying: We have a little bit more. We have another little percentage to give them in salary. Dangling the carrot, the rich man. Dangling the carrot in front of the poor man's eyes and saying: Oh, yes, we have another percentage. I do not know why they do not take it to the membership.

What are you going to take to the membership? Tell me: What are you going to take to the membership? Every time the Premier and the Minister of Finance open their mouths, it is a different story. They twist and turn so much that they have caused a hurricane in Newfoundland and Labrador in terms of labour relations. I never saw the like of it before in my life. No such thing as mediation or conciliation. As a matter of fact, negotiations have now reached a real level; we are doing it in gas stations, on the parking lots in Mount Pearl. I think one of the union leaders the other day said: I guess the next thing we are going to have is drive-through conciliation. Drive-through conciliation.

I just wonder. Sometimes I sit here as a Newfoundlander and a Labradorian and I am just wondering: We have to go to Ottawa, we have to go around this world, and try to negotiate a better deal for this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and when they see the way that this government is acting, I wonder what is going to happen to this Province? I have real concerns about what is happening to this Province.

I ask every one of the hon. members on the other side, who just got elected here six months ago - some of you are new to this particular House - I urge you today to get up and debate this legislation. We sat here the other day and we were the only ones who spoke, and that is the thing that I heard in Cavendish the other day: Where are the government members? We do not hear them.

Mr. Speaker, I used to be a teacher and an educator, and you used to be a teacher and an educator. We know what an agreement is. Now we will go to the word, debate. What is a debate? A debate is two people, or a group of people. One is for and the other is against. Now, we have given all of the arguments on this side of the House why we cannot vote for this legislation. Every person on this side of the House has stood and spoken in the debate and said what is wrong with this particular legislation. We have not heard one member on that side get up and argue, not one person.

The House Leader got up, and the Member for Lewisporte and the Minister of Transportation got up, and they never said one word about this particular legislation when we were in Committee on the bill. They got up and talked a lot of nonsense but they never talked about the bill.

What I am saying to the Premier - and our leader said it today - whatever you have that you are going to give to the public employees, lay it on the table. This is the people's House of Assembly. If you have things that are there in terms of salaries, in terms of sick leave, that are better, and in terms of the Warren Report that are better than was negotiated at the end of March, lay it on the table. Give these people at least the decency to offer them and legislate what had been agreed to in the last stages of the last two or three days.

We have the little carrot of the 1 per cent or 2 per cent. In the same news item, right after, on the weekend, I was out in my district listening to the news, and there was something that was really, really disturbing and has great concern for me in terms of where we are going as a society. At the same time that the Premier was saying we have this little carrot, this little 1 per cent or what have you that we are going to give to the janitors, the secretaries, and all of that, some of the lowest paid people we have in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, he was going to give them a generous - there was a little carrot there with another 1 per cent. He made such a big deal out of it.

I tell you, in the next news item there was a news story about the Premier's buddies. The average salary of CEOs in this country, this year, is $3.5 million. That is the average salary of CEOs, the friends that the Premier golfs with. The Premier's golfing buddies are being paid $3.5 million. I have a hard job trying to say that, $3.5 million.

I say to the Member for Lake Melville, do not go laughing and carrying on, because this is very serious. There are a lot of people working with the public service in your district, so we expect you to get up and talk about the legislation.

I am concerned about what is happening in this country. I am concerned when CEOs of companies can make $3.5 million. Mr. Speaker, do you know how much an hour the average CEO makes in this country? Seventeen hundred and fifty dollars an hour, a CEO makes. Seventeen hundred and fifty dollars. The CEO of a company that takes off to a golf game with the Premier, and it is a three-hour golf game - I do not know because I do not play golf - anyway, the CEO, for that golf game, would get paid roughly around $5,000 for the three hours.

We have a janitor out in our schools, working like a slave, trying to keep the schools tidy and clean for our children - our future, as a matter of fact, our children - and I could imagine if the janitor of the schools was listening to that news bulletin that I listened to, that CEOs were going to get $1,750 an hour. Seventeen hundred and fifty dollars an hour.

To make the best of it, do you know what their wage increase for this year is going to be? Their wage increase this year for CEOs is going to be 8.5 per cent; an 8.5 per cent increase. For the top CEOs in this country, their salary increase this year is 8.5 per cent, and the hon. members on the other side are saying to our janitors and our secretaries, and the people who provide essential health care to the people in this Province, the people at the Hoyles-Escasoni, the angels in the world - I have an aunt over at Hoyles-Escasoni, ninety-one years of age, and she thinks the workers are angels. We are saying to these people, you have to take a zero increase, a zero increase next year, and the CEOs of this country are going to make an 8.5 per cent increase.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not counting bonuses.

MR. BARRETT: Not counting bonuses. That is just their hourly rate. Do you know how much an increase the hourly rate is, 8.5 per cent, Mr. Speaker, as a former teacher? Seventeen hundred and fifty dollars an hour, 8.5 per cent, they are roughly going to get $150 an hour increase. One hundred and fifty dollars an hour increase, and we are saying to these angels who are at the Hoyles-Escasoni, who look after these senior citizens and do such a tremendous job - I know a lot of them in my visits over there; they work like dogs - we are saying: Okay, our corporate buddies, the Premier and his corporate buddies - because he used to be a CEO at one time. He used to be a CEO. We do not know what he is now because he has not done his Conflict of Interest statements and all this sort of stuff, but that is a topic for another day - they are getting an 8.5 per cent increase and we are going pay our civil servants, our public servants, zero per cent. I think it is utterly ridiculous.

The other thing that we have heard in the media is that there was an agreement on the Warren Report. They say one thing in the media and they say another thing in the House. That is the sad part about it. They are on the media saying one thing, and in this hon. House they say there was no agreement on the Warren Report; but, the Minister of Finance is on there saying that they had a letter, a sign-off, on the Warren Report.

It is really frustrating, Mr. Speaker, to know that those people on the other side of the House have such a disregard for public employees in this Province. Some of these employees, all of them, provide such a valuable service to all of us in this Province, and we are here today passing an act in this House to force a contract on the public employees of this Province. I can't wait for the members on the other side - and I am hearing it as I go around the Province and in my district, that the general public out there cannot really understand what is going on, that the members on the other side haven't been able to speak, are either are not permitted to speak, cannot speak, or don't want to speak. Some of these people went to the electorate six months ago and said: We would never ever, ever, while we were government, legislate anybody back to work. That is what they said in their campaign literature, that we would never ever, ever, legislate our employees back to work, that we would take part in meaningful negotiations. Well, what we have seen is the Premier of this Province spend about four or five hours, within the last month, at the negotiating table.

Agreements, Mr. Speaker, are negotiated when two sides sit down at a table and present their positions; went two parties sit down. What we have seen here is nothing but a charade, a complete charade, of the whole collective bargaining process in this Province. What we have now is a piece of legislation forcing a contract on the public employees.

I will tell you one thing, I am really glad that I am not the Minister of Labour in this government, because there is no role - I don't know what role the Minister of Labour played in all of this. There was nothing in the media in terms of the role of the Minister of Labour. When I was Minister of Labour, there were two or three work stoppages that I was involved in. There were a couple that were no business of the government whatsoever, in terms of provincial government. The airport strike here in St. John's was going on and on and on, and we saw such a dramatic impact that was having on the whole economy of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the economy of the greater St. John's area. I traveled to Ottawa and I met with the Minister of Labour federally and got their top mediator to come into the Province and sit down -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. BARRETT: By leave, just to conclude?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

 

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. BARRETT: I personally got involved in the discussions and got both parties together. I spent the whole weekend, one weekend. There was a give and take on both sides, and in the end we ended up with an agreement.

In Gander I talked to both sides, and the union and the Airport Authority decided to go to binding arbitration. There was such an impasse that they could not reach any kind of agreement. They agreed to go to binding arbitration.

I am calling on the hon. members on the other side, let us revert to the committee of this bill and put in the small percentage raise that you have already agreed to, put in the Warren Report, put in your revised sick leave and then you can go back to your districts with your heads held high saying that I stood up for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and not go back to your districts in shame.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEDDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today with regard to Bill 18, An Act To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation Of Public Services.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. Basically, a bill that will provide a closure to the current impasse that this government, NAPE and CUPE are experiencing as they have come to grips with trying to reach a negotiated settlement. I might add, Mr. Speaker, it is a position that I certainly did not want to find myself in or this government in. I have to express disappointment that the parties could not negotiate a settlement. It is disappointment that I felt as I seen over the last couple of days any hope of a settlement, a negotiated settlement, fall to the wayside.

Mr. Speaker, I do not stand here with regard to blame because I am convinced that both parties in this impasse have tried to come to some sort of negotiated settlement. In trying to reach that point they have begged to differ. It has gone on now, not only for the twenty-some-odd or the twenty-seven days, I believe, that the 20,000 workers were on strike, but even prior to that date.

As you know, there was, on March 31, a settlement offered which was very hopeful would prevent the strike from even occurring. That did not happen, Mr. Speaker, and in the days that followed I witnessed - mostly from the government side, because obviously that is the side that I am more party to - I saw a Premier, I saw the President of Treasury Board go to the wall with regard to trying to find a way to negotiate a settlement. I must also add, I saw other parties, in particular the union leaders, the negotiators on that side, do what they had to do with regard to their membership in trying to bring about a settlement. Again, I had to express my disappointment that some negotiated settlement could not be brought about.

We brought this bill forward last week - I believe it was last Monday and Tuesday - and a maritime session on Tuesday to get through the second reading and stopped at that point to give time - a matter of probably five days - for continued negotiation and, basically, that negotiation failed. I even heard the Premier say today, that it is still not too late. So, we do live with some degree of optimism, that perhaps even now in these dying moments, or I guess hours as this bill is proceeding, that some resolve could be brought about.

I rise in support of this bill because I have come to the realization that unless there is really a miracle in the next hour or so, that there is not going to be a negotiated settlement. Because of that, I would have to say that I must support this bill because I have to see an end to this particular chapter in negotiations come to a close. I also have to point out that when you have 20,000 workers who are out on the streets literally - and I have seen them over the twenty-seven days that they were out there. When you look at 20,000 people out on the streets, I have to compliment and congratulate them on the manner in which they conducted themselves. I did pass through picket lines and I must say that the people on the picket lines were accommodating, as they would in these sorts of situations. The very fact that there were no incidents on so many picket lines by so many people, is testament to these workers. We must remember that they were where they were legally, that this is part of the process. They are to be certainly commended and congratulated for what they did because it was not easy on April 1 for them to leave their jobs, jobs which they value, jobs which they conduct, that allows this Province to conduct the business of government to provide services for the people of this Province and the value of which, in any terms, is absolutely priceless.

After twenty-seven days, I might also add, they did return to work. What I have witnessed over the last number of days in the workplace that I am a part of, was workers who came back - and we understand that they would return with some degree of bitterness, with some degree of anger, and with some degree, I suppose, of trepidation as to what was there for them, but I must report, the workers that I have seen in the department of which I am a part, came back and picked up their work in the professional manner in which I knew they would and are conducting themselves in the workforce as if they had never missed a day; struggling, of course, to pick up on the work that was missed, and it is going to take a while as things settle out.

Speaking in support of this bill as well, Mr. Speaker, we have to realize that even though we do not have a negotiated settlement, that indeed there have been some gains - some gains with regard to what was originally put on the table. The President of Treasury Board has already referenced on a number of occasions that - and when I look at this bill and the papers that are attached to it - there has been a fair amount of movement with regard to resolving some of the issues with the number of bargaining units of which NAPE and CUPE consist. There is some relief with regard to salaries in years three and four. Things like indexing is off the table. We have to admit, there certainly have been some gains and there have been losses too, Mr. Speaker. As we know, in the course of this type of action tempers do flare. Things are said and personal things are often brought in, and that has not been where anyone would have liked to see people go.

This bill will bring to a close, as I said, a chapter, in the hope that over the years to come or in the days to come that some resolve can be brought about with regard to all outstanding issues. It is unfortunate that at this particular time of a new government, six months into their mandate, that we do have a bottom line, and a bottom line that is dictated by circumstances that were far beyond our control; beyond our control with regard to the history that has gone before us. I am sure that maybe people are getting a little bit tired of hearing it, but we do have a bottom line brought about by a deficit that is so overpowering that drastic measures have to be taken. The resolve of this government is to take those hard decisions, to build on those hard decisions, for what we consider a very, very healthy future.

I am reminded of an editorial in The Telegram about a week or so ago, and the headline was, "Bitter medicine for a healthy future." It is unfortunate that we are in that sort of a predicament. I tell you, this medicine that we are putting forth today certainly is bitter medicine but it is there for a purpose, Mr. Speaker, a purpose that goes beyond even what we are doing today. It is a purpose that I believe in, that this government believes in, and that is the purpose of preparing for our children, for our grandchildren, a healthy future, a future that they will be quite capable of building on. It is a legacy that we are passing down; but, as my Premier has said time and time again, this did not develop overnight. It will not be solved overnight. It is going to take time.

What we are asking the Province, as we put forth this bitter medicine, is to stay with us. Even though it is difficult, I am assured, and I can assure them, that the future will be a healthy future if we are given the opportunity to continue to move forward in building up the resources of this Province so that we can give what our workers deserve, both in salary and in benefits. I live for the day that I can stand up in this House of Assembly with a Budget that is going forward with many new initiatives, especially on the revenue side, that I can look at a negotiated settlement with our workers that will build on what has gone on in the past.

Mr. Speaker, this is not easy. No one said it was going to be easy, but on October 21 we took on this responsibility. Part of that responsibility has been played out today. I am prepared to stand with this government in moving forward with this bill, as bitter as it might be, and looking forward to the future, a healthy future, for our sons and our daughters.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I guess we have spoken about this Bill 18 a good many times by now, and it seems like we are down now to the eleventh hour of speaking about it again. I, for one, will not be voting in support of Bill 18. Last Tuesday night, I saw members opposite, and not one of them stood and spoke in support of this bill, but all of them stood - and I was keeping record here on my own - and I saw sixteen times that members opposite stood and voted clause after clause on this Bill 18. Now, all of a sudden today, at the eleventh hour, I guess they have been instructed to show some support to their leader by standing, a few of them, and saying why they agree with this bill.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not necessary. I have said it from day one, and many others have said it as well. What we are seeing here today, I guess you can probably look at it from two angles. You could look at it as the failure of the new government to be able to negotiate successfully and come to a conclusion that both parties have been able to live with, or you could take the other approach, and that would be that we have a Premier who will not be flexible. It is his way or no way.

I expect, when you look at the only matter that is currently on the table, I think I would agree with the latter point I made: his way or no way. What you saw here last Thursday night, or we heard in the media Friday - no, maybe it was Thursday - when the poll came out that was done by NTV Telelink, and they gave the results of how people in the Province viewed the whole strike, and how the government had handled it, I think there was kind of a feeling of desperation, particularly with our new Premier. He was sitting in Confederation Building on Wednesday night, and I am sure that he had his two closest advisors with him, the only ones he ever has, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, and the Government House Leader. I would not expect there was anybody else up on that eighth floor in the Premier's Office, only those two individuals with the Premier, and they looked out over the city and they probably said: Where did we go wrong? Do you know what? We are soon going to be entering another polling period now and we have not gotten the people of the Province on our side on this issue. What can we do to salvage this deal?

With that, the Premier said: Well, I know Leo pretty good. Leo has been a friend of mine for a lifetime. I will just give him a ring now.

With that, he rang Leo at 10:45 in the night. It did not make any difference that the man was out in Bay Bulls, home for the night, watching a movie. That did not matter. The Premier had to get this deal settled so he could save face and say that he was the winner. So he rang Leo and they chose a location that would be half-and-half, half from the Confederation Building and half from Bay Bulls. They picked a parking lot at a service station, almost something like out of a movie you would have seen about fifty years ago on television. They had their little meeting and he tried to get Leo to see it his way. The only problem was, what he was offering Leo was something that he offered him six weeks ago, trying to put a new spin on it. Leo would not go for that. Leo would not sell out his membership to have a two-tiered system in health care.

Now, that did not fly very well with the Premier because he thought he could save that deal and he would come out on top as the winner, and he would be able to maintain the fact that he had dealt with every issue on the table and, by golly, he had won on sick leave. He was determined that, if he only could get that settled without having to fix it here in the House, he would be the hero in his first semester - the Opposition Leader has been rating him on his first semester's governance of this Province - but, by golly, Leo would not sell out on his principles on the two-tiered health system.

There was a way out, and Leo had that way out. The next day, Mr. Puddister rang up the Premier and said: No deal, but we have something here now that we can both live with, if you will go along with it. What that is, is this: We are down to one little piece of business. We have everything else solved. We have been through the wringer on this one. We are down to one piece of business and that is sick days. Now, I have the solution - Mr. Puddister bounced that off the Premier. The solution was: let's take that sick leave and give it to arbitration, and whatever they come out with I am satisfied to live with. How about you, Mr. Premier, can you do the same?

We all knew that coming up with sick leave, letting a third party, someone completely objective - and we all know that there is no short-term money involved. There is no money involved in this short term. This is down the road, years and years to come, but it will set a pattern. In my opinion, as being the former Minister of Labour and President of Treasury Board, the union themselves made the biggest compromise, I think that I have ever seen, willingly. The biggest compromise. I was shocked when co-operatively, from the outset, the union agreed to a two-year wage freeze. I think that took the cake. When the union willingly agreed to a two-year wage freeze that was a huge compromise, a very huge compromise and they never moved off that. They agreed to it and they never tried to get it back.

I do not know if the Premier acknowledged that big concession made by the union right off the top. I do not know if he gave them credit for that, but that was a big one; especially after coming off ten years of wage freezes and rollbacks. I suppose the only bit of generosity they have seen was in the past three years. They got 15 per cent, and that would have been over fourteen years if you mind to look at it in the proper perspective. In my opinion, the biggest concession of all was made when they agreed to a wage freeze.

I have to go back to yesterday in church. I think it was a very valuable lesson, and I am glad the Premier is here because I think he will enjoy this little story. We were in church yesterday morning and it is customary in my church that the minister gathers all the little children up to the altar and he tells them a story before they go down to Sunday School. The story went like this, and this is the illustration. I think you will enjoy it. He had a brown paper bag. None of us in the congregation had any idea of what was in the brown paper bag. He started to take these things out of the brown paper bag. The first thing he said was this is going to be a story about the tater family - and really it is potatoes. He said this is a story about the tater family. The first potato or tater he took out was dressed with a wig on his head and a laugh on his face, a kind of a smirk. I had missed the previous two Sundays so the little ones knew the name of this guy. Okay, they said: Children, what is the name of this tater? Right away, the children who had been there the previous two Sundays were able to say. They said, Reverend, this is Aggie. So it was agitator. Okay, that was the first one. The agitator who kicks up a racket, stirs up a mess and a fuss. The next one they pulled out was a person with a big cap on - no, it was a straw hat, with his sunglasses on and kind of a lackadaisical attitude, by the look of the picture on the tater's face.

The minister said to the little ones who were sitting around, they were looking up in his face, and he said: What is the name of this tater? The little ones said: Well, his name is Spec. Spectator the second one was. The one who sits back like Joe Chesterfield, examines politics from the chesterfield and is able to make a comment on it but is an armchair politician, sort of. The next one that he drew out was a tater, a big one. This guy had his black hat on, his tuxedo and his quiff hat. So the minister said: Now, you don't know what the name of this one is because this is a new one for this Sunday and we will have another one next Sunday. They were all puzzled. They started to give answers but they did not know. The minister said: Well, his name is Dick. Oh, dictator. With that, it was an unusual thing, the church was so noisy. Anyway, the minister said: You know, children, nobody likes a dictator. People do not like to be told what to do, when to do it, and how to do it. They like people to co-operate. So, it will be interesting to see what next Sunday's little member of the tater family will bring, but there was a very good illustration by that whole storyline for children, and adults appreciated it just as much.

Getting back to Bill 18. I believe if we had taken more of that storyline into the negotiating table we would have had an agreement today. What I think most people will tell you out there in the Province today is that our Premier - although he may not admit it - wanted to win, and being in business with a successful track record is all about winning. It is all about winning. If he was to take the olive branch that Leo Puddister has passed him on Friday morning and let the last remaining item go to the arbitrator - because we heard the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board stand on his feet and say that he would not, on behalf of the Province, hand over the government cheque book to a third party, an arbitrator. Now, what was the argument going to be on Friday? How is the Premier going to react to that? Because there was no cheque book required for that last demand.

The Premier well knows that any concessions made on sick leave are not going to be immediate. That is for down the road, and he well knows that the 4,000 people who are not going to be working here in the next year is another reason why he does not have to worry about any cost here. If he minded to check with John Peddle and George Tilley, they have been successful at the St. John's Health Care Corporation where managers have been doing the job they are supposed to do, and that is to supervise sick leave and make sure sick leave is legitimate; because, you can have forty sick leave days available to you in a year but if you are not going to be legitimate in using those properly, that is the supervisor's job or the middle managers, so someone is not doing their job. So, instead of putting responsibility where it should be, you want to take it away from everybody. That is your idea, but I am not surprised because when you are the owner-manager of a large corporation you are so accustomed to looking at the financial synopsis and you are used to saying: Well, we do not need this, we do not need that. Yes, cut that out. They are gone tomorrow morning.

It is a little different when you have to be dealing with people, isn't it, Mr. Premier? You are not used to dealing with people who are going to be affected, and communities, and the repercussions. Every decision, as we all know, that you make in government is about people and it is about money. It is the same as when you operated your business and I was manager of a bank - people and money - but there are the long-term repercussions, because every time that you decide to close down a facility or a service in rural Newfoundland, someone is going to suffer. Now, if you do not take that seriously, or if it does not impact you when you go home at night and you feel good about your job here, and you have done your day's work and that is it, if it is something that gets in the way of you and people, then you are going to have to react differently. You are not going to be able to take the hard line, the business approach, that you would if you were with your previous business. I can tell you that if you decide to close a clinic in Harbour Breton or Buchans, or anywhere around rural Newfoundland, that is going to have a huge effect.

The same thing happened with school reform, when we had to close schools around the Province. I remember when it happened in Badger. The people were so upset, they actually wanted to chain me to the school bus. That was their reaction to me as their MHA. They did not want the school bus to pull out of Badger. They wanted to put me on it so they could show they were so deadly opposed to that action, but we found a resolve because we passed the necessary small schools act and that gave them protection, for the people in Badger, to continue on with their school.

Every time you make a decision like that, it is not cut and dried like when you are in business. You are only in the job six months, and I think you are going to find that. If you have any heart, any compassion at all, when you sit around the Cabinet table with your colleagues and you are going to give them direction - I am not giving you a speech today, to chastise you. That is not my role. It can be water off a duck's back. What I am saying is the commentary of ordinary people around this Province, just like the school issue that happened on the weekend.

Government, you cannot even substantiate your own argument for the consolidation of school boards. You came out with an issue of, you are going to save $6 million. Look, you could not write it on a matchbox, you could not put it on my glasses' case, what research you did on it, and you came up without any answers; but if you are going to ride roughshod over everyone in this Province by just thinking you have the best idea, and you have not consulted anyone, this is the kind of stuff we are going to be up against. The twenty-eight days of torture that you spent is going to be pale in comparison to what you can expect in the next three years, let me tell you that.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not necessary tonight. It is all about who is going to come out on top here tonight. You know, there have been a lot of people on strike for the past twenty-seven or twenty-eight days. They have gone back to work. A lot of those people, they missed their month's salary. They cannot make their mortgage payment that would be due the first of May. They are going to have to go to the bank now and say: Can you extend my mortgage payment or can you extend my line of credit? They are probably getting their groceries on their Visa card, because who can afford to do without their month's salary? Not too many in this Province.

You are going to do the same thing now to people out in rural Newfoundland trying to sell a fish licence, a salmon licence, a non-resident trout licence or a small game. You are going to ask some poor business person out in - where? - the smallest little place, English Harbour East or Millertown: Okay, buddy, you want to come up with $1,000 now. You are in the -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MS THISTLE: Oh, my goodness! I can't believe it! Can you give me a minute or two?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave to conclude?

AN HON. MEMBER: Just a minute or so.

MR. SPEAKER: Just a minute or so has been granted. By leave.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think this would have been a beneficial talk to our Premier, because this legislation that we are discussing here this afternoon is not necessary. If you had been a bit flexible and shown the people of this Province that you didn't have to win this one, we would have had a co-operative settlement that we could all be proud of.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS WHALEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak in support of this bill. I have many reasons for supporting this bill, and I would like to share a few of them today.

Government has tried to negotiate an end to this strike for nearly a month, and I am disappointed today that efforts over the weekend didn't result in a deal, but they didn't and it is time now to restore stability to the Province. We are not doing what the Government in British Columbia is doing, we are not rolling back wages of 15 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to take his time to sit quietly. I have sat here for about three weeks and he has been yapping his jaws for the last three weeks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is a tradition in this House that when members are giving what amounts to a major introductory speech, that we hear the member in silence. I would ask all members to co-operate.

The hon. the Minister of Government Services.

MS WHALEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Unfortunately, I would not have liked to have done a maiden speech on this item, but I am today doing a maiden speech.

We are not doing what the former Liberal Administration did under Clyde Wells. The members opposite used this Legislature to roll back previously negotiated wage increases. We made a fair offer to our employees that was in our ability to pay. I believe that the employees would have accepted government's offer on March 31 had they been given the opportunity to vote on it. The legislation before this House provides for a 5 per cent raise over four years and current employees are not losing a thing. There is no contract striping.

I support this bill because I believe, at this point, it is time to restore stability to the Province and focus on the task of getting the Province's fiscal house in order.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, can I make a point of order here? I still hear the member from that district gabbing. Would you kindly ask him to refrain?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, the member is giving her first introductory speech. We have a long tradition that we hear the member in silence, and I would ask all members for their co-operation. It has been a long-standing tradition in Parliament, recognized throughout the entire British Commonwealth system, that when members are giving their first speech, they are heard in absolute silence. I ask members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Minister.

MS WHALEN: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I should abdicate my elected duty to an arbitrator. We have been elected to government, and that is what we are doing. I have received many e-mails and phone calls pertaining to the strike and government's actions. Many of these calls described hardships experienced by our citizens over the past month because of the disruption and backlog in the health care system.

I am particularly concerned over the many vulnerable residents in my own district, particularly the Bell Islanders, who have had to face a severe reduced ferry service as a result of this strike. The forced cancellation and postponement of much-needed medical services has resulted in extreme emotional and mental stress on our citizens. Although I was anticipating some financial challenges when I offered myself for public service in the provincial election last October, I was not prepared for the extent and the magnitude of the financial mess left by the immoral spending and the abdication of responsibilities of the previous government.

Since our election, we have had to make many difficult decisions. They have been difficult for our people, they have been difficult for our government, and they have been difficult for me, but they are necessary. We cannot and we will not abdicate our responsibility. We will not jeopardize the future of this Province. The Premier and the Finance Minister tried to negotiate a fair and a just settlement, but it has been to no avail.

Employees have gone back to work, and we are glad to have them back, but at this point we still do not have a collective agreement. It is time to put an end to this. The people of the Province have endured a month of uncertainty and reduced services. We cannot have the threat of further labour disruptions by our public service hanging over the Province. A legislated agreement is not what our employees want and it is not what we wanted, but we have to protect the people of our Province and that is why we have to make a very difficult but necessary decision.

My vision, along with my colleagues in government, is to change the course of this Province from the road to financial ruin to a road leading to financial security and integrity. Sound fiscal management will lay the foundation for future growth and prosperity.

This has been a difficult month for the people of the Province, for our public service, and for us as members of the government. I believe government made a fair offer to public sector employees, given our fiscal situation. I am disappointed that our employees were on strike for a collective agreement they could have had a month ago had their leadership granted them a vote. This legislated settlement is consistant with our ability to pay. Our Province is at a critical juncture. We have been saddled with a financial mess by the previous Administration, and something has to be done.

We have two choices, Mr. Speaker. We can continue to spend this Province into bankruptcy, or we can be financially responsible and put this government back on the road to fiscal health. This government was elected six months ago. We were elected to govern on behalf of our people, and this is what we are going to do. No one on this side of the House wants to legislate our employees back to work. The package we have offered our public sector employees is all we can afford at this time.

We would prefer to be in a position to give our employees a bigger raise. I would prefer to be in a position to reduce fees, not increase them and add new ones, but this is the situation that we are in. I believe in my heart that what we are doing is the right thing. This is about the future of this Province, our children and our grandchildren.

I have been asked several times now, whether I am worried about getting re-elected. This is not about re-election, Mr. Speaker, it is about doing what is right and what is necessary. It is about putting the future of this Province first.

I believe the majority of people understand the dire financial situation the Province is in. There are no one-time pots of money left to be picked out of a hat. That is how the Liberals ran this Province since 1996. We cannot do that any more.

I received an e-mail last week from a man pleading with the government to stand firm in its attempt to regain control of the Province's books. He says that he is hoping and praying that we have the determination and the courage to stay the course.

I want to tell this man today, and all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that we do have the courage to stand firm for what we believe is right. We need to retain the ability to set the course. It was what we were elected to do. I am disappointed today that we did not get a deal. I believe the union leadership has lost sight of the bigger picture. The real issue is ensuring the future financial health of this Province for the benefit of everyone in this Province.

I was a union leader, Mr. Speaker. I was president of a NAPE local. Myself and my late husband, together, stood on a picket line for six months, twenty years ago. I know some of my colleagues had spouses on the picket line. The past month has been difficult for them, and I feel

for them. I still hold the same beliefs today as I did when I was a union negotiator. I was working for the people then and I am still working for the people today. This has not changed.

The union leaders could have shown real leadership by signing on to help the Province turn the Province around. Instead, I saw some union leaders decide to take on the Premier rather than attempt to reach a deal for the members.

I have experienced, as well, even the vendetta. I look sometimes at people's distaste for where we are. I know the state the Province is in. I have seen the numbers. I would not stand today and support this legislation if I did not believe, in my heart and my soul, that the government is doing the right thing. We offered our employees a fair deal, and government negotiated in good faith. Mr. Speaker, the lives of our employees on the picket line have been disrupted for nearly a month. It is time to put an end to this dispute and work together for a prosperous time.

Mr. Speaker, I have heard comments made from the Opposition: You did not address this legislation, this Bill 18. Well, let me tell you, each and every one of us today will address the bill. We are no puppets, as we have been referred to by the Opposition.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bay of Islands.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JOYCE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise on Bill 18.

I commend the minister for her maiden speech, but I guess there are a few things that she did not have time to realize. The Government of British Columbia negotiated a settlement with the union, Mr. Speaker. As of today, they negotiated a settlement. As the minister is well aware, the union did accept zero, zero in the two years, and that is unprecedented in the unions in Newfoundland and Labrador, accepting zero, zero in year one and year two.

I say to the minister, you are saying about your valued employees - while they are on strike, you are out there. I guess that is why her department took them out for Chinese food last Friday night in Corner Brook. I guess that is her way of saying: Forget the last month. Let's go out for Chinese food. I think the valued workers, I say to the minister, are much more deserving than being offered Chinese food on Friday night.

Mr. Speaker, I speak to Bill 18. It is, An Act To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation Of Public Services. I will just read from the bill itself, that was introduced on April 22. That was when the bill was introduced here in the House, April 22. There are no assurances, unfortunately, that the health system can go on coping in the way that it has. Government must now show leadership and discharge the responsibility entrusted to it by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is why today we will give Notice of Motion to introduce a bill entitled, An Act To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation Of Public Services. With the pressure of necessity for swift action from the health and community services sector in particular, I ask hon. members to give speedy consideration to this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, that was almost two weeks ago. Everybody is back to work. All the health care providers are back to work. All the health care people who provide the necessary work in our hospitals, operations, are all back to work. The question that was put in the legislation on March 22, why is this bill now being put forth for closure? Why is the government saying: Well, we never got what we wanted so we are going to do it anyway? But, on April 22 it was for a different reason. I say to the members opposite, this is just diminishing the whole concept of Bill 18 that was set out on March 22. Obviously, there was a hidden agenda by the government, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, the agenda is coming forth.

The Member for Windsor-Springdale was on TV last week, Mr. Speaker, saying how hard the decision is for him. He is not sure what he is going to do. He may vote for it and he may not. He is not sure. Mr. Speaker, I can say to the people of Windsor-Springdale, when the member was here and he tapped on his desk: Come on with the votes, bring the vote on. The first person here to jump up on his feet to vote for it. He voted eighteen times for this legislation, but while he was on TV he was saying: Oh, it is going to be hard. Grand Falls-Windsor is a union town. It is very much a union town. So, publicly he may be out saying it. I ask the member, I hope that he will stand up here and say his true feeling on Bill 18 later. I am sure the member will in his own way.

The Member for Humber East, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Mr. Speaker, we were into debate on this bill here one night and the member jumped up on his feet. His words, the best that I had: get on with the government business, do what we were elected to do. That is what the member stood up here in this House and criticized this side of the House for not doing. I ask the minister, and I ask the member: Is invoking closure giving us the opportunity to do what we are supposed to do? Is it giving the members opposite the ability to do what they are supposed to do? Is there any need to invoke closure? If the Minister of Justice and Attorney General, the Member for Humber East really feels what he said to us the other night, I think he would stand up against this bill and say there is no need to invoke closure, there is no need stifle the Opposition. It is time for an open debate. There is no necessity now in the health care system. There is no necessity for public sector workers to get back to work because they are all working, Mr. Speaker. I hope the minister, today, will stand on his feet and say to the people of Corner Brook and Humber East why he is voting for this bill when he is trying to chastise us for not doing the work that we were supposed to be doing.

I certainly hope the Premier today - Corner Brook is a union town, very much a union town - will stand on his own feet and give his speech why he is supporting this; why he is back in Corner Brook saying one thing and out in St. John's saying completely the opposite about this bill. I can assure you, I can name many occasions where out in Corner Brook he said one thing: There will be no layoffs. October 17, 2003, Mr. Speaker, when he put out a half page ad in The Western Star, there will be no layoffs. So I hope the Premier, himself, will stand here today and give the reasons why he is going to vote for this bill.

Mr. Speaker, last night I heard the Member for Mount Pearl on Open Line. He finally got on Open Line. He wanted to get on and say why he is voting for the bill. The reason that he gave for voting for the bill was because he needed some stability. He could not have the union walk out anytime they like. That is what he said last night, and he is nodding his head, Mr. Speaker. That is what he said on Open Line. He also said that in caucus we had a full and open discussion. We were given all of the facts, put on the table. When we made our decision we had all the facts. They were all laid out on the table. We knew what we were saying. We gave support. I say to the member, it is obvious that you never because the unions cannot walk out whenever they feel like it. They have to give seven days notice before they can walk out, I say to the member. The bill, at this stage of the legislation, takes one day to get this bill done. If the member wants to give a real reason, at least give a reason that is a bit plausible. At least give a reason, I say to the member, that some people who are in the know of the Labour Relations Act and Labour Relations law in this Province, can at least say: Well, at least he is speaking with conviction, not with some information that he says he got from caucus, which is obviously not true.

Mr. Speaker, if you go through the bill and look at the stumbling blocks in the bill. If you look at the first one, the wages and salaries, anybody who is in labour relations, anybody who is in any type of negotiations in this Province - the worst thing you can do to somebody who is in labour relations or negotiations is put a gun to their head. So, here is a government that is supposed to be open and accountable and supposed to be working for the people - the unions already agreed to zero, zero in the first two years - invoking Bill 18 and saying we are going to bring in that legislation if you do not agree with what we are going to do. Here was the Premier this weekend, our Premier, supposed to be the representative for all people of Newfoundland and Labrador, saying: Well, if they agree with what I want to do I may give them a little increase. If they do not agree with what I want, the increase is taken off the table.

Mr. Speaker, that is not the way to negotiate. That is not the way to sit down with 20,000 employees in this Province. That just shows lack of respect. A lack of understanding for the workers in Newfoundland and Labrador. You do not come out and say: If you do this we can have this flexibility. Mr. Speaker, if the Premier is really concerned and if he really has the best wishes of the workers in this Province at his heart, which he says he does, why doesn't the Premier, right now with leave - I am sure, of this side of the House - put in amendments to the legislation, the contract which he says he can offer, instead of saying: Well, you left stuff on the table. If he is really concerned about the workers - I am sure this side of the House would give leave to add the amendments to this bill, to help out with the necessary amendments, if the Premier is really concerned.

Mr. Speaker, the second part is the Warren Report. As we all know, there was a nine-week strike several years back on the Warren Report. The Warren Report really concerns and mainly deals with the school boards, with secretarial and janitorial services in the school boards.

I still do not have this question - and I asked the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and the Status of Women. I will ask her this question: If the Premier is still adamant that the Warren Report is not in the agreement, why does he have it in Bill 18 so that he can pass law on the Warren Report, which he is out saying to the public that it is not even in the agreement? Why is it in Bill 18? Why is it in the master agreement as the Premier said? Why is it in the master agreement that we were given by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board? Why doesn't the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and the Status of Women stand in this House and say: Is the Warren Report in the agreement or is it not? The reason why she cannot stand in this House and do that is because she would be contradicting the Premier; because the Warren Report is in the agreement. It just amazes me how a minister could stand there and see all these questions going on - she is supposed to be responsible for Labour - seeing all these things being floated out around, but yet, will not stand up in fear of contradicting the Premier, her boss, of saying: Yes, it is in the agreement. And give the proper due to the workers of the school board.

Mr. Speaker, the ultimate insult - and I said it last week - to the janitorial workers and to the secretaries, was when the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board and the Premier stood in this House and said: Why is the union holding up the whole agreement for just 3 per cent of their workers? Take those 3 per cent of the workers and cut them adrift. How can the Premier stand in this House and say that he is not trying to divide the union? In his own words he stood in this House, and the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, and said: The agreement should not be held up for 3 per cent of the workers. They should cut them lose and lets settle the deal. Who cares about the janitorial services, who cares about the secretaries, we want a deal and they are worth sacrificing. The ultimate insult to the workers at the school boards, the ultimate trick to try to set some kind of wedge between NAPE and CUPE and the workers at the school boards, Mr. Speaker. I say, shame on the Premier and the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board for doing that.

Mr. Speaker, the next stumbling block is the sick leave. I asked several times in this House of Assembly, and I ask again today: The Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board has used, on many occasions, 16.3 sick days a year per employee. The members opposite are well aware that that is the figure he is using, that he has been using ever since these negotiations started. I ask the minister, I ask the Premier, I ask any member on the opposite side, to table that report where the sick leave is 16.3 days per employee in the public sector unions in this Province. Table the report.

AN HON. MEMBER: Average.

MR. JOYCE: The average. Table that report, I say to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Do you know why you cannot table that report? There is no such report.

What the minister did - and once again it is a way with words - he took one small sector of the health care and that is what he used and that is what he has been throwing out all along. I ask the government here today, once again, to table the report. There is no such report. It is just like the letter the Premier had on March 16 from the bond agencies.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thought he had.

MR. JOYCE: Thought he had from the bond agencies, how he just received a letter saying there was a financial crisis. Table the letter. No such letter, Mr. Speaker. Under freedom of information, no such letter.

I humbly disagree with the government when they say it is 16.3. I say prove me wrong, table the report. It can't be done.

Mr. Speaker, I stood in this House one day and the Minister of Human Resource, Labour and Employment, and Responsible for the Status of Women stood right here in this House, when I was in a discussion with, I think it was the Member for Lake Melville and possibly the Member of Gander, and I asked them to stand on their feet if they wanted to speak. I said something like: Be a man. This Minister of Human Resources, Employment and Labour, and Status of Women jumped to her feet - and there were a lot of members opposite who even laughed when she did. Of course, she was a rookie at it. She jumped to her feet, that I shouldn't be calling that man a man. Of course, the members opposite laughed. She wanted to give the impression that she was standing up for women, that I was not going to be calling anyone a man in here, I should be calling them members. She was a big fighter for women. I ask the member, in all sincerity, in the health care sector today, the majority of people we are speaking to in the health care sector are women - the women who work twelve hours a day, the women who are around people with infectious diseases, the women who do the same amount of work of someone who worked twenty years, one year, two years, five years. I ask the minister: Is she still going to stand up to this government, under the sick leave policy, when in the health care sector the women are going to be hurt more than any other sector? Is she going to stand up? If she wanted to stand up here one day and be brave - because I said to the Member for Lake Melville and the Member for Gander, be a man - is she going to stand up against this legislation? Is she going to stand up and say: This is going to hurt women more than anybody else. Is she going to stand up against the Premier and say: I cannot vote for this. Am I going to vote for this? Am I going to be able to stand up here with a true conscience and know that once this is done, once this is done in the health care sector, the group of individuals that is going to be hurt the most by this legislation being put through are going to be women. Yet, she jumped here one day and wanted to take me on because I called a man a man.

If she is really sincere about this position on sick leave, Mr. Speaker, I think it is time for the minister to stand up, and it is time for the minister to say: No this cannot go through, because one of my responsibilities is for the Status of Women, and the most people in the health care sector who are going to be affected by this are women, and it is my responsibility - here is the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women - to stand up and speak for them. The minister will have an opportunity to do that if she is going to fulfill her duties.

Mr. Speaker, there are several others. I ask the Member for Humber Valley -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) nurse.

MR. JOYCE: She was a nurse. I ask the Member for Humber Valley - she was out in Corner Brook all the time talking about health care workers, talking about nurses, talking about how important nurses are, and health care workers are, and what an important role they play in the health care sector. We cannot do without them. We need them. Is that member going to vote against this bill? Is she going to vote for this bill when, in the health care sector, the majority of people who are going to be affected are going to be women? The same one who stands up in Corner Brook and says that we have to have, we have to protect, and we have to make sure, and they are valuable to the system, she is going to stand up now and vote for a bill that is going to take away those rights. I just find it ironic. I find it very ironic, saying one thing in Corner Brook and, in here - and maybe under pressure as a rookie MHA. She can speak for herself. I am sure she will speak for herself later on the bill. She will speak for herself, I am assuming she will, but I will tell the minister, I will tell the Member for Humber Valley, and I will tell the Minister for Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, that once this bill goes through, I will bet my last dime the next ones who are going to get it are the nurses. The nurses are coming next. This here is just the blueprint for the rest of the workers who are going to come. It is NAPE and CUPE right now who happen to be in the forefront. They happened to be the ones coming first, that we have to set an example for.

I ask a question to both of those individuals: Does a person who works one year in the health care system have the same problems with infectious diseases in the hospital, the same problems working twelve-hour shifts nighttime, the same hours with the overtime, the same hours dealing with people sick with the flu, influenza, on a regular basis, as someone who has been working ten years? Do they have the same concerns? If they do, how can you vote for a bill that is going to eliminate that? If someone is working in the system for one year, they are not supposed to get as sick as someone who is working in the system for ten years. It just does not make sense. Somewhere along the line the logic do not make sense. You are saying that someone in the system for one, two or three years cannot get as sick as someone who is working in the system for ten years.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

I remind the member that his time has expired.

MR. JOYCE: Just to clue up?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member, by leave.

MR. JOYCE: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I will be voting against this bill. I ask all hon. members, before they vote, to examine their conscience on this bill. There is no need to push this bill here today. Everybody is back to work. Back on April 22, there may have been a need. I saw the Premier wanted to have a drive-through labour relations consultation, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. members should examine what they are voting for. There is no need. See what can be done without putting this bill through.

Mr. Speaker, I say to all the hon. members: Just remember, this is a blueprint. You may not know it, because I am sure there are a lot of things going on in this government you do not know. This is just a blueprint to get the next group of people who are up for negotiations, and it just happened to be CUPE and NAPE that were being used first.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to say a few words on Bill 18.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Yes, I say to the hon. Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

Before I get into it, Mr. Speaker, I would like to publicly thank the public sector workers for going back to work. They were certainly needed at the time, four weeks into a strike, and things were getting pretty stressed in this system, in the health care system and other services throughout the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would personally like to thank them for getting back to work and showing the responsibility to go back to work, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 18 is a bill, Mr. Speaker, that I thought long and hard on. I say to the members opposite that I sat here last week for hours on end listening to people on the other side of the House. I did not interrupt them. I let them have their say, putting forth their misinformation, their misrepresentation, Mr. Speaker, and basically personal attacks on individuals on this side of the House of Assembly. I would really appreciate - I only have twenty minutes to speak - the time to speak.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I support Bill 18. I have supported it from the beginning, to be quite honest with you, Mr. Speaker, for many reasons. I just alluded to some with respect to why the public sector workers went back to work, with the health care system being stressed. There are three major reasons, really: the health care reason; the workers themselves; and the financial situation of the Province. I will try to address each individually.

Mr. Speaker, I received a number of e-mails on this issue, as many members on this side of the House did receive. I received e-mails for and I received e-mails against. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I received a few nasty e-mails, with personal attacks, which I think people, if they disagree with you on issues, stick to the issues. There is no need to get into personal attacks.

Mr. Speaker, I got two calls this weekend from two seniors, saying: Listen, Jack, stick to your guns on this issue. It is something that has to be done. We have to get our financial house in order.

Mr. Speaker, when this legislation was first introduced, as I said, we were into the fourth week of a strike, and I supported it at the time. We saw the essential workers and managers being taxed to the maximum, Mr. Speaker. We had the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association coming out and saying the workers needed to get back to work. At that point in time it was a major issue as to why I wanted to support the legislation, at that time.

We saw the health lines backing up, and the procedures and what have you, and we all heard personal stories, but that has been alleviated - that particular problem - and we certainly appreciate that. Again, it was the workers themselves. I remember the first week of the strike, Mr. Speaker. I left here - and I did not go out and cross the picket lines often. I would come in early in the mornings so I would not antagonize the individuals on the picket lines, but every now and then I wanted to cross and talk to the individuals. I would like to thank the people on the picket lines for being so courteous and polite, and stopping and chatting with me.

Mr. Speaker, the first week into it, I had people down on the Higgins Line intersection saying: Jack, can you get us back to work? I said: Listen, I cannot get you back to work. The negotiations are going back and forth and we do not want to legislate you back to work. I had two people on that one evening ask me to legislate them back to work. I said: That is last straw. We will not legislate unless it is absolutely necessary.

We were four weeks into a strike, Mr. Speaker, before we decided to go ahead with the legislation, and that is the reality. Some people may not want to believe that, Mr. Speaker, but it is absolutely truthful. It is the truth. Anyway, that is one thing that happened down there.

With respect to concessions, we are not legislating concessions for any public sector worker who is working today. I had family and friends on the picket line, Mr. Speaker, good friends and acquaintances. I spoke to those individuals. Some of them disagreed but some agreed, they wanted to be back to work, they did not see the necessity to be on the picket line. We went to all lengths to try to get an agreement. Even last week, when the legislation was supposed to go through, we delayed it for another four or five days to try and work out an agreement this weekend, but, no, it was not to be, Mr. Speaker, and that is sad to say.

I want to say a few words about the financial situation of this Province. We have seen it before and we read about it before, when we read about their history. Before I get into the financial situation of the Province, I just want to read two paragraphs, if I could, from the editorial of the paper last week. It says, "Whether or not you believe this Province is on the edge of a fiscal collapse, one thing can't be denied is that the Province spends hundreds of millions of dollars more than it collects in revenue, money that future generations will have to find and repay.

The strange thing is that the union leaders said Monday that cutting sick leave days for new employees was stealing from the next generation of provincial civil servants, but those same leaders don't see the labour settlements that cost the province money it does not have also steal from the future generations.

The concept cannot be that hard to grasp."

That is where we are in this Province today, that far down the road. You can argue this, and I heard argument from the other side of the House, we had an $840 million deficit last year. The members on that side of the House said: Let's take the $200 million off for the student debt. It is still a $640 million deficit for 500,000 people in this Province and it is growing year after year after year. Mr. Speaker, it is not sustainable. For example, the debt of this Province is $11 billion. From 1949 to the early nineties, it was $5.5 billion. From the early nineties to now, it is $11 billion.

I made a note the other day, when the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair was speaking, and she said, basically: So, we owe a few dollars. We owe a few dollars, Mr. Speaker. Now with that attitude previous to now, is it any wonder the situation we find ourselves in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador? Eleven billion dollars, and we owe a few dollars! It really blows my mind.

Let's go on. Let's really break it down so people can understand where we are. Take one dollar. For every dollar we take in, twenty-five cents goes for debt servicing, when you take the big broad picture into it. Twenty-five on every dollar goes to debt servicing and fifty-two cents of every dollar goes to salaries. Now, Mr. Speaker, in total that is seventy-seven cents out of every dollar, and that leaves twenty-three cents for the people of the Province of the Newfoundland and Labrador for all other services in this Province. When you sit back and look at it, how can we continue on down that road? It is again not sustainable. Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, if we had that other twenty-five cents on every dollar to go into other services that we are paying on our debt? It is automatically doubled, our revenues are doubled, to expend on services that the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador need. I have no problem with this piece of legislation.

I have to say, the Leader of the Opposition when he gets up on his feet - and I am just going to take issue with the issue that he makes - says: You cannot talk about the past. You cannot talk about the past. Do not go down there. We do not want to hear that. We want the new approach. What is the new approach? Well, Mr. Speaker, from my perspective, the new approach has to be to get our financial house in order. We have to look at the situation of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have to say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, that we are going to try and make the right decisions for the right reasons. You know, if we have to take a bit of flak for that, so be it.

I had e-mails come to me saying: Jack, stand up, be counted, speak against this piece of legislation. You know, you are spineless. If I took a few e-mails, Mr. Speaker, and people who opposed it and did that very thing, then I would be spineless. Standing up in the House of Assembly and putting - and last week they made us stand sixteen times in Committee stage on this. That is what takes the guts to do, to stand up and be counted for something you believe in, not to give in because you get a bit of negative opposition from certain individuals.

On this side of the House of Assembly, did you see the like last Tuesday? It went on for twelve hours, the personal attacks that came from the other side to this side of the House. I mean, words like, gutless, spineless, fools - I mean, really! - when we are trying to do something that this Province should have been doing for the past fifteen or twenty years, instead of going out there, just because election time comes around, and start giving all over the place to get re-elected. That is why this Province is in the shape it is in today. It is because politicians in the past, wanting to get re-elected, would give away their souls to get re-elected. That is why, on this side of the House, we are not going down that road. We are going to do what is right for the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, for my children, for my grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

As I said, I had two seniors phone the weekend and say: Listen, Jack, I was there, I have seen it before and we are getting there again, you know. He said: I am telling you, you have to have the backbone to stand up and do what you are going to do and continue to do it. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is where we are on this.

The Royal Commission on Our Place in Canada came out and said: Listen, we cannot continue going down the road we are going down with the debt and continue to build the debt. It is not sustainable. We had John Crosbie speak out against it. We all know the Opposition that Mr. Crosbie had in the past to the present Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, but he can see the situation developing, Mr. Speaker, and others can to.

For example, Mr. Speaker, this past Budget that we brought down, people will say: You know, this is a hard Budget, and it was. I had my say around the caucus table. I had my say around the Cabinet table, as other members here did, the caucus and the Cabinet ministers. It was a hard Budget. We had to make some hard decisions. We talked long and hard on this. We had some really good discussions and strong discussions, let me tell you, Mr. Speaker. We cut $240 million out of the Budget this year and it was not easy to do. Next year, hopefully, we will see the progress as time goes on on this. You would not know but we were the devil over on this side of the House because we are doing things to try and get our financial house in order. It is all well and good to stand on that side of the House - I have been on that side of the House for eleven years and I know the process that has to be followed.

MR. COLLINS: (Inaudible).

MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Labrador West says we did the same thing.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

Any time I do take from the hon. minister he is certainly free to have it back. I just want to make the point that we are in third reading. It is bad enough that since Bill 18 started the government has shoved it down everyone's throat in this Province by way of closure on third reading, by invoking Standing Order 43 on second reading, and by invoking Standing Order 43 here today. If we are going to be so particular and self-righteous as a government to restrict what we can and cannot do in this House, I would ask the hon. minister, instead of getting into the Budget Debate, which he is into today, perhaps he might confine his remarks as should be on third reading and deal with the principal of Bill 18.

Thank you.

MR. RIDEOUT: To that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Acting Government House Leader to that point of order.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Having listened to a number of speeches from my friend's colleagues today, I think the debate has been pretty wide_ranging.

The Member for Grand Falls-Buchans talked about certain sermons that were preached in churches over the weekend. I do not think there is any attempt by anybody to stifle debate and I would suggest to Your Honour that this is not a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has been sitting in the House most of the evening and I guess listening to both arguments raised on the point of order, they are certainly not - all of the comments have not been relevant to Bill 18, but we have allowed some latitude to take place. It is a bill that you could almost call a money bill because it does concern the finances of the Province. I would ask members if they would try to be relevant to the topic that is being discussed, and right now it is third reading of Bill 18.

There is no point of order.

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

I am not surprised. Last week in the House they were going on for twelve hours with personal attacks and what have you, but we did not get up on points of order.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the bill - it is not a big stretch to try and figure out the connection between the bill when we are talking about the impact it is having on the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not think that is a big stretch, I say to the Opposition House Leader.

Mr. Speaker, the opposition to this bill - the union and the leaders of NAPE are saying they do not believe in a two-tier system. You cannot have it; cannot agree with the principle. It is not there. It is not happening. Mr. Speaker, that is what they said. Is that correct? That is the principle. You cannot have it. Yet, Mr. Speaker, within NAPE itself they have a two-tier system in the private industry. This is something I found our recently, there is a two-tier system within the public service with NAPE. There are people in the public service who are working thirty-five hours a week and a person sitting right next to him, doing the same job, are working thirty-seven-and-a-half hours a week. That is in the system today, it is there. Yet, they are against the principle of it. They blocked this agreement, going on for a month, based on the principle of not having a two-tier system. That is in the system today.

Also, Mr. Speaker, again people are saying: Well, let's go to arbitration. Why can't you go to arbitration? Well, they want to go to arbitration on one thing and not on the other. It is a package deal. If you are going to go to arbitration on sick leave and the agreement is trying to be worked - I say to the member opposite, if you are trying to work a deal and you are trying to give an increase here and then on sick leave you are trying to have savings, you cannot have it both ways. I am not prepared to go to binding arbitration on one issue of the agreement and advocate our responsibility as a government, Mr. Speaker. It is not there. It is not happening, and I fully support where we are on this legislation today.

Mr. Speaker, my time is almost up, I can see. I believe - the Member for Bellevue says: Thank God, my time is almost up. He gets up and he is getting on with the same speech probably fifty times now for the past fifty times he has been up.

Mr. Speaker, the Member for Bellevue is speaking on behalf of the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador whenever he is on his feet. There is a fish plant in his district that we are trying to save, as a government, and we are working hard towards it, but not a phone call from that member to the Premier; not a phone call to date, and we are trying to save a major fish plant in his district. You should be ashamed of yourself, I say, Mr. Speaker.

What I want to say, Mr. Speaker, before I sit down is this: That, yes, we have to get our financial house in order and there are going to be a number of ways to approach that. The Leader of the Opposition will say: What is the new approach? Our new approach, Mr. Speaker, again, as I said earlier, is to be responsible, to make the right decisions for the right reasons in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and go down the road, whereby if we make saving here, some of the things that the public sector workers are after and deserve, then we can probably give it to them down the road, but at this point in time it is an impossibility. People find this funny and do not believe it.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I was out in my district this weekend. I am into functions there, and it is not everybody in this Province - I would say to certain individuals - who agrees with the union on this one, let me tell you that. That is a fact, Mr. Speaker, and I hear from many, many people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, people want to know where we are coming from on this side of the House. I think they are going to hear it for the next number of hours, and the Opposition say they are going to keep it going well into the morning. Tuesday morning, so be it. I have been there before, I say to you, Mr. Speaker. I look forward to the comments of the members on this side of the House, to make their case known as to why they support this legislation, and not being - again, another word that was being used by members on the other side - puppets and what have you. Again, that is not the case. Everybody had their say in Caucus, had their say in Cabinet, Mr. Speaker, and we will have our say in this House of Assembly.

Last week they stood sixteen times, asked us to stand sixteen times. I think when you stand sixteen times to vote one way or the other, you are telling people where you are on issues.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people who want to speak in the House of Assembly. With that, I thank you for your time and hope people will understand where I am coming from on this issue.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today to speak against Bill 18, again. At each stage of the process, when I have had the opportunity, I have voiced my objections to this bill, and more so today than ever before. It seems as if whoever wrote the speeches for the members on the other side forgot to put in there, and tell them, that the strike is over. The strike is over! Bill 18 was a bill to get people back to work two weeks ago. People have been back to work since last Wednesday. Hello! Does anybody hear that. You know, the picket lines have been down since last week. There is no urgency here.

We can stand today and we can make it right. We are into our last opportunity. Our Leader here today, in Question Period, offered a way out to the hon. members opposite, to the Premier and the Minister of Finance. He offered a way out to save face, to allow the public service, the people who work for this government, who serve the public of this Province, an opportunity not to have their faces ground into the sand. He offered that way out, but, no, even in the last little while, the last few hours before this bill undoubtedly will get passed, because it seems like the order is out again to do the Premier's biding, even in the last few hours before the last vote is called on this piece of legislation, the attitude of the Premier still sticks out there, the attitude of being vindictive, being: my way or the highway. We are still caught up in beating down the public service who have come back to work, after twenty-eight days out fighting for something they believed in, and still believe in it. There is no reason in the world today that we have got to be bringing this forward. A week after they come back to work we are standing in this House debating a bill, a piece of legislation, that is making us the laughing stock of the country.

I spoke to my daughter in Regina yesterday, who is nursing out there, and she said: Dad, what is going on in Newfoundland? I have seen on the radio that the public service has gone back to work. What are you still doing with that bill? The union movement out here is laughing. The private sector, the public sector, everybody is laughing at Newfoundland and Labrador, and what is going on with a bill to drive people back to work when they are already working. How, in good conscience, can we stand here and justify that?

I listen to the members opposite when they stand up and say: I support this bill. What bill do you support, or what part of the bill do you support? Do you support the part to put the people back to work? It seems sort of rhetorical when they are already back to work. There are no picket lines up in this Province today for the government or against the government. The people have gone back to work. They have realized that there was no point in trying to negotiate with a tyrant, with a dictator. They have realized it. They said, we will go back to work for the safety of the public and we will try to resolve this another way.

The other way to resolve this - and we have said it a week ago - forget about what is happening. Use the bill, use the present collective agreement that we have, until we can work our way through this. We do need legislation for people to go back to work to protect the health care sector or the highways because they are already back. Our roads were plowed last week; they were cleaned up after the snowstorm. Our lab X-ray people are back to work doing their procedures.

There is no sense of urgency any more to do this. Sane heads should prevail. People should sit down and do the right thing and be rational with how we treat our public service. The public service in this Province is not the enemy. They are not a terrorist group out there, where you have to bring in legislation to beat them over the heads. The public service in this Province, we have met them. We see them every day here in this building. They are the school custodians, the people who keep our schools clean for our children. They are the secretaries in our schools, who respond when somebody phones in, or a child gets sick and they call out.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) emergencies.

MR. SWEENEY: For the sake of emergencies.

The public service in this Province are the people who live next door to us; in some cases our brothers and sisters, or husbands and wives. They are out there, and we have seen the ads that have been done here in this Province with who they are and what they do. We see a lady in Bonavista, who come on, who is a NAPE member, and we see what she does in her community. We see the hockey coach in another community.

AN HON. MEMBER: Girl Guide leaders.

MR. SWEENEY: Girl Guide leaders, the people who take part in their community, the volunteers of our community. What do we do here? We are treating them as though they were a bunch of lawless terrorists. I might add, on that note, I want to commend the members of NAPE and CUPE, the people out there who were on strike for twenty-eight long days, frustrated by - I think it was every Thursday - the Premier would come down: I think we have a deal. We will get through it now. By Monday, everything will be ironed out.

Guess what? That became a bigger joke, because we watched another part of it here Thursday afternoon. I want to commend the members of NAPE and CUPE, and I want to commend their leadership, but most importantly of all, I want to commend the public who stood behind the members of NAPE and CUPE because those people out there fully realize.

Let me tell you, I was in my district this weekend and a few days last week, a few nights, and I am going to tell you what I heard in my district. They are ashamed that a government - and, in many cases, voted for that government - to be conducting themselves in such a way to use hobnailed boots on our own people, on our brothers and sisters, husbands, wives, next door neighbours. None of these people went out to do something illegal or immoral against this government. The worst thing they did, the membership of NAPE and CUPE, the very worst thing they did, was, they said: No, Premier Williams, no. We want something for us. We are not giving away the shop. You are not going to beat us into submission - and they are still standing on a couple of little principles; a couple of principles, but very important principles.

You know, the word principle - if a man or a woman, a person, I should say, has no principles, then what have you? What have you? Stand on your principles. I know I do. I stand on my principles; because, if I do not have principles, I have nothing. There is not much any of us will get out of politics, except for the opportunity of serving the people who elected us. We came in here on that principle of being able to serve the people who elected us. If we do not stand today, stand tonight, and vote against this draconian piece of legislation, what about our principles? What about our principles?

There is no sense in going back to the people we represent if we have turned our back on them in this particular instance. There is no purpose in doing it. I got the surprise of my life this weekend when I was in my district. There are people who I thought never ever watched the parliamentary channel, this House of Assembly here, who stopped me - let alone the fact that I never realized they were interested in politics before - and they said: Now, listen, George, when you get back in there on Monday, whatever you do, don't you dare support that bill. Don't you dare support that bill. Be a leader.

The other question was: How come the government members have not spoken? Thirty-three days later, up they come with a prepared script, with a prepared text, funneled out by the spin doctors on the eighth floor, drafted and put out there.

I would never stand up publicly and read a script that was prepared for me by somebody else, unless I read it first and made sure there were things in there that would not compromise how I felt, or my own principles. I would never take a script that someone else prepared and read it out to the public of this Province unless I believed in every single thing that was in it. That it why I am so concerned today, when I see the members opposite standing up and saying they are proud to support this Bill 18. Well, I am just wondering, will they be proud when this blueprint, this Bill 18, to smack away at the labour movement in this Province - I am wondering when it hits the nurses and the teachers and our allied health professions. That is what I am just wondering.

MS S. OSBORNE: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: I say to the Member for St. John's West, the nurses were in 1999. A big difference, I say to the member, about the nurses in 1999 and the legislation that we were involved in, the big difference was, the nurses were given a raise.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) concessions.

MR. SWEENEY: And no concessions. There was nothing taken from them. We did not take away one thing. As a matter of fact, later on they were reclassified.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SWEENEY: A bit of heckling will not stop me from saying what is true.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SWEENEY: The Member for Humber Valley has some comments, and I am sure she will get up and she will stand and click her heels together and say: I support the Premier in this.

Will she stand with the nurses in a few more months? I doubt it. Once you have sold your principles, you have lost your principles, it is not easy to get them back. I say that to the Member for Humber Valley. You can laugh all you want, but the real people of Newfoundland and Labrador will remember this day for a long, long time when this Bill 18 comes into effect and is passed. There has never been a piece of legislation passed in this House of Assembly as bad as this bill, this emergency legislation that was brought to the floor here two weeks ago. This emergency legislation forced workers back on the job. It is completely useless. The only thing that it will do is tear apart the labour movement in this Province. It is the blueprint. It is just as well to walk around this building with this book, this Bill 18, and every union member in this building take them and smack them in the side of the head with it. It is just as well to do it, because that is what you are doing. It is bad enough to have them out there to justify, to suck out of them four weeks' pay, two paycheques, it is going to be now almost the end of May before they get a paycheque, and then strip their contract to boot.

This is a useless, needless piece of legislation. There has been this my-way-or-the-highway approach to passing this legislation by the Premier. He took it to its greatest level last week when he summoned the leader of NAPE to a gas bar out in Mount Pearl. I will meet you out on the highway late tonight, at 11:00 p.m. I think it was. He stood here so proud in the House that he almost had a deal - he was going to have a deal - only to offer them the same thing that he offered them six or eight weeks ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) two-tiered was already turned down.

MR. SWEENEY: Yes, that was the ironic part of it. When he stood here in his place and had a deal almost worked out at the gas bar in Mount Pearl, I do not know what that meant. Why would you pick Mount Pearl, or why would you pick a gas bar? Why couldn't things happen in the confines of a negotiating room? Why couldn't the negotiations take place before the strike, before March 31, instead of going around a month after, after you have had two paycheques taken from the public sector. None of us have been given any reassurance of how much money was spent, by the way, $200,000 worth of advertising.

AN HON. MEMBER: There was more than that.

MR. SWEENEY: There is a lot more than that.

To go out, to have the gall to go out and stand and say: I met with Leo Puddister at a gas bar in Mount Pearl last night, and was hoping there was going to be a deal, when already the answer had come in earlier that there was no deal. That was the ironic part of it.

How can anyone, either here in the House of Assembly on this side - we have no faith in the truth coming out here. The irony of it all is, if that is only with Bill 18, with the public sector strike, how else can we trust, or how else can anyone else in this Province trust, this government here? You have to earn trust. Trust comes from being fair and forthright with people. Show some compassion, some common decency, when we are dealing with our people, our public service.

I cannot support this bill. There are ways out of this. Although we had closure on the first reading invoked upon us, we had Standing Order 43 thrust upon us, before the motion was even put in the House we had closure invoked. Never, in my experience in dealing here in the House of Assembly, did that ever happen. We had Standing Order 43 invoked again today, so that no motions or amendments could be made, even to a point today when I had a petition to present, that was given to me over the weekend, over a serious issue in my district, that the people out there thought was serious enough regarding health care, that they asked me to bring a petition in the House here today, the Acting Government House Leader jumped to his feet and blocked that. I could not even present that little petition, that was very, very important - just to tear into this, to rush this bill, Bill 18, through to meet whoever's deadline this is.

If sick leave is still a problem, why don't we change the rules this evening and make an amendment to all of this and allow sick leave to go to arbitration, to binding arbitration? If the Premier and the Minister of Finance have given some wage increases to NAPE and CUPE, why don't they just take those and say: Here, have those.

The reality of it all is that there was never a plan to make a deal to begin with. There was never a plan to make a deal. The plan was: Let's set the atmosphere so that everyone else in this Province who comes up against me will know what they are going to face. They are going to end up getting a kick in the shins or a kick in the ankle and they are going to be put down, and: Whatever we can take from you, we are going to take. That is the attitude of this Premier: I have to win at all costs, even if it hurts the public servants of this Province, the very people who are out there cleaning the schools for our children, keeping things clean, and making it a fit place for them to get their education.

What I fear, as we go through some Budget Debate, is what is coming after this Bill 18, is what is in the Budget. There has been no arguing here that there are 4,000 employees going out the door and 476 teachers going to get their walking papers. You know, the most compelling part of it all is, somewhere in all this diatribe has come out that fact that: Well, this is the first budget, but we are not going to be able to fix everything here in four years, it is going to take about eight years. It is going to be six to eight years before we get Newfoundland and Labrador our way. That is the scary part. If this is our way, I say to the members opposite, well then I certainly won't be speaking in favour of anything you are going to do; if this is an example of what our way is going to be. I don't believe in the philosophy that your leader has there, your Premier, of my way or the highway.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that his time has elapsed.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave.

MR. SWEENEY: Mr. Speaker, just a moment or two.

I do call upon - I know some of the members opposite and I know them to be, in a life outside of this House and outside of government, good forthright people, and I know that they have the wherewithal inside themselves, that they are saying themselves, that this Bill 18 is not right, and they know it.

Hansard, from some of the existing members over there from before - they might have been playing politics then, in 1999, but even if they were playing politics then they sung a different tune than they are singing today. The tune that I am asking each and everyone of you to sing today is the one for the people. Speak for your people, speak for your constituents, do the right thing, reject Bill 18, because the people who were jamming this down their throats are not the enemy. They are our neighbours, they are our sons and daughters, they are our husbands and wives, people who believe that they should, too, make a decent living.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Barbe.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. YOUNG: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand here today and I will support Bill 18. I cannot say I will do it with any great pride or whatever, but I will certainly take the responsibility that has been placed upon me to go out there and take care of the responsibility regarding the District of St. Barbe.

The issues that came my way, that certainly made up my mind on how important it was to get this resolved and to go on, were the issues that came from the health care. I got many calls and heard many concerns from people out there paying the price that they felt was far too great, to be able to have a service denied with something like your health. You cannot go out and choose when you are going to need medical service.

Today, I saw many members stand and say: Well, okay, the strike is over and the health care workers are back in place, and health care is no longer the concern it was when all the services in our health care system were being denied. I tell you, there are people out there today who certainly do not want it to blow up their face again, where they find themselves back in exactly the same situation, whether it is a week, a month, or six months from now. They want to have a government that is willing to stand up and take the difficult decisions and to go out there and see that the services that we provide, as a government, are provided on an ongoing basis. That alone, I think, is enough to give me the courage to stand here and do the difficult thing that I have to do, and that is to support difficult legislation.

One of the other things that I think had certainly played a part with my line of thinking on how this had all unfolded, was the process and how that was used by the union leadership. The calls that I had from union membership, that they will give a mandate to go out and negotiate, but they had not given the strong mandate to go out there and to strike, and they felt they would have liked to have had an opportunity, before this had gone on, to have a say. The calls I had from there certainly, as I said, influenced my thinking, but it depends on where you sit and what you hear. That is why the process was ever so important for me, the information I received.

The member opposite, who just spoke, said that was what he was hearing in his community, and. I am sure that is what he is hearing, because we will go out there, and to support any argument or any stand that we have, we will find the facts to accommodate them. I suppose I put a list of the things that I hear in a pile, and I go out there and say: Those are the important reasons for me to make my decisions. I suppose the member opposite had taken them and put it in a different pile, the different comments. I guess those were some of the e-mails that I received as well. He had based his decision on that.

If the union leadership had certainly done justice to their membership, had done justice to the people in this Province, it would have put us in a position where - it would have made it much more difficult for me to stand and support a bill, because it would have taken away all the opportunities for shades of grey, but, no, the opportunity for shades of grey was left there, and I think it was intentionally left there because of the uncertainty of the outcome.

As I go out there and think of the responsibility I have taken on - I have a number of people in my district, and a number of my friends, who are on strike and I look forward to this being resolved, and being resolved in a very positive way. I have taken on the responsibility to all of the people in the District of St. Barbe, and I have gone through great difficulties and hardships. It is those people who have been out there, who have gone through and paid, with no opportunity, because there has been no investment made in their lives, and opportunities that would bring real jobs outside of government jobs.

I always go back and think about a moment, when it struck me, that has certainly influenced the rest of my life, and that was to sit here with a group of people who had worked to develop something in their community, something very positive, something we had to think very strongly about. On December 23, to sit down and think that there would be no income for the foreseeable future and have a community, and communities all across this Province, where that is the reality, and to say: I cannot take the responsibility and shoulder the burden of doing something that is difficult, and let those people continue on the way it is going. I say: I will take the responsibility for the decisions that I make, because I think there has to be a balancing act out there. We have to have good capable services that we provide, whether it is in our health care, whether it is in our education, or whether it is in our transportation. We all have to have competent people who are well compensated for the work they do. We cannot live in isolation, I understand that, but neither can this Province live unless we start to build a future, something that is strong and real. That is where we have to go.

We can no longer push decisions that we are no longer willing to shoulder onto our children. I think, when I stand here today, I will say it has been far to long that we have not done it. I feel as if I were a child who had to shoulder the burden of decisions that were not made when other people served in this Legislature. I am not willing to take the easy road out, I will stand and vote. I have always seen a place of great opportunity and a place where there has been great waste, and I am not willing to continue on with that. I would like to think that my children, along with all the children, will have an opportunity to have a place that bears the fruit of all the promise that we have, and all the promise that we think about and talk about in this place. I hope this one small act of taking the responsibility that I have taken on, will bear some fruit in the future.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: I rise today in opposition to Bill 18 as well. I would like to use my time to talk about the unfairness of this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, and how it impacts upon workers in this Province.

I will start off by talking about a comment make by the Member for Harbour Main, when he talked about how the circumstances that we find ourselves in financially in this Province today did not happen overnight or in the last two years. I say to the member: Given that that may be the truth, the solutions cannot be imposed overnight or within two years either, Mr. Speaker, without inflicting a lot of hardship upon the people of this Province.

Bill 18, Mr. Speaker, is a total affront to workers and working people of this Province. In the public sector, from this day on, there will be no such thing referred to as negotiations. People in the public service of this Province will be talking about the terms and conditions of a legislated agreement. Mr. Speaker, that is not conducive to good labour relations, it is not conducive to a good work place, a good attitude by employees, and it is all of a direct result of this government's inability to negotiate a collective agreement with their employees.

Mr. Speaker, this is sending a message to many other people in the Province, other than for whom it is intended today. We have several other public sector groups who are coming up in the near future for their negotiations. Is the same thing going to apply to them, I ask the government? Because it would certainly seem so. How else would they justify treating one group, a large group of employees, different than other public servants in the Province? I do not see any option, Mr. Speaker, for this government that by doing what they are doing today to the public service workers, which this bill particularly applies to, is also sending a loud and clear message to other groups that are coming that this will apply to you as well. That is not setting the stage, Mr. Speaker, for a good round of negotiations.

I listened carefully to the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, the Member for Cape St. Francis, and it was very interesting, the speech that he gave. I want to say to the member, and the minister, if we are in so bad a financial position as they are now portraying, and given the fact that the current Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board seemed to - during the last five years that I have been here - know what he was talking about when he talked about the finances of the Province. He always indicated, to anyone who would listen, that he knew how much debt the Province was in and what the financial picture was. I cannot help but wonder, Mr. Speaker, how - at the same time, knowing that - they could get up when they were on this side of the House day after day, week after week, month after month and on one hand talk about the financial picture of the Province and on the other hand keep pushing the then Minister of Finance for more things for money to be spent on?

I can recall one time, Mr. Speaker, when the Minister of Finance, the former Member for St. John's Centre, came in with a list of items that the Opposition - the government of today, who were Opposition at that time - were asking for in a one week period; a one week period, Mr. Speaker, and that amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars. They did not care about that when they were in Opposition. That was not on their agenda, the state of the finances. It was spend, spend, spend. They knew at that time, had a good idea anyway, of the financial picture of this Province.

As I said last week, Mr. Speaker, there is something that happens. When you leave this side you say the things that people want to hear to gain their confidence so that when you go to that side you can do what your real agenda is. That is exactly what this government has done from the time they were on this side by gaining the confidence of the people, by saying what they would do if they were in government, by questioning the government of the day: How come you are not spending money on this project or doing this with this health care centre? They gained the trust of the people, only to move to that side of the House, Mr. Speaker, and betray the people's confidence. Well, I say that is what, to a huge degree, makes people cynical about politics and politicians, and they are a class A example of doing just that.

Mr. Speaker, I listened today during Question Period, and we talked about - here and on the news the weekend - government's position and the only outstanding issue really which is sick days. Government was talking about the cost that sick days represent to this government, but I am a little bit confused on one issue because they are saying that when an employee reports in sick they have to call in a replacement. I do not disagree with that because I do not think there are workers in the Province who are simply on the payroll to be there. They are doing something and they are doing work that is important. They are saying, in one breath, that when an employee today, who is much needed in the workplace, reports in sick, somebody has to be called out to replace them. Well, if it is that critical, why is it that they are announcing the layoff of 4,000 people in the public service? Why are they doing that, Mr. Speaker? If, when a public servant is absent today, somebody has to be called in to replace them, who is going to do that work with 4,000 less people? That is a question I would be very interested in getting an answer on from any member on the opposite side who stands up to address Bill 18.

They have also talked about, Mr. Speaker, using their managers in the layoff notices that are presently underway of being carried out. They knew it was a deliberate attempt by this government to hang onto those managers, to use them and abuse them to serve their own purpose because they knew that the public service of this Province was not going to accept the proposals that were being put to them by government. They had to have somebody in place to do the work for essential services and other things that they needed done. They have not just abused the unionized employees in this term of bargaining, they have also used their managers to get them through a strike that they forced upon workers in this Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is not called negotiations anymore. It is going to be called legislated terms and conditions of employment. I can hear employees now saying: I wonder, in four years' time, what kind of benefits will we have legislated upon us? Because there is no freedom of negotiations any more. There is no such thing, Mr. Speaker, as arbitration.

This government had a choice. They had a choice between forcing people on strike, using the Legislature, or going to arbitration. Rather than go through arbitration, they chose to strike, and eventually the Legislature, to get what they wanted, to get what they say they need, but they have never ever justified to anyone in the Province as to why.

Further to that, Mr. Speaker, to add insult to injury, the Premier and the Minister of Finance is on record as saying: We could have improved our monetary offer to the union if we could have gotten what we wanted on sick days and on the so often referred to Warren Report.

Well, Mr. Speaker, they did what they wanted on the sick days - or they will, once this bill goes through. They will get what they wanted on the sick days. They will get what they wanted from the Warren Report. The issue now is, what about the extra money that would have been there to give to the employees if the union had agreed? This is punishment, Mr. Speaker. This is punishment because they are saying no, you would not agree with us; therefore, you are not getting anything further than what our offer was in the beginning.

Speaker after speaker on the other side, as the night progresses, Mr. Speaker, will get up and they will talk about the need to legislate people back to work who are already back to work; the need to legislate the terms and conditions upon the employees of this Province. Mr. Speaker, they are back to work. I think they have noticed. There are no picket lines anywhere. The first day that the unions called for employees to return, they did so and there is absolutely no need for this to take place at this point. There is one outstanding issue left. The Premier talked about not wanting to turn over the cheque book of the Province to anyone other than their own Cabinet. Mr. Speaker, the issue of sick days, that could really, really put this away with a good tone for everyone, can be sent to arbitration. I do not think anyone over there can - and if they can, I would like for them to explain it when they stand up, Mr. Speaker, how the issue of sick days can bankrupt this Province by going to arbitration. I do not think they can do that, Mr. Speaker, especially in light of the fact that they are going to lay off 4,000 workers over the next little while. I do not see that as being fundamental to the financial health of this Province in the long run.

I have listened to the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, the Minister of Government Services. I listened to some of the words that she said, Mr. Speaker, and I think they are important to remember because they are still rubbing salt in the wounds of the union, infuriating members. Inflaming remarks that she has made, in my opinion, do nothing to help things even at this stage. She talked about how members would have gladly accepted the offer on March 31, if given an opportunity to vote.

Mr. Speaker, that really sends a message to me that the minister, and anyone else on that side of the House who thinks that way, really do not understand what the labour movement is all about. They really do not understand, Mr. Speaker, because the chief negotiators for the union, Leo Puddister, Wayne Lucas and Dave Reynolds, are not the ones who decide whether something is good or not. I have been involved in negotiations lots and lots of times, for many years. I did not decide what was good for the membership, or what was not. I was the spokesperson for the people I represented. When these negotiators for the union went back to their hotel, or wherever they were in the city, they met with a huge committee who were representing people from all across this Province. They were mandated by the committee as to what was acceptable and what would not be.

I can tell you something else, Mr. Speaker. I have worked in this environment and I know that the Minister of Government Services, when she was making her remarks, did not fully understand anything, because if the membership of NAPE and CUPE really wanted to vote on the offer that was made by government, they have ways of getting that to a vote, believe you me. They have ways of doing that, but there was no attempt made.

It really bothers me when I hear members opposite get up and say: Oh, I talked to two people from my district, or I had three or four e-mails saying that we would have voted on that, you know, that was acceptable. Out of 20,000 people, Mr. Speaker, I guess you could have gotten a few people because there was a certain percentage that voted against the strike in the first place. These members - with all due respect to their rights - probably would have accepted the offer that was made.

I can tell members opposite one thing, and this I know for certain, if the majority of the members of the two unions involved in this work stoppage wanted to vote at any time during that work stoppage, they would have had their opportunity to vote because they have ways of doing that, Mr. Speaker, through their local unions, through their representatives out here, who would have told their negotiators exactly what they wanted and it would have happened.

Mr. Speaker, members who were here prior to the last election, I would make the suggestion to them that they go back through Hansard, if they haven't already done so, and look at the comments that they made in 1992 when they were trying to buy the trust of the people of the Province to get to that side of the House to do what they really, really wanted to do. Look at the comments that you made during that period of time and try and reconcile that with the attitudes and the stands that you are taking here today. The two don't jibe, Mr. Speaker, the two don't jibe at all. It is not a matter of bankrupting the Province on the issues that are outstanding today, it has nothing to do with that, Mr. Speaker. It is a question of power, it is a question of getting their own way, and when they can't do that through negotiations or by agreement, then they will use the power of this Legislature to accomplish what they couldn't accomplish in any other forum.

Mr. Speaker, it has nothing to do with money at this stage of the game. The arbitration system was there. The majority of the people - I say to the Minister of Municipal Affairs: He had calls saying, stick to your guns, but if he had said to them in return, Mr. Speaker, what would you prefer us to do, go to the Legislature or go to arbitration, what would they have responded to that? I don't believe, Mr. Speaker, that there are too many people in this Province who are so cruel, so narrow-minded, that they would not have selected the arbitration option over the Legislature option. They didn't ask that question, Mr. Speaker, because that doesn't fit with the actions that they are taking here today.

I say to the members opposite, that maybe, when people are saying that this strike has to be over, yes, there is a lot support for that, there was a lot of support for that, in the Province, even among unions members there was support for that, but what option do you use to accomplish that, Mr. Speaker, is the question. That was the question that I asked but it is not the question, obviously, that members of government have asked the people in their communities.

Mr. Speaker, the government members will be speaking and addressing this legislation, and they will be talking, as I said earlier, about turning over the cheque book of the Province to people other than who were elected to, as in the Premier's words, run the Province. Mr. Speaker, the issues that are outstanding in this dispute, up until the employees returned to work last week and even through until today, are not issues that would bankrupt this Province. Far from it, Mr. Speaker, far from it!

I don't know, Mr. Speaker, what the bottom line will be for other unions that are coming up for negotiations. If I were a member of the nurses' union, if I were a member of the allied health workers' union, or the teachers' union in this Province, I certainly would not be too optimistic, Mr. Speaker, about what the end results will be.

Mr. Speaker, the first time I had an opportunity to become involved in politics, by way of action through a union, came about over twenty years ago - the PC government was in the Province at the time - when there was a strike in Wabush between Local 6285 and Wabush Mines. That strike was a lengthy one. The PC government of that day used the Labour Relations Act, invoked the section which forced the employees of Local 6285 to vote on the last offer that was there from the company. They forced a vote by members who were legally and had every right in this world to withdraw their services. The government of the day forced a vote on the membership and the membership did vote, and the government of today was saying the same thing that they are saying now: If the members had a chance they would have accepted that. Nobody wants to be on strike that long. That is the words that were being used. Well, the members did vote because they had to; government forced them to. Government was proven wrong then because the members rejected the last offer from the company. The strike continued until the workers at Wabush Mines got the justice that they started the strike for to begin with. They stayed until they eventually got pretty close to everything that they went out on strike for.

Another piece of legislation I recall from the former PC government when they were in power in this Province was a bill called Bill 38. A very regressive piece of legislation that took millions of dollars out of the pockets of hardworking people in Wabush, Labrador City, Corner Brook and probably other places in this Province where the unions did not received, the members did not receive the proper notice of layoff. They took that complaint to the labour standards tribunal and they won. The Labour Standards Board ruled that the employers did not give the notice they were required to under the law and they had to pay the employees the weeks wages that they were not given notice for. Guess what happen, Mr. Speaker? The government of the day introduced Bill 38 into the Legislature. Bill 38 shortened the notice period required by employers to be given to employees; shortened it to conform to what was given. It took millions of dollars out of workers pockets, but in order to take the millions of dollars out what they had to do, and what they did, was made the legislation five years retroactive. Five years retroactive, Mr. Speaker, took every major employer in this Province off the hook and at the same time took millions of dollars out of the workers pockets in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, this government today, what they are doing is equally as disturbing when it comes to the treatment of workers. They had options that they could have pursued. They had the option of arbitration, which everybody in the Province pretty well agreed was the route that should have been taken, but they would not listen to the unions who wanted arbitration, they would not listen to the people of the Province who said arbitration is the appropriate way to go. Instead, they made their own minds up, and I would say two or three of them made their own minds up: No, we know what we want from this round of bargaining and we are not leaving that in anybody else's hands other than ours.

Mr. Speaker, in order for that to happen -

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. COLLINS: By leave, to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, to clue up?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. COLLINS: In order for that to happen, Mr. Speaker, they had to go the route that brings us to where we are here today, a piece of legislation that is regressive, a piece of legislation that inflicts hardship, that inflicts total disregard for the collective bargaining process in this Province and in this country. Right now people from all over this country are asking the question: What are they doing debating back-to-work legislation when people have been back to work for over a week? So, Mr. Speaker, it does not make sense. It is not needed, and I say to members opposite: It is never too late to do the right thing. Do not agree with this piece of legislation. Send the outstanding issues to arbitration. Let both sides in this dispute go back to work with a true understanding of each other and respect for each other that is going to be needed in order to make the workplace a good environment to be productive.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I apologize, I did not see the hon. member from the opposite side. We have a rotation.

MR. REID: I can see why, Mr. Speaker. They have not stood in the last three weeks here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Do we have a member from the opposite side?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of Bill 18. It would be a very popular decision for me today if I decided to vote against Bill 18. I would emerge as a hero within the labour movement for NAPE and CUPE, but I have to do today what I feel is the right decision for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In the last six months, as I have been working in my role as a Member of the House of Assembly, I have had time to think back about my formal education in the field of social work. I thought back about the three roles of a social worker: being an enabler, a broker and an advocate, and I have realized that over the years, although I have never been employed as a social worker, I have taken on the role of advocate in many different ways and that role has, certainly, been challenging over the years.

Throughout my career, Mr. Speaker, I have been an advocate for offenders in Newfoundland and Labrador. I have worked with federal offenders in both Ontario and in Newfoundland and Labrador. These are adult male offenders eighteen years of age and older who are serving sentences of anywhere from two years to life sentences. To make decisions on their release or decisions that they cannot be released has never been a popular decision. I have often had to make decisions that did not sit well with victim's advocate groups or communities, or I have also had to make decisions that did not sit well with inmate populations. But, as an advocate, I did stand up and I did make decisions that I felt were fair and equitable. I have also been an advocate over the years for a union. I have been a member and a member of the executive for the USGE. In that role I took my responsibilities very seriously and I advocated, when I had to, for the union membership.

Mr. Speaker, today, as I rise to speak in this House, I acknowledge that my role has changed. I am no longer accountable to the Correctional Service of Canada or to USGE, but, Mr. Speaker, I am accountable to the residents of St. George's-Stephenville East. At this point in time, I am an advocate for the District of St. George's-Stephenville East. I have heard from the residents and the people who live in that district that their priorities include drinking water. We have many families, particularly in Bay St. George South, who feel they do not have adequate drinking water going into their homes. I have also heard extensively that there are issues with the roads. The stretch of highway, the Trans-Canada Highway, from Flat Bay to Fischells, has to be in about the worst condition of any highway in this Province. The secondary roads through our communities in the Codroy Valley and Bay St. George South are also in deplorable condition, as are some of the bridges on our highways at River Brook in South Branch, Mr. Speaker.

I am also facing other major issues within the district. The future viability of Abitibi Consolidated is a major concern for the District of St. George's-Stephenville East. The fibre supply for that paper mill, and escalating hydro costs, need to be addressed. There are also concerns with regard to the fishery in St. George's-Stephenville East as Codroy depends on the fish plant. The fisherpeople of that area provide much-needed prosperity to the economy of the Codroy Valley. We are also facing challenges with the airport in Stephenville, which serves all of Southwestern Newfoundland and certainly the people of Bay St. George South.

Mr. Speaker, today I am an advocate for the people of St. George's-Stephenville East, and all of their issues. I am responsible to all of the people who live in that area, whether they live in Codroy, whether they live in the Highlands, St. Fintan's, Flat Bay, St. George's, Stephenville Crossing or Stephenville. Mr. Speaker, I have to advocate and speak on behalf of those people, and on very different issues. I have been elected to represent the interests of all these people.

Other than being the Member of the House of Assembly for St. George's-Stephenville East, I am also the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women, and the Minister Responsible for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation. Mr. Speaker, that also puts me in a role of an advocate in different ways, not just for the district. There are approximately 66,000 people - men, women and children - in Newfoundland and Labrador who depend on income support to meet their basic needs in this Province. As the minister responsible for providing this basic assistance of income support, I also feel that I am an advocate for these 66,000 people.

Mr. Speaker, it would have given me great pleasure when the Budget was announced if we could provide rate increases for the people who depend on income support, but unfortunately, with all of the fiscal restraints and issues that we are facing today, that was not possible. Many people in this Province will not see increases in their income this year.

Our Throne Speech indicated that we are going to address the issue of poverty, and child poverty. Mr. Speaker, I know that poverty is a very complex issue. If poverty could be addressed simply by increasing the rates of income support, we would have had the answer years ago. There has recently been a study on the intergenerational dependency of people who receive income support, Mr. Speaker.

I am very keen to move on with the work that is needed in this Province and in the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment. I want to look at that report, Mr. Speaker. I want to use the basis of that study for policy development, to provide some way that we can address poverty in a real way in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the only way poverty can really, truly be addressed is if people can move into the labour force. People need to find gainful employment in the labour force, and they need an attachment to the labour force in a very meaningful way. I also firmly believe, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador do not receive income support because it provides such a comfortable living. I feel most people, if given the opportunity for employment, would much prefer to be independent, out earning wages and being able to care for themselves without having to turn to basic assistance.

Mr. Speaker, as I move ahead in the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, or any responsibilities attached to being the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women or the Minister Responsible for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, I want to base all policies and any decisions on research and evidence. I want all my decisions within this department to be based on evidence-based research. We have lots of social policy research out there and, Mr. Speaker, that will be the basis of what guides the department. I am not prepared to be making decisions on anecdotal or popular beliefs. People often throw numbers at me that are unsubstantiated; but, Mr. Speaker, if we are going to make some real changes, we need real data upon which to base our decisions.

Mr. Speaker, other than the challenges from being the Minister Responsible for Human Resources, Labour and Employment, we also have women's centres which fall under the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women. These women's centres have been operating with an operating grant of $50,000 a year. They provide invaluable service to the people in the areas that they serve.

Mr. Speaker, it would have also given me great pleasure to double or triple the money given to these centres, but we also had to face our fiscal responsibilities. In doing that, however, in acknowledgment of the work that they do primarily in a preventive nature, we were able to make increases in their operating grants of 10 per cent. So, Mr. Speaker, although we have not been able to do everything we need to do, we have certainly been able to make some decisions that reflect the work that is being done in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the members of CUPE and the members of NAPE are part of a team. They are represented by their leadership and a person who speaks on their behalf. As in most teams, it is necessary to stand strong and stand behind your leadership. There may be, at times, individual differences. However, there is one, solid voice that speaks and represents the concerns of all members. Mr. Speaker, being a member of government is not much different. We can each express our own concerns, our issues and our ideas. However, together we stand with consensus and we understand that it is necessary in having an effective team. I have always been a team player, whether it has been within the Correctional Service of Canada or USGE and I certainly intend to remain being a team player as part of this government.

Mr. Speaker, I was elected to make the right decisions. The people of St. George's-Stephenville East expect honesty and integrity from me, and they will get honesty and integrity from me. I realize we have a very serious fiscal situation. If we were in a different fiscal situation it would be an honour to offer increases to the unions who provide the public service in this Province. It would also be a delight to be able to increase income support rates in this Province. However, we do not have the finances available today to be everything for everyone right now. We have to show fiscal restraint and at the same time we are committed to building the economy and having a brighter future for our children.

I am also a parent of a nine-year-old daughter in Grade 4 and I am worried about her future. I know there are other members in this House who also have young children, and we have to be responsible for their future. We cannot hand to them a financial burden that they cannot handle. We need to show some fiscal restraint and we need to be considerate of our children and our grandchildren in generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, we have been tough negotiators in this present labour dispute, but it shows as well that we understand our limits, and some limits we cannot go beyond.

This bill today will bring some closure to a very unstable month that we have had in Newfoundland and Labrador. This bill will bring some fairness. It will show our future generations that we have been fair to them. It will also show that we have been a fair government based on the fiscal realities we are facing today. Mr. Speaker, we have a four-year mandate. We will not be guided, and I, personally, will not be guided by the next election. We will make decisions based on the realities in which we are living and we will not make all our decisions based on politics alone. That in itself in this Province is a new approach.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

[Continuation of today's sitting will be found in Hansard No. 26A]


May 3, 2004 HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol. XLV No. 26A


[Continuation of today's sitting]

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My second attempt to get up. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker, I stand today to talk to the bill before the House of Assembly, Bill 18, An Act To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation Of Public Services, a bill that I will not be voting for and I do not think anybody on this side of the floor will vote for because it is the most draconian and oppressive piece of legislation that I have seen debated in this House of Assembly since I came here in 1996. This is my third time back here. I won three elections, and I did sit through a number of debates in this House of Assembly since 1996 but I have never seen a bill like this because never before have we had a bill put before the Legislature to put civil servants back to work who are already working. Never before have we seen a piece of legislation that contained back-to-work legislation, but not just back-to-work legislation, legislation that also included concessions, things that the government were going to strip out of the civil service contracts in this Province.

While the minister for Stephenville East talked most of her speech about her district and about being fair and being fair to people, I do not see anything fair in this bill when you consider that this bill is about putting civil servants back to work. This bill is about stripping these same civil servants of some of the things that they have in their contracts. I guess when she is here a little bit longer she might be able to explain to me how that is fair to the people that this bill is talking to today.

Mr. Speaker, this piece of legislation was first brought to the floor Thursday before last, over a week ago. It was again presented last Monday, exactly seven days ago, and from that time forth, up until today, we have not heard one member on the opposite side, on the government side, stand to speak to why they were going to vote in favour of this bill. Until today, we heard some of them get up and make a feeble attempt, albeit some very short speeches from members opposite. One was six minutes, and I do not know if that individual did say he was going to speak to the bill or if he was not at the end of the day. We did, while I was a member in the government, bring in back-to-work legislation. It was in 1999. It was not a bill that I was pleased to stand in the House of Assembly - like the members opposite, all of a sudden now because they are allowed to speak. The Premier, I guess, was listening to the Open Line shows for the past week and 90 per cent of the callers are calling in and asking where their government representatives are, that they have not heard a word from them; wanting to know if they had their tongues taken out or if they were hiding away, or if they were not allowed to speak. I guess after you get beat over the head with that for a period of days, I guess the Premier allowed them to stand and say a few words.

To get back to the piece of legislation that we brought in 1999, back-to-work legislation for the nurses. The members opposite want to say that piece of legislation was exactly like the piece of legislation we are debating here today. That could not be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. It was nowhere in comparison. It was nowhere as draconian or as oppressive as this piece of legislation is because all we did, in that piece of legislation, was legislate a raise. We did not legislate concessions. We legislated a raise. We had already negotiated deals with NAPE and CUPE, and all the other bargaining units that work for the government, but we could not get a deal with the nurses on salary. So we gave them - what we legislated for the nurses was exactly what the other unions in the public sector had already agreed to. We did not bring in back-to-work legislation that included concessions like we have here on the table today.

I listened intently to the member who represents Bell Island, the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island. She got up briefly today and said why she would support this piece of draconian legislation. The reason behind her whole speech is because she said she did not know - when she ran back in October for the Tory party - the financial situation that the Province was in. Obviously, she did not speak to other members who had already been sitting in the House from the Tory party because had she done it she would have realized that what she was saying was not true about the financial situation, and how they had no idea about the financial situation the Province finds itself in today.

I certainly heard about the financial situation from the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board. He sat right here in this seat, right here now where my colleague, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, sits. For years he talked about the mess that the Province was in. In fact, I bet you could find at least 500 references to it. In last year's speech that he gave to the Budget, I think he spoke for some thirteen hours, and in that time he spent those thirteen hours, five or six days, talking about the dire straits we are in. So, to hear members opposite stand today and say we did not know about the financial condition of the House. I do not know where they were last year, unless they were all out of the Province on some vacation. They certainly could not have been in the Province because they would have somehow heard the Member for Ferryland speak to that.

The other thing, Mr. Speaker, is that the Premier also sat here for three years, and everybody knows - we were told for three years that he was this great economic, business guru here in the Province. He was smarter than anyone else when it came to business because he had made himself millions and millions and hundreds of millions of dollars and that he knew everything there is to know about business. I guess if you ever own a business you should know something about the books, about the financial statements of your business. You should be able to read a set of financial statements, at the end of a fiscal year in a business, just like you can here in the House of Assembly when the Budget is presented by the Minister of Finance.

That same Premier, that business guru, sat here for three years and looked at the finances in the Budget Speech - and we have an accompanying book that goes with the Budget which looks something similar to this, only it is much larger, where it goes through every heading in government and outlines where every cent is being spent and every cent that has been spent and every cent that government owes to anyone from which it borrows money. The Premier sat here for three years, in the seat right there next to where the Minister of Finance, or the Opposition critic for Finance sat. He sat here for three years. So, to stand here in the last few days, or in the last few months, and say that he did not know the economic condition of the Province, it can only lead you to wonder one of two things. One: Is he being entirely truthful, or is he not as smart when it comes to finances and businesses as he pretended that he was prior to getting elected?

That is the Minister of Finance and the Premier, who are out there telling people they did not know the condition of the finances in the Province. The one that really bothers me the most is sitting on that side of the floor today, right in the next seat to the Minister of Finance, who sits next to the Premier - the three of them are right in a row - is the Minister of Health. What does the Minister of Health have to do with the finances of the Province? Well, let me tell you. The Minister of Health, for some eight to ten years, was the Auditor General for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. For those of you opposite who do not know what the Auditor General does, she audited the books of every single department in government for ten years. She went into every single department. She wanted to know exactly how much was spent, where it was being spent, what it was being spent on. She also knew every single debt that the government of the Province had.

I am very shocked and surprised that the Minister of Health, the ex-Auditor General, would have the audacity to even suggest to the members of her caucus that she did not know the condition of the finances in the Province. Well, if she did not, Mr. Speaker, I do not know why we paid her such a very handsome salary for the last ten years to do the books for the government. I also do not know why anyone, who had worked that position for ten years, would now be the Minister of Health. If she did not know the conditions of the finances, how many years is it going to take for her to realize the condition the Department of Health, the health care facilities and the whole health portfolio in this Province is?

Mr. Speaker, for the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island and the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East, and for all other members to get up and say they did not know the financial condition of this Province prior to getting elected, and they did not know the financial condition of this Province until they had that famous report, which came down in January by PricewaterhouseCoopers, I think, Mr. Speaker, that they are certainly misleading the Province. Either that or they have had their heads buried in the sand so deep that whatever their Premier says to them, they just go and mouth immediately without even beginning to think about what they are saying.

Mr. Speaker, maybe what I should do is inform the members opposite, who did not know about the financial condition in the Province, what this piece of legislation is actually about; what this strike that had people in the civil service of this Province out for thirty days in April on strike. Maybe I can inform them what it was all about because it was not about the financial condition of this Province. You knew what it was like long before these people went to the table to negotiate a contract. It was about, actually, Mr. Speaker, putting the boots to the civil service in this Province. It was about stripping contracts, trying to bust unions.

As my colleague, the Member for Bay of Islands, said earlier, wait and see what happens to the remaining unions who have to negotiate at the table with this very government in the ensuing months. Because, Mr. Speaker, if you look back just a couple of years ago and trace it from two years ago up to the present time, you can see what it is all about. It is about union busting and getting rid of a number of civil services in government, because the Minister of Finance believes that even if we were as rich as Alberta today, we still have far too many civil servants and that they should be eliminated. Obliterated, I guess, would be the best way to look at it, if you were looking at it from the Minister of Finance's perspective, because even if we could afford to have twice as many as we have, that would not be good for him. He would still want fewer.

This is the same Minister of Finance, when he sat over here a year or so ago, got up and railed one day about the need to cut $100 million out of health. The reason he wanted to do that was because he believed there were too many workers in the Department of Health. He was not the only one across the floor who felt that way because, I guarantee you, his Premier and his Minister of Education, and everyone else over there felt the same way. They could not wait a year ago to get their hands on the power and the authority that the Premier talks about today so that they could rule this Province, govern - not govern because they would not use this - rule this Province and control the civil service in such a way that they could get rid of those they did not want and reduce the civil service by 25 per cent.

Just a year ago, the Minister of Education was over in Deer Lake-Corner Brook area doing an address to a business group. I think it was the Board of Trade or the Chamber of Commerce, and these are the types of people that they would like to go and address because they are like-minded. They like to talk to people who feel the same way as they do about labour unions because if you sit around the table with a group from the Chamber of Commerce and stuff like that, I guess that they probably would rather do without a union in their businesses as well. At that dinner, and shortly after that dinner meeting which the Minister of Education and the Premier attended with the Chamber of Commerce in Deer Lake, the Minister of Education made a comment in the media that what he talked about that day at their dinner was the need to reduce taxes to businesses. That was a very popular thing. I do not know why the Minister of Education, though, would be talking about tax breaks to businesses when addressing someone for a dinner. I thought that maybe the member, who was the critic for Education at the time, might want to talk about how he was going to improve the education system in the Province but, no, he wanted to talk about tax breaks; tax breaks for businesses, tax breaks for those in our society who probably have a lot more than the rest of us, tax breaks for wealthy individuals. How he was going to be able to achieve tax breaks for these individuals was that he was going to trim the fat out of the civil service. Now, just think about those words. He was going to trim the fat out of the civil service.

Mr. Speaker, for those of you opposite who do not really know what trim the fat out of the civil service means, it means exactly what your Premier and the Minister of Finance have being trying to do here in the past month since the House opened and since the Budget came down. The Minister of Finance, one of the first things he said in the Budget back on April 1, or March 31, I think it was, was that he was going to lay off 4,000 civil servants, which fit perfectly in line with what his Premier and the Minister of Education were talking about, when he talked about trimming the fat out of bureaucracy.

MR. HARRIS: That speech prompted immediate denial.

MR. REID: Exactly. My colleague, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, said that speech prompted a denial on behalf of the Premier and on behalf of the Minister of Education, saying that they did not say it. They did not say it. Yet, a reporter on the West Coast reported it and would not withdraw his statements, even when asked for an apology by the Premier and the Minister of Education. He stood by it and said: No, these were the words that were uttered in that meeting with me and I stand by them.

Well, guess what? That reporter over in The Western Star is now looking from an apology from the Minister of Education and the Premier, because what he is saying is that what he said last year is exactly what they are doing now, so he is asking for an apology from these people.

Mr. Speaker, that is what it is all about. It is about trying to destroy unions so that you can rule, so that you can control the civil service, just like the Premier talks every time he gets on his feet. He does not talk about being elected to govern. He does not talk about trying to negotiate contracts with people. He talks about: I was elected to control this Province. I was elected to rule this Province.

The only thing that the hon. Premier does not know is that he was elected along with forty-eight others, or forty-seven others, in this Province, to try and govern this Province, not to rule it, not to control it, like he controlled and ruled his businesses in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, what you have is the group opposite, and none of them in their speeches today are talking directly to this bill, what is included in it, because all they want to do is, they want to strip the civil service of their contracts so that in the future, when their contracts come up, they will not have to sit at the table and negotiate the deal with them. They will dictate the deal, just like they did elsewhere.

I am really happy to see that the Minister of Human Resources and Employment and the Member for St. George's-Stephenville East is over there grinning away at this. I guess she has fallen right in line with her Premier and with the Minister of Finance about all of this. This is the same individual who spoke just a few minutes ago about the passion and her heartfelt sympathy for those amongst us who do not do as well as some others, Mr. Speaker. I guess she has fallen right in line with her Premier, the business Premier that we have here, and our Finance Minister, in that they would like nothing more than to gut the civil service.

I ask the minister how she feels about the social services cases that she has is going to have after we fire 4,000 people in the civil service in the next few years, and what impact this is going to have on her constituents and the rest of our constituents in the Province?

Mr. Speaker, what I have said is that this Premier, an individual who waxes so eloquently in this House about his great ability to negotiate contracts, he even says all the time to the Leader of the New Democratic Party: Oh, yes, you worked with me and you know how good I am to employees and individuals.

Having said that, I had an e-mail from an individual who worked for this same Premier some years ago. Because he got involved with trying to start a union with one of the Premier's businesses, the employees in that particular business were told, categorically: You form a union and you will be fired. We will set up a new company under a different name.

That is exactly what they did. I do not know how many individuals got fired, but that is exactly what an individual called me last week - e-mailed me and called me - and told me. It happened to him as a result of trying to organize a union, which, in a democratic country such as Canada, there is not supposed to be any problem with.

Mr. Speaker, this union-busting Premier that we have, that is the reason we are sitting in this House, I might add, through supper tonight, because all of a sudden this debate is so important and needs to be done in such a timely manner that the Government House Leader will not even let us break for supper here tonight so that we can continue the debate later on. It is so important now, after a week of having it on the table, a week of not one member opposite speaking to it, that you cannot even break now to have a bite to eat so that you can resume debate tonight. They want to push this through so they can take off to Florida tomorrow and get their tans topped up and hope that all of this is going to disappear in the ten days they are going to be gone. I can tell them right now, it is not going to disappear. It is going to be here when you come back, and it is going to follow you for the next four years. I will guarantee you that.

Mr. Speaker, what we have is a union-busting government with a piece of legislation here this afternoon that proves exactly this, because it is not about putting people back to work. They are already there. This debate is really unnecessary today. It could happen any time this year, because there is no necessity to order people back to work who are already working. There is no necessity to push it through again today, because we could sit down, or the government could sit down, and negotiate with NAPE and CUPE for the next six months. They can negotiate with them for the next year, no problem. It has been done before. Unions have gone without contracts in this Province for eighteen months, twenty-four months, so there is no real need to be here today pushing this through the Legislature unless you have another reason for doing it, and it is exactly that reason, stripping the unions of contracts, that we are here today, so that the Premier can shove this through, take off to Houston on his way to the Caribbean to get his tan topped up, while the rest of his colleagues in the back bench, the ones we have not heard a sound from for the last four weeks, can take the heat while he is gone, to be calling the Open Line shows and say: I stood in the House of Assembly and spoke to this bill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, by leave, in closing?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have a moment to clue up?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, do I have it or don't I? I hear some of the members opposite saying they are not giving me leave.

MR. SPEAKER: A moment to clue up has been granted.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, nobody on this side of the House will be voting for this oppressive, draconian legislation. I say to the members opposite, you should be actually ashamed to stand on your feet after a month and pretend that you are actually voting your conscience when you vote for this bill tonight.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS DUNDERDALE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand today in support of Bill 18. It is not my intention to use all my time today, but I do want to state my position on this important piece of legislation. It is a view, a common view, held by myself and my colleagues on this side of the House. I do not want to belabour the points already made by them. We have had lots of opportunity here today, and will continue to have opportunity to make those points through the evening. We have had ample opportunity to make those points around the caucus table and around the Cabinet table, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 18 is about leadership. It is about accepting responsibility and about dealing with the very serious financial situation of this Province in a responsible manner. Bill 18 is about taking initiative without fear. It is about doing what is right for the long-term benefit of the people of this Province, rather than what might be popular or politically expedient in the short term. Because it is that attitude, Mr. Speaker, that very attitude held by so many who have come before us, that has landed us in the state of affairs that we find ourselves today.

Bill 18 is about moving forward, regardless of the name-calling. Mr. Speaker, we have certainly seen a lot of that, a new low almost every day over the last three weeks in this House of Assembly. It is about moving forward to do what we were elected to do.

The stark facts say it all, Mr. Speaker. We have a projected accrued deficit for 2003-2004 of $958.7 million, and an accumulated provincial debt of $8.3 billion. Now, Mr. Speaker, all of the storytelling, slants and spins, cannot change the basic facts of what we all know to be the case. We have to get our fiscal house in order, Mr. Speaker, if we are to have confidence in our future. That is the future of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian in this Province.

We know from the experience of other jurisdictions, such as Ireland and our own national government here in Canada, that it is imperative that we get our finances in order as the first step towards successful economic growth in the medium to long term. That is our job, Mr. Speaker. That is our job, as a government. We have the responsibility to do all that we can do to ensure the future viability of this Province. The financial positions put forward in this round of negotiations are one part, but an important and necessary part, of a proactive approach to preserve our health care and education systems for the present generation and for generations to come. It is also about making sure that the Province is an attractive place in which to invest. Investment is critical for building a better economy and a more prosperous future for all of our citizens, and that includes our public sector employees. We have to attract new and innovative businesses. We have to ensure that there are well-paying jobs available to all the people of the Province, including those in our rural communities. We must ensure that the hard-working people of this Province can afford to stay in this Province, and our financial position is a keystone in achieving this.

Mr. Speaker, we must not waver and wait for the financial crisis to become so severe that it is impossible to fix. There is no doubt that this has been a difficult and trying time for all of us, for our public service employees who have spent almost a month on the picket lines, and I want to echo my colleagues' congratulations to them also. The professional behaviour that I saw in my own department for the six months I have been here was obvious on the picket lines and it is very obvious since they have come back to work. They are a professional group of people and I congratulate them; but, it was also a difficult time for the people of this Province who did not have access to the services that they require in their daily lives. It has been a difficult time for all of us here, as elected officials, as we try to wrestle with the financial challenges before us.

We believe, Mr. Speaker, as a government, that Bill 18 fairly balances the rights of our public service employees with the responsibility we have as a government. We must ensure that we have the fiscal strength to maintain what we have and to move forward with economic growth. We will move forward and we will continue to do what needs to be done to secure a strong, healthy, prosperous Province for every Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

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

I, as well as my colleagues on this side, want to stand today and state very clearly that we will not be voting for Bill 18, as I guess everybody knows by now. I also want to make it very clear that I will not be voting against this bill because, as some hon. members opposite said - they wanted to be heros. I am voting against Bill 18 for the real heros in this Province, our public service and others who will come along later on.

Mr. Speaker, I have yet to hear one comment from members opposite, one fact from members opposite, as to why they are really voting against Bill 18, and give any reasons why I would even consider changing my mind.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 18, I will read from the bill itself. Clause 3, says, "Immediately upon the coming into force of this Act, the unions and each official or representative of the unions shall give notice to the striking employees...."

Mr. Speaker, some time before we sleep, this bill is going to be enacted, and I fail to understand what striking workers are going to receive this good news from their unions and their representatives, because, as many others have said prior to me, they have gone back to work.

Mr. Speaker, I almost feel like putting a new name on the bill. Rather than calling it Bill 18, I would just as soon call it piledriver number 18, because what it is, and it was meant to be from day one, is something that would see the unions in this Province crumble. I think it was confirmed last week when I heard a gentleman for whom I had great respect, a former MHA, a former MP, the hon. John Crosbie, when he made a comment - and I think it fits very well into the plan - he felt that nobody in the public service should have a right to strike or to even be considered for negotiations with the means that we have today.

Mr. Speaker, I have to refer back to comments that were made by the Premier, when he said: My government will respect the collective bargaining process. We will negotiate fair collective agreements that the Province can afford, and we will stand by these agreements. We will not use the extraordinary powers of the Legislature, which no other employer has, to undo collective agreements that public servants negotiated with us.

I think that says it all, Mr. Speaker, because with Bill 18 going through, I do not think there will ever be another collective agreement negotiated with this government in power today.

Mr. Speaker, first we heard that the reason for Bill 18 was because we had a crisis in the health care system, and that is understandable. If there was a major concern there, I am sure everyone in this Province, everyone in this House of Assembly, would have to consider those facts. After that was put to rest and the workers went back to work, the next thing: it brought about stability in the Province. We had to have this bill because of stability. I doubt very much if we will see stability return to this Province for a long, long time - not only a fallout from the actual Bill 18, but when the Budget itself kicks into force.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier also mentioned in another one of his speeches that he felt our government, our business leaders, our union leaders, our labour leaders, have to work together in partnership. He went on to say: I have indicated previously, this approach has worked in Ireland. It is based on research and consensus-building, and represents a radical change from telling people what to do instead of simply asking them.

I say that Bill 18 flies in the face of those comments, because I fail to see where he is asking the people here. He is not only telling them; he is dictating to them, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, in the same speech, he went on to say: I have always recognized - and he was referring to his business experience, how he looked at his employees - I have always recognized that a company or an organization or a government is only as good as the people who actually do the work. If you do not respect the people who do the work, then you do not keep them. I ask you: Is that what is happening here with 4,000 people going out? Whether you lay them off, whether you fire them, or whether through attrition, there are 4,000 people going out. Is that what we are seeing through Bill 18, because those people stood up for their rights, that if you do not agree with what they are doing, then you do not keep them? Mr. Speaker, I have grave concerns with that.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but go back to the comments that I heard the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services state in her speech last week - I think that was in the Budget Debate - when she felt that in the 1990s - I guess she was referencing the previous Liberal governments - she classified it as a reign of terror: I never thought I would hear those words in a democratic Province or a democratic country. She felt the reign of terror in the 1990s were desperate times for the public service.

I have to say to the hon. minister, whom I have known for quite some time, I say today, the state of our Province, when we look towards our public service, is greatly in a desperate situation, because what we are seeing now is the fact that collective bargaining has gone down the tubes. People in this Province - and when I refer to Bill 18, and I refer to the piledriver, there are other people who are coming after those NAPE and union employees who stood on the picket lines for the last four weeks. We have other people who have contracts coming up - the nurses, the teachers, and there are others, and I will reference one a little later on - but, Mr. Speaker, where do they stand today? Some people stood here today and asked a question: What will happen when their turn comes up?

I can tell you what will happen. Bill 18 will be shook over their heads because some of the items in Bill 18, I will touch on shortly. That is how they are going to be negotiated, if you want to call it negotiation.

I cannot help, Mr. Speaker, but touch on what the Premier said on April 26 here in this hon. House. He was referring to Bill 18, why it had to be brought in. He went on to say - and he goes back to the same old thing again. There is no new approach with this, Mr. Speaker. He said that he was left, and his government was left, with a total fiscal and financial mess.

He always refers to the Royal Commission. He refers to some of the banks, and he refers to the Minister of Natural Resources in Ottawa because he was the gentleman who said we were left with a nightmare; but, he went on to say that hon. minister accepted some of the blame for it.

He went on, then, when he was talking about Bill 18, and said: Unfortunately, the hon. members opposite just washed their hands like Pontius Pilate, and said they had absolutely nothing to do with it.

Mr. Speaker, what a comment to make in this hon. House, and I can name many people who stood in this hon. House: Mr. Furey, who we hear on the radio day by day upholding this Bill 18 and everything that is going on; Mr. Efford has been commented a dozen times by the Premier. I can think back to one of our former Premiers, Premier Peckford, who threw his arms up in the air and said: I cannot stay and do what has to be done.

I would say those are the people who washed their hands clear. It was not the leader on this side or the people sitting on this side, Mr. Speaker. They stood by. They had a plan. They knew there was a financial situation in this Province and they had a plan over the next six or seven years to deal with it, rather than do it over a two-year time frame.

Mr. Speaker, if you want to go on biblical sayings and citing people in the Bible - and I do not take this lightly and I am not making fun - but I say to the Premier on the opposite side, there was no one on this side I could reference to Judas, who sold the people of this Province down the tubes for thirty pieces of silver, because that is what happening with this bill. The people in this Province, if there is a financial problem in this Province today, I can assure you, there are other ways of doing it rather than selling our civil servants and others who will follow down the tubes. I do not think it is fair at all, and the people of this Province know it full well, and I can assure you that every hon. member in this House knows what I am saying is true, because the people in their districts are saying to them what the people in my district are saying.

The Premier went on the other day and said he would bend over backwards with those negotiations, but he had to come to Bill 18. I say, Mr. Speaker, I do not know how far he bent over but I guess we know how far he got with it anyway, because the people of this Province are totally upset with what is happening. He said: The people will forgive and forget. I hope they do, Mr. Speaker, but I doubt it very much and I cannot wait to see what is going to happen in the next two-and-a-half to three years, Mr. Speaker.

He went on to say that the polls that were done with regard to Bill 18 and this legislation, that he does not care about polls. It is only something that happens at the moment they are taken. In the same breath, Mr. Speaker, just before he stopped making the first comment, he admitted that he had done his own polls and they were somewhat different from the other ones. Mr. Speaker, if a poll is good one day, it is good the next.

Then we go to this legislation, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to bring into force here today. As I read earlier, it is supposed to be presented to the striking employees of this Province once it is legislated. I do not know who they are going to give it to, Mr. Speaker. I thought they might have carried it to British Columbia, but they have even gone back to work. There are no striking employees to give this to - and it states very clearly in the legislation. That it is one of the reasons I cannot support it, Mr. Speaker.

They reference in this - and we have heard through the media of different sorts about the Warren Report - there has been agreement with the Warren Report. Well, if there is agreement, I think what should be done was like the Leader of the New Democratic Party and the leader of our party said today: Include this in this new act, in this bill, and we will not hinder it going through. If the Warren Report is settled by the government officials and the union, so be it. Put it in there. At least it is better than what is there now. It is taken out totally, and those people - I think it was a sad day when we referred to Bill 18 again, when the people were looked at up here in the galleries and they said: Look, you people are on the streets because of 2 per cent or 3 per cent of your union members. I say, solidarity means 100 per cent, Mr. Speaker, and not 96 per cent or 97 per cent.

Then we go on with the rates and what is going to be - why the nurses and the teachers, this is going to be held over their heads. They are not going to be able to negotiate because their union as well as the unions that are included here, if they happen to speak up and say we are going on strike, there is a $250,000 fine for the union. If their leaders happen to speak out and say something to their members, there is a $25,000 daily fine. Mr. Speaker, if they do not go back to work, if they should want to go on strike - because those people are not going to be given the opportunity to go on strike if they wanted to - their rights are totally taken away from them. They are fired, automatically out the door.

Mr. Speaker, to add insult to injury, if a union or a union representative should be imposed with this fine, whether it be the $25,000 or the $250,000, and this fine comes due, they are going to collect it back on the backs of the workers again who pay in through their paycheque. Their union dues are going to be taken and it is going to help to pay the fine on behalf of their union and their union leaders. I think that is something else that is totally unacceptable. Here we have the union members themselves who will not have their union dues paid to their local unions because government is going to claw it back for a fine because of somebody else.

Mr. Speaker, that is what is in Bill 18. I think it is a shameful day when we have to stand in our places here to debate this back and forth. I respect everybody's position in this hon. House, because that is why we were elected, to stand on behalf of our people.

Bill 18, this legislation was designed to force workers back on the job. I have said it before and I will repeat it again: The strike is over. The people are back working. Unions agreed to go back to work. Their employees all went back willingly. Even then, they tried to negotiate. There is no doubt government tried their best, but I honestly believe that from day one there was a plan in place. Bill 18 had to come in, hell or high water. That is the bottom line with all of this, Mr. Speaker.

You know, only this week, I received a letter - and I want to reference some items in this letter - from a constituent of mine who is a member of the Association of Allied Health Professionals. They are out there right now with Bill 18, once it is passed here, being held over their heads. Their contract expires June 30 of this year. They are saying that right now they have a Public Service Collective Bargaining Act and they are governed by that act. They cannot just go and do whatever they want to do, and, like they said, really government should not either, but with this legislation coming through their hands are going to be tied and they have their rights stripped away from them.

You talk about rights, Mr. Speaker. Only this passed weekend, I had the opportunity to attend a ceremony yesterday with my hon. friend from Harbour Main-Whitbourne, when they had the parade in Bay Roberts with regards to the Merchant Marines and the Battle of the Atlantic. At that service, Mr. Speaker, it really brings you back to reality. After sitting and standing here in this House for the past three or four weeks, listening to each one of us debate back and forth about the rights of people, whether it be freedom of whatever; freedom to strike, freedom of speech, whatever. It really brings back to reality what those men and women went and fought and died for. I think a lot of it is on the line when the freedom of people to be able to speak out and represent themselves and their freedom to strike, if it comes to that, is going to be taken away.

This individual goes on to say that they are really concerned about the heavy-handedness of what is happening in this legislation, and is this really governing. They asked me: Is this really governing? They cannot believe what is happening here. They are wondering what is the next piece of legislation that will come before this House, after Bill 18, to take away the rights of people in this Province?

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude with the following comments. I was asked in this letter if I would stand up for the rights of the people in my district and the people of this Province, the people who elected me to be their representative. They asked me to say no to this legislation, to stand up and maintain the integrity of the seat which I represent here in the hon. House of Assembly for the great District of Port de Grave, because they were the people who elected, not only I, but each and every one of us to come here and stand for what is right.

Mr. Speaker, I can honestly say, with all sincerity, if the shoe was on the other foot and I was over there and it was a Liberal government, I would not be able to stand in this hon. House and vote for Bill 18 knowing what I would do -

MS FOOTE: You wouldn't have to do it.

MR. BUTLER: I would not have to do it, number one, but God forbid, if it did happen. I, for one - and the time may come yet, you will never find my name in Hansard to read back what I said one time and because I walked ten or twelve feet, the opposite was said after. That day will never come, Mr. Speaker.

I stand here and I say to my hon. colleagues opposite, that when we stand tonight - and I know we all have our representatives here for the different people, the different areas of our Province. I heard the hon. Minister of Fisheries saying it is a long day. I say yes, sir, my integrity will last as long as those days will because I cannot stand and support something that is taking away the rights of the people, the people who put me here and put each one of us here.

Mr. Speaker, I will say in closing that this piece of legislation - I hope there is never another that comes before the House that will take away and strip the rights of our people who serve not only the government, but all the people around this Province with the services they provide.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand this evening to speak on Bill 18, Mr. Speaker, and I want to say that it is not with a great deal of pleasure. To even have a bill like this before the House is not something that I would have chosen, nor is it something that any member of this government would have chosen. Why then am I supporting Bill 18?

Over the last while, Mr. Speaker, I have received a fair bit of correspondence from my constituents regarding the strike and the various issues surrounding it. Some of the phone calls and the e-mails have been positive, encouraging me and this government to stay the course, to hang in there. Others have expressed concern and want to know why I am not speaking out against this bill. The truth is, I have thought long and hard about this issue, and I support the bill. I want to emphasize at this time that no one is forcing me to support this bill. Each of the three times that I asked the residents of St. John's West to elect me as their representative in this House, I promised that I would represent them to the best of my ability. I promised them that I would work to ensure a better life for the residents of, not only our district, but also of the residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

In our Province today, Mr. Speaker, there are far too many people who do not receive the full complement of service to which they are entitled, services that they deserve. These people range from our children, who sit in classrooms that are overcrowded, to our seniors who have to spend the last days of their lives great distances from the communities where they were born, raised their families, and where their children and grandchildren now live. Why are they not receiving these services? Because we were left in such a financially bad situation. I can assure you it is not because this government feels they are not entitled to them, and it is not because they do not deserve them. No, Mr. Speaker, it is because this Province is not in a fiscal position to be able to provide what it would like to be able to provide to our people. In order to provide what our people need and what our people deserve, we must have the financial ability to do so. Would we like to be able to give more to our public service workers? You bet we would. We just cannot afford to do it.

During the election campaign in October past, we promised the people of this Province that we would govern responsibly. This government has an obligation to be fiscally responsible to ensure future viability. Financially, we are stretched to the limit. If we were to give more to the public service workers at this time, it would mean dipping into our future, into funds that we do not have. That would not be governing responsibly. That, Mr. Speaker, would not be fulfilling our obligation to our people. Of course, we care about our public service workers. I would like to congratulate them for the way they conducted themselves during the strike, but we have a responsibility not only to our public service workers, but we have to consider the entire population of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Why this legislation, and why now when our employees have returned to work? Well, the title of the bill is for the resumption and continuation of public services and we would like to ensure stability within the public service. Over the past while, and very much prior to March 31, government has made every effort possible to reach a settlement with the union leaders. Resolution on important issues related to job evaluation and pensions have been reached through negotiations between government and the unions. On other issues, such as sick leave, salary and the Warren Report, various packages have been offered. No offer has been acceptable to the unions. I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, if the offer would have been acceptable by the employees. Many of them have indicated strongly to me that the offer would have been. Unfortunately, they have not been given the opportunity to vote. We have the responsibility to our employees to make every effort to negotiate a fair and reasonable deal. That is what we have done.

Why not binding arbitration? As I have already stated, and as many of my colleagues have already stated, this Province is not in a healthy financial state. We have to handle our finances responsibly. We have to ensure future stability for this Province. We cannot afford to put the financial position of the Province into the hands of a third party. That is why we cannot afford to go to binding arbitration.

Mr. Speaker, this is certainly not a happy time for me and it is certainly not a happy time for my colleagues, however, we must do what has to be done. We must provide the leadership that we were mandated to do by the people of this Province. We must be prudent for their sakes. They want us to take the Province on a course that will eventually see us in a financial position that will benefit their grandchildren and their children, a position that will enable us to provide not only what they need, but what they deserve. That is what we promised to do. That, Mr. Speaker, is what we will do. We cannot continue to spend hundreds of millions of dollars more than we collect in revenue.

Mr. Speaker, I respect our public service workers, however, I cannot mortgage the future of my six children and ten grandchildren, and the futures of all of our children and grandchildren, by spending money that we do not have. No, Mr. Speaker, it is not a happy time for us but we will do what has to be done.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS FOOTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As I rise today to speak to Bill 18, the irony of the title of the bill is certainly not lost on me, as I am sure it is not lost on the rest of the people of the Province or on the people throughout the country for that matter. The title of the bill, An Act to Provide for the Resumption and Continuation of Public Services. Well, as far as I know, all of our public service employees are back to work and doing the job that we all respect them for doing. They are to be commended for returning to work in the face of adversity.

As some of the members opposite have said, a sincere thank you to them. I do the same, because I know that it has been a very difficult, difficult month for them. The roller coaster that they have been on, as a result of the tactics by this government, is really regrettable when you think of how much we talk about that we value our public service. For anyone who values our public service, I cannot imagine that they would treat them in the manner in which they have been treated in the past month.

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the various speeches today and as I listened to some of the members opposite, I wonder what planet they are living on or where they have they been for the last month. I listened to the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, the Minister of Government Services, and I had to wonder where in fact she has been for the last month. Certainly during the strike her own constituents had to wonder whether or not she had lost her voice, and I was so pleased today to hear her stand and speak. But, I think, again, she lost sight of the fact that her constituents on Bell Island were so adversely affected by this strike that they really would have felt a lot better if she, in fact, had come to their rescue when they approached her on so many occasions to speak up on their behalf. If there was anyone who felt the impact of this strike it was certainly the people on Bell Island because of course the ferry, in fact, serves as their road. I have to tell you, from the representation that I received from the residents of Bell Island, it was that they felt they really had nowhere to turn in trying to get a better deal out of this government, and not just from the perspective of the strike. If you look at the promises in the Blue Book, if you look at the fact that they were promised no increases in ferry rates, the fact that they were promised the same number of trips, that they, in fact, would see a better picture if this government was elected, which of course they are not seeing. They really feel that they have been done in by this government.

Then I listened to the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development. It was really ironic to hear her talk about how we have to attract new business to Newfoundland and Labrador when, in fact, this government has done, in six short months, so much damage to this Province; damage that is now being felt and seen throughout the country. In fact, I am told, and I listened to a woman the other night talk about how her husband needed treatment in the hospital and her sons who lived on the mainland were saying: Mom, what is going on down there? She wanted the strike to be over, and they wanted the strike to be over. Her sons asked her: What is going on, because we are reading the papers here in Ontario and they are saying that Newfoundland has hit rock bottom. I am thinking: How can this minister, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, stand and with a straight face say we are doing everything we can to make sure that companies want to invest in Newfoundland and Labrador so that we can create more employment for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador? People are not going to want to invest in Newfoundland and Labrador if you are sending a message that we are at rock bottom. People are not going to want to move to Newfoundland and Labrador because right away they are going to think there are no employment opportunities here anyway. The problem is that we are going to have our own people leaving Newfoundland and Labrador.

How can you possibly come out and suggest that you are going to cut the public service by 4,000 jobs, talk about building a future for your grandchildren - and you would swear, listening to the members opposite, that you are the only ones who have concerns about the future when it comes to your grandchildren. Well, I can tell you, those 4,000 jobs that you are cutting, these are jobs that people who are now in post-secondary institutions want, that they were looking forward to so that they could stay here and build a life here and have children, our grandchildren, so that they could in fact remain in Newfoundland and Labrador and become the leaders in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is those people to whom we will be looking to, in fact, be where you and I are today, and in other positions of authority in this Province, so that they will be able to direct where this Province goes and work with the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, but they are not going to be here. The people who are now being educated in all of our post-secondary institutions - whether it is at the university, or whether it is at the College of the North Atlantic or at our private training institutions - the fact of the matter is that a lot of those people who were counting on employment opportunities, those jobs are not going to be there for them. It is a shame!

Again, the Member for Virginia Waters, the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, said: You know, we were elected to move forward, elected to do what we are doing. I would argue with that until the cows come home, Mr. Speaker, because clearly this government was not elected to do what they are doing. They were not elected to increase 150 fees. They were not elected to not fund the Alzheimer's drug. They were not elected to not continue with vital health care facilities. They were not elected to strip the public service. That is exactly what they have been doing this past six months, and that, Mr. Speaker, is contrary to everything the people in this Province voted for. When this group of individuals, led by the Premier now, went around this Province looking for support, knocking on doors asking people to give them their support because they wanted to turn the future around, they wanted to make sure the people of Newfoundland and Labrador had a future, they were promising things that they are not delivering on. The message that is now sending to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador is, who can we trust.

When someone comes and knocks on your door and promises to complete a $17.5 million health care facility, no ifs, ands or buts, and, all of a sudden, once you get elected, the money is no longer there, or that commitment is no longer there, what kind of a message does that send about a politician? Not a very good one. I always said, if you are running for office, the only thing you should promise is hard work, promise to do your best, promise to listen and promise to be there for your constituents, but never promise something you may not be able to deliver on, because it will come back and kick you in the face. I have said that time and time again, as I knocked on doors in my district. The only thing I promise ever is hard work. Unfortunately, because this time around we had a Premier, or a man who wanted to be Premier, and we had others down there knocking on doors on behalf of the candidate of the day, they were promising things that in the end they obviously did not intend on delivering. It is unfortunate because it casts a shadow over all of us who run for public office when things like that happen.

I consider it to be an abuse of power, what I am seeing in the Province today. I certainly consider it to be an abuse of privilege, when you are elected to represent the people of Newfoundland and Labrador - and, of course, many of our public servants will admit that they voted for this government. They feel sorry today they voted for this government, but they will tell you that they sincerely believed what was being said during the election campaign. They sincerely believed that if the members opposite formed the government they would, in fact, deliver on what they said they would deliver, and they are finding out, sadly, that is not the case.

These public servants are very valuable people. Sometimes we just talk about them as if they do not have a name or a face, but these public servants are people who we see day in and day out. They are the people you see when you go to the hospital. They are the people in our health care sector. They are the people in our seniors' homes who care for elderly. They are the people who work in our schools, our janitors, our secretaries. They are people who work in all of the departments of government who work very hard. Having served as a minister in three different departments, I can tell you that the public servants in this Province do work hard. They work above and beyond and they are there whenever you need them. There is no such thing as working eight-hour days.

For those of us who do not appreciate the work that they do, who can now look at them and say, we are going to bring in Bill 18 because now the financial situation in the Province is such that we really cannot deliver for you like we said we would do, we cannot deliver, we do not have the money to deliver - I will never be able to understand how the Premier can stand and say he did not know the fiscal situation of this Province; the man who, when he was Leader of the Opposition, sat next to the Finance critic, who, I am not sure a day went by, when he did not talk about the state of the Province's finances, a man who had access to all of the financial information that the Province had. I will never believe that he did not know the state of the Province's finances. Even if he did not, do you cure the ills of everything overnight? Do you try and turn things around in four years no matter who is impacted by that? Do you really tell people that we are not going to build a much-needed health care facility? Do you really tell people that we are going to defer that CAT scan, that vital piece of medical equipment that is so badly needed? Do you really tell people that? Now, they did not cancel it and that is a good thing. That is good thing but, at the same time, there are so many people who need access to that vital piece of equipment, but still it is deferred. I think everybody would agree that access to a vital piece of medical equipment, like a CAT scan, is long overdue for every part of this Province.

I can tell you that the people on the Burin Peninsula feel hard done by, with that particular decision to defer that vital piece of medical equipment. It is something that the medical community is asking for and, yes, it is long overdue. It was a commitment that was made by the Liberal government to put it there. I am sure the people on the Burin Peninsula really could not care less who puts it there, whether it is a Liberal government or a PC government. That really is not the issue. The issue is whether or not that piece of equipment is ever put on the Burin Peninsula.

Again, I am calling on the government, I am calling on the Premier, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health and Community Services, to deliver on that very important piece of vital equipment, because we do have public servants down there who are doing their very best, working with limited resources. They will tell you that their lives would certainly be much better, because they want to do nothing more than to deliver the best possible health care they can for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and, in this case, the people of the Burin Peninsula.

I have been listening to the speeches opposite, and I do not sense that there is a real love for this particular piece of legislation, that it is something they really agree with. I am not sure, as I listened to the speeches, but that they were not written by one or two people, because it is the same message over and over and over again. The interesting thing about it is, when you believe that you are doing something for all the right reasons, you do not need to stand and read a speech. It comes from the heart, it comes from the head. You do not need to have notes and notes and notes in front of you. It does not matter if you are new to the House or if you have been here for ten years or if you have been here for five years. If you believe what you say is right, then you stand and you say it, you stand and say what you believe in.

I heard the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island talk about her history with the labour movement, how, in fact, she was a union member. I cannot believe that member can stand and support Bill 18, knowing that just a short time ago she would have been one of the ones on the picket line, if she was not fortunate enough to get elected to represent the constituents of Conception Bay East & Bell Island. How do your principles change so quickly? How is it possible that just six short months ago you could be in a position where you would understand and believe and support and fight for all that is right, but today, stand and say, I support Bill 18 because of the fiscal situation that the Province finds itself in and because I have to look out for the future of our grandchildren?

That is not the point here. The point here is that we have Bill 18, An Act to Provide for the Resumption and Continuation of Public Services, when all of the public service workers are back to work. They are back to work! They are delivering on those very vital services that we all need them to do. Whether or not Bill 18 gets enacted tomorrow, two weeks from now, six weeks from now, a year from now, it really does not matter. You know, the longer we let it go, maybe there is an opportunity for a negotiated agreement, but when people oppose, and the Premier, say, we are going to get an agreement, we are going to legislate an agreement - well, there is no such thing as a legislated agreement. That is the heavy hand of government telling our public service employees exactly what they are going to get. It is not an negotiation, it is a legislation. You are being legislated to do this, the highway or no way. It is the way that the government wants it to go down.

What about our teachers and our nurses? Should they expect the same kind of treatment? They cannot possibly expect anything better. How can they? How can you make caulk of one group and cheese of another? How can you say to one group, you do not have to take a two-year wage freeze, but other people do? How can you say to one group that, we are going to legislate concessions from you, but we are not going to do it to another group? It is not going to happen. I think our teachers and our nurses have been given notice, they have been served notice by this government, to expect exactly what is going down here today with Bill 18.

AN HON. MEMBER: Sick leave is gone.

MS FOOTE: Sick leave? Who knows? I would expect that, that will be on the table, that will be a concession that this government will expect to get from our teachers and our nurses. How could they not? What is the difference in expecting that sick leave from nurses and expecting to take it from other health care workers? They have been served notice of what to expect when their time comes to negotiate. I think they will see, based on the experience of our public service workers who have just gone on strike, out there for a whole month, that it is pointless, that this government has shown it does not know how to negotiate.

It has been a roller coaster for our public service employees; a roller coaster. Whenever it looked like things were going to get bogged down or it was going to get a bit of negative press, all of a sudden there was some hope held out, that they were getting another proposal from the union that they were seriously considering, that it looked good, that maybe if they got together, they might be able to work out some kind of agreement. Then that fell off the rails. Things went along, the unions making proposal after proposal, those people who we all value so much, all of our people who work in health care, who work in the school system with our school boards, all of the people who work in the various government departments, who work on our highways, our security personnel, all of these people who we value, who we respect, taken along for a ride. That is exactly what this government did over the past month, took them for a ride. Unfortunately, that ride is coming to an abrupt end, an end that none of us wanted to see on this side, an end that the public service sector workers did not want to see. They wanted a negotiated agreement. They wanted someone to listen to them when they spoke, they wanted to be heard, but it all fell on deaf ears. Today, this is a consequence of a government that does not listen. Bill 18 is a consequence of a government that refuses to listen; An Act To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation Of Public Services. It is hard to believe that members opposite can stand and speak in support of Bill 18 and really believe what they are saying.

You know, there are people in the Province who are watching, because if you treat one sector of society the way in which this government has treated this particular group, people start to ask questions: How can I expect them to treat me any differently? How can I expect this government to treat me with respect? How can I expect them to listen to what I have to say if we have had 20,000 people on the street asking for that very same thing and being denied that opportunity?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has elapsed.

MS FOOTE: To conclude, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MS FOOTE: Then, of course, in addition to the 20,000 public service employees, we have the 20,000 people in our fisheries sector who are wondering, fearful of what they can expect.

At the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, it is really important to listen to what people have to say, to respect people, and to know that we are where we are because they put us here. We asked for their support, and they delivered. Where were the members opposite when the public service employees asked for their support?

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise tonight to speak to Bill 18, An Act To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation Of Public Services. I stand tonight to support this bill as well.

Mr. Speaker, during the month of April, while our public sector workers were exercising their right to strike, the health care system of this Province was placed under tremendous stress and strain, as were all government services. I received many e-mails, many phone calls, and many letters from constituents and from people all over the Province indicating to me that we needed to address the issue, we needed to make sure that the health care services that people were looking for were going to be provided to them. As time went on, very quickly we came to realize that people were not receiving the service that they should be receiving. Something had to be done. That is where Bill 18 came to the forefront, for the resumption of public services.

It has been said many times today and tonight that the workers are now back to work. I thank them for that, and I applaud the fact that they went back without having to be legislated back. They went back prior to the legislation being enacted, to help relieve and alleviate the strain that was being felt on our public health system.

The resumption of the public service, Mr. Speaker, was needed by all the residents of this Province and it occurred because of the public workers, themselves, striving to get back to maintain the level of service that we all knew we needed. The government now has a responsibility to ensure the continuation of this service. We must give our constituents a sense of stability in delivery of these services. That is why the bill must be passed. The passage of the bill will give the residents of the Province, the constituents of our districts, a sense of permanence and a sense that the services they need will be available when needed.

During the past month, I believe that both parties, the union and the government negotiators, tried their best to get a mutually agreeable resolution to this strike. There were many meetings held. There were many people who were present at various times. There were many proposals passed back and forth. Many people in this House, on both sides, were wishing that there would be a mutually agreeable resolution. There were many items in the collective agreement that were agreed to. We were past those last week. Some other items were more contentious, Mr. Speaker, and became points of disagreement. A number of options to these contentious items were looked at and a variety of proposals were considered; but, unfortunately, a final agreement was not able to be reached.

We, as government, wanted a fair and reasonable agreement in line with our fiscal realities. We removed the concessions for existing employees and felt it was reasonable to try and effect savings on a go-forward basis. We are not about to pass on our responsibility, as duly elected officials, to a third party in an arbitration system. We were elected by the people, by our constituents, with a mandate to bring the financial affairs of the Province under control. The passage of this bill will be the result of us, as elected MHAs, exercising that mandate and living up to that mandate.

No doubt, Mr. Speaker, we are facing difficult times. It has been very trying and very stressful on all of us, all of our public sector workers, all of their families, and all of the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The financial affairs of this Province are influencing the decisions of this government. We cannot disregard the tenuous fiscal state that we are left with by the members opposite. The easiest thing for us to do would be to give all of the people everything that they want. It is the path of least resistence. It causes the least amount of stress, it causes the least amount of friction, and it causes the least amount of tension, but it is not the right thing to do. The right thing to do is to be cognizant of our fiscal capacity and make decisions today that will be of benefit to the future. These decisions may have political and personal fallout for us as MHAs, but we know it is the right thing to do for the benefit of all the residents of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

There are many people who are supportive of this government and its policies, and look for us to improve our financial house. We will do our best to ensure that this happens. All the hon. members on this side of the House were hoping for a resolution to the strike, a negotiated settlement. That was not able to occur, and we now stand to say that we will support Bill 18.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to speak again to Bill 18. I listen, as I hear the members on the other side, the government side, speak as to why they are supporting this bill. Mr. Speaker, the majority of them are saying they are supporting this bill because of the crisis that occurred in the health care system.

Mr. Speaker, in this very House, many times we questioned the Minister of Health and Community Services on the status of health care in this Province. On April 20, when questioned by my colleague from Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair asked the question: Minister, what do you say to a twenty-three-year-old woman who is sitting home today with a brain tumor, waiting for the strike to end? The minister replied: As I have indicated in this House before, we have daily discussions with health care boards on an ongoing basis and we will leave it to the health care providers and physicians to determine what are emergencies and urgent cases. These are cases that are being handled by the health care boards at this time.

Mr. Speaker, on the same day, April 20, again, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair asked a question: Last night, I listened to a woman cry over the airwaves because her mother is in long-term health care and has been left in a bed for twenty days. Her hands are swollen from no therapy, and her condition is deteriorating day by day. To which the Minister of Health and Community Services replied: The hon. member knows I cannot speak to specific cases. I can assure her that cases which are urgent and emergencies are being dealt with by the hospital and long-term care facilities. She finished off by saying: There is a safe level of service provided to residents.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. members across the way say that they support this bill because of the crisis that occurred in the health care system, they are doing this because, when the Premier and the Minister of Finance and President of Finance met with the unions on April 21, they never got their way. They came back out of that meeting, Mr. Speaker, and it was then that the Premier announced over the airwaves that he was going to bring in this legislation.

That same day, Mr. Speaker, when we informed the members opposite what was being said by the Premier and the Minister of Finance, they totally disagreed with us. They said, it is not true. Mr. Speaker, they said it was not true until members from this side of the House went and got a copy of the release from the radio stations in town and gave it to them. Then and only then did they know that the Premier and his Minister of Finance and President of Treasury were going to begin introducing a bill on back-to-work legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I listened to members on the other side say: Well, what happens if the unions walk out later on? They have to put this bill through. Mr. Speaker, anyone here knows that if the Premier and his government today took this bill off the table now and went back and started to negotiate with the unions, if something fell through, the Premier can call an emergency session of the House and within five-and-a-half hours he will have his bill. That is with every member over here on this side speaking to it. So, Mr. Speaker, the reasons that they gave, I do believe, are pretty weak.

I heard a lot of members speak on their districts over there, and the concerns that they have. Mr. Speaker, that is part of their job, because they are elected to speak on their riding and to speak out for their people, but I heard very few give any real specific reasons as to why they are voting for Bill 18.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not necessary - Madam Speaker, I should say. Members talk of the financial difficulty in this Province. I ask all of you to stand up and tell the people in your riding, through Bill 18, where are you going to save money? You are going to eliminate 4,000 positions. There are going to be 4,000 young people who will probably leave the Province. There are going to be 4,000 less in this Province who are going to be paying taxes.

Mr. Speaker, they should stand and tell the people in their districts - by bringing in Bill 18, explain where you are saving the money. This is one member here who can stand and say: Well, looking at the deficit - yes, there is a deficit. There is no question, but tell the people to come back and say you are going to bring in Bill 18 and you support it because there was a crisis in the health care, that is fine, but you are also saying too that you are talking on the financial extremes that you have to do and the financial difficulty, but tell the people in you riding, through Bill 18, where you are going to save money. That is the question that you should be telling the people in every one of your ridings. Explain to them where the savings is in Bill 18, because I do not think there are any savings.

Mr. Speaker, government said today - and over the last couple of weeks - that they made a better offer to the unions than the one they gave on April 1. Well, Mr. Speaker, if these people across the way believe in how important the public sector workers are in our Province, in every riding, then why didn't this government take the request that was made by the Leader of the Opposition today to implement these amendments into Bill 18 and give our public sector workers the extra money that government is saying they are willing to offer now, more than what they offered on April 1? Why don't they do that? They talk of the importance of our public sector workers here and yet today they had a chance - the Premier and the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board said they made better offers than the one on April 1. Yet, they talk of the importance of our workers and today they declined the chance, a chance to put these amendments into this bill and give them the extra money.

Mr. Speaker, again, I ask the question: Where in Bill 18 are you going to save money? Member after member got up and talked of overspending on what the previous government did. Well, I, for one, would be really interested in listening to them get back up again and tell us where the overspending was, and perhaps -

MR. HICKEY: (Inaudible).

MR. ANDERSEN: Yes, the Member for Lake Melville might say that is fine, but was it the new hospital that we built in Happy Valley-Goose Bay?

AN HON. MEMBER: A new school up in Goose Bay.

MR. ANDERSEN: A new school in Happy Valley-Goose Bay. The new schools on the road. The new schools on the North Coast of Labrador. I am glad that we are here tonight in such a debate and to listen to the comments that the Member for Lake Melville is making. I guess the people in his riding, and in all of Labrador, will be interested to know the kind of comments that he makes here in this House.

Mr. Speaker, that vital piece of equipment that was put in the hospital on the West Coast of Newfoundland, was that overspending? Or was it the necessary piece of equipment that was put in Gander or Grand Falls to provide better health care services to the people in that riding?

MR. REID: The hospital in Stephenville was (inaudible) overspending.

MR. ANDERSEN: Exactly.

Or was it because we gave a 15 per cent increase to the public servants a few years ago? Or was it because we cared about people in every part of Labrador and brought in bonuses for teachers, for nurses and other professionals so we could provide the same level of service in rural Labrador as what we are providing in the urban parts of the Island portion of this Province? Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be really interested to hear them say where we overspent.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not necessary. This bill is not about financial responsibility. This bill is about power. This bill is about crucifying the collective bargaining process in this Province. This bill is about killing the labour movement in this Province. Every member in this House has a right to stand and speak for their riding, as I mentioned before, every member. I believe in the essential work that our public sector workers give to all of us.

Mr. Speaker, when I look at some of the programs that this government is going to bring in, and taking teachers out of the system, one can only imagine the number of young people who will be leaving our Province. Again, Mr. Speaker - because I normally do not take up my full time - I would say to every member over there, that this bill is not necessary. You have a chance today to take this bill back off the table. It could stay there for a year, a year-and-a-half, and if by chance an agreement cannot be reached and if the workers do go back out in five hours, in five-and-a-half hours this government can have their bill. But, to every member over there, you have a chance today to do something if you are as proud and as honest as what you talk about, for the level of service that our public sector workers provide.

Mr. Speaker, the question might be asked: Well, you people brought in back-to-work legislation for the nurses? We had already agreed with seven different bargaining units. We told the nurses that we would give them what we had offered the rest of the bargaining units. By the way, we never took anything away. That is the big difference here, we took nothing away. As a matter of fact, the majority of the nurses got reclassified, and that really helped solve the shortage at that time. There is still a shortage today.

Bill 18 is going to crush the labour movement. It is going to put a big dent into collective bargaining. I tell all members, again, across the way: You have a chance - the bill will sit there - today to show your faith in the people that you talked about, the people that you bragged about - and you have every right to brag about - our public sector workers. Every member here today has a chance to get up and say: Okay, we will take this off the table for the time being and we will try and negotiate a good deal. No, they will not do that. I guess that is the difference of us on this side and them on their side.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly will not be in favour of voting for this bill because I believe it is the wrong thing to do. When we look at the savings that is going to come out of Bill 18 over the next two, three or four years, I see very little savings. To me, this is just a way for this government and this Premier of getting his way - of a Premier getting his way - not to do the right thing through arbitration or collective bargaining. But, because the Premier never got his way, therefore he wants to turn around and make the unions and the labour movement in this Province suffer. If this bill goes through, then that Premier - they will go down in history as the government who did just that. The ones who helped kill collective bargaining in this Province and kill the labour movement. Again, there is no way that I can support this bill and I certainly will vote against it.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER (S. Osborne): The hon. the Member for Lake Melville.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I rise in this hon. House today to support Bill 18, which is before this hon. House today in third reading. Nobody on this side of the House is happy with the negotiations to date, and nobody is happy that we have to legislate our workers back to work.

Madam Speaker, I just listened to my good friend from Torngat Mountains. I have never heard such hypocrisy in all my life, the same member who is part of a government that helped make this mess the one we have today. Let me just say to the member - just in case he hasn't read the Budget Highlights 2004. The annual deficit - Financial Performance, it says, 2003-04: Accrual deficit, $958.7 million; Cash deficit, $406.6 million. Outlook for 2004-05: Accrual deficit of $839.6 million; Cash deficit of $361.6 million.

Madam Speaker, we, on this side of the House, got elected on October 21 to represent the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, and to govern. When we get into governance we are talking about leadership, because this is what this is about, governance and leadership. I will say, nobody over here wants to go through what we have had to go through. Nobody wanted to see our employees on the street for four weeks; nobody. We wanted to see collective bargaining take its course, but we have an obligation to all of the people in all of the Province, to the 519,000 people we have in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have to ensure that we make the decisions the right decisions.

I want to say, Madam Speaker, that when I spoke with the Minister of Health - and I have to say, as we were going through this process, I want to thank her for her indulgence in the fact that she kept this caucus and each one of us informed on a day-to-day basis. I will say this, when I look at some of the procedures that were being backlogged and I look at the appointments for children that were missed and I look at the -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HICKEY: - cancer screening clinics and some of the appointments that were missed, well, let me say, Madam Speaker, I have been through this before.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HICKEY: Madam Speaker, I know what it is like. I have personally felt the trauma of having to live with cancer in my family, having lost my dad last year and my partner, Dale. I can tell you, when you get that dreaded news that someone in your family has been diagnosed with cancer, it is very traumatic. You do not want to be waiting for anything, including getting back-to-work legislation or negotiations or anything else. You want to get your procedures done. You want to get your tests done. You want to get your results done. That is what is important here. That is what was important to me. I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that I believe under the circumstances this government, and indeed, our Premier, has done everything in our power. We have done everything in our power to try to get a negotiated settlement here and it has failed. Now the time has come for us to take leadership, for us to say to the people of the Province: We are going to take this step to ensure that we get stability in our health care system and certainly into our private sector.

Madam Speaker, we stopped this process at second reading. The Premier and Minister Sullivan came back and said: Look, we want to hold off here to give one last, desperate chance for negotiation for a settlement. The Premier did everything in his power, including meeting in parking lots. Whatever it would take to get an agreement, he was prepared to do it. Minister Sullivan, countless hours, countless phone calls, wanting to get an agreement. These people have done everything in their power to try to get a negotiated settlement, and I will say to you, Madam Speaker, the time has come for us to continue on with this process.

I want to say that the Member for Torngat Mountains says, and I will quote him just now when he said: The Premier got his way. It was not the Premier who got his way, I would say to the hon. member, it was a collective decision of his caucus together with his Cabinet how he made that decision, I say to the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains. That is not the way we run our show over here. It may have been the way the hon. member on the other side ran it when he was over here but it is not the way we run our show over here, I say to the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HICKEY: I want to say to the many people that I have -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HICKEY: I want to say to the many people I have met on the picket line, both here in St. John's and back home, a good many of my friends - and I did go around to the picket lines, absolutely - I will say this: We have good men and women in the public service of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have men and women who are dedicated in the public service of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HICKEY: I want to say to you, Madam Speaker, we will continue to work with the unions in this Province to try to get fair collective agreements here; but, having said that, we will not do it with a gun held to our head. We will not do it with a gun held to our head.

Madam Speaker, the fact of the matter is that we are going to pass this particular bill in the Legislature here tonight, and I will say that this bill has my support and I have no problem standing here in the House of Assembly and supporting it. I want to say that I hope future negotiations with our other public sector unions have much more success than what we have had here.

Thank you very much for this opportunity.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

This is really a sad day in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador. This is the Forty-Fifth Assembly since we became a part of Canada in 1949, the first session. Today we have happening, for the first time in our history, the first time ever, and I am not proud to be a part of it, and I am sure that my grand kids, the five of them, as they grow older and will be able to read, will look at the thing that their grandfather did in the House of Assembly and will not be very pleased with it. For the first time ever in the history of this Province, since we became a part of Canada, we are stripping a contract. Imagine that. For the first time since 1949, we are stripping a contract. It is ironic that May 1 is International Labour Day, which is celebrated throughout the world, and the reason for it is to celebrate the struggle to establish the trade union movement. Now, isn't that ironic? Here we are, in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, in the month of May, the first time we have had an opportunity to get here, because May 1 was on a Saturday, and we are supposed to be celebrating unionism, our public service workers who worked so much for us in different capacities, and we have seen that over the last number of weeks. Can you imagine that? I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that the people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador are not amused about what we are doing with Bill 18.

I had an opportunity over this past weekend again to go to my district and talk to different people. I did not have to talk to them; they came to me. Do you know one of the things that is really noticeable? I did not realize how much the program is watched. I had a fisherman who came to me and said: I watched it until 1:30 in the morning and at 4 o'clock I was up again to go lobster fishing. He said: I cannot believe what I am seeing.

People came to me personally and said: Oliver, we did not support you last fall because we saw that there was going to be a change in government. They saw the wannabe Premier outline a new course of action, real leadership, to the people of the Province, and we did not support you. We want to say to you that we are ashamed that we did not.

What has happened here - and we talk about real leadership. Do you know what? The real leadership - I heard it on the news this afternoon, or this evening, when I was coming back from getting a bite to eat for supper. The first piece of legislation of this new government to be brought into the House of Assembly - remember, new leadership, the real leadership - is to be a piece of legislation to force government workers back to work, and strip the contract.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LANGDON: I am sorry. I will recant. It is my mistake. It was the student loan act. Listen, it might not have been the first but it is not far from the first. This is the situation that we are talking about. We are talking about negotiations, too. I have heard people on the opposite side talk about negotiations. Just talk about negotiations for awhile. Remember about halfway through the negotiations where the Premier said: We are not going to negotiate with the union leadership any more. We are not going to negotiate with Mr. Puddister. We are not going to talk with Mr. Lucas. We are not going to talk with Mr. Reynolds. We are going to make sure that everything is on paper because we cannot trust these guys. Everything has to be written down.

Do you know what? It was not written down in Mount Pearl when the Premier of the Province - and, by the way, it is a real joke out there in rural parts of the Province, where the Premier called the union leader at 11 o'clock in the night and says: Come out to meet me. There were no notes then, unless there was a phantom negotiator in the van or in the truck. It was not written down there then. So it has been consistently inconsistent all the way through.

I have heard and I have listened. I probably haven't gotten every word that everybody said, but I got the gist of it. I was listening to the Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, and Minister Responsible for the Status of Women talk about, when she got up to speak, all the things that she was sent here for, to look after problems in the district. I will contend now, and I have already said it in two or three speeches that have I made before this, it has nothing to do with money. Bill 18 has nothing to do with money. We talk about how strapped the Province is. Just think about it. The unions have already capitulated. I talked about that when I got up the last time. Zero and zero for 2004-2005. So, that is not going to make the situation any worse in the Province. They have already said zero and zero.

I heard the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board say, in answer to a question to the Leader of the Opposition, that when the Young-Warren Report, we have already put, he said - I think I use the numbers correctly - $1.5 million more into it than what you did. So, that is not about money. What he did not do for the workers who were there, for the secretaries and the janitors and so on, he did not write a letter saying that the same hours of service for the janitors, the same hours of service for the secretarial people in the schools, and the custodial people, would remain the same. He did not do that, so it is not about money.

We have one issue, then: sick leave. Sick leave. You are not going to save any money on sick leave over the next decade, so why would we bring it here and entrench it here in the legislation, and, as somebody has already said, rub it into the face of the public sector workers? Why would you want to do that? Why would you want to do it? You are not going to save any money, and this is about money. Everybody opposite has said: Well, because of the terrible situation that the Province finds itself in, we cannot do anything other than do it. It is not about money. It is not about money. It is something other than that. It is about power and it is about leadership, real leadership, and what we have here.... I said two or three weeks ago, and I am not a prophet but I already said that we would never find a negotiated settlement to these particular negotiations that we had on because it was already there from the beginning, this was the path that we were going to take. I was proven right, and I did not want to be proven right. I did not want to, because I have relatives and so on, people who are out on the picket line. Obviously, they did not want that. Neither did I, but we did not find it.

It is about principle. Somebody talked about principle a number of times, and every member opposite and every member on this side knew that the union had one principle - one principle - and that was, they did not want two-tier sick leave in the negotiations. They could not capitulate on that, but they did capitulate on wages. It did not cost the government any more money for this particular set of negotiations that we have here. They had more to give but, be that as it may, it is not about money so it is about power. It is about sending the message to the different unions. I am telling you, and I said a week or so ago, and I hope I am not right, but I know I will be, that when the teachers and when the nurses and when the Allied Workers contract come to be negotiated, the same thing will have to happen to them, because the back-to-work legislation that people talked about in 1999, which we were part of government at that time, the last group of people to negotiate with government were the nurses. They got everything that the people who were on the general services got, the teachers got, every other group got. They got the same amount legislated into an agreement. There were no concessions taken out. There was no contract stripping. There was no two-tier system for people in health care. That is a big difference from what we have here today, a very big difference.

The situation remains, Madam Speaker, that we have a government that is intransigent, and that wants to be confrontational with people. We have seen that. We have said many, many, times - and I have not asked the questions but they have been asked by other members of the Opposition here, and have been asked of the other ministers - you are counting pennies at the expense of health care and education within the Province. It shows them to be cold and callous and not caring and not having a heart. I have said many, many times in the Legislature, the times that I have had a chance to speak, it is all about philosophy here. It is all about a direction to be sent.

The first priority of the government, and they said it in the Throne Speech that was set out by government, is to balance the Budget. That is what it is about. You balance the Budget. You have so many dollars for education, you have so many dollars for health, and you are going to cut the cost so that these particular services will become a part of it, that is exactly what you will have.

I think of education. It is interesting, I was listening on the weekend to the news, and talk about the centres for the school boards that were reduced from, I do not know, nine or eleven to what it was for three. They talk about the headquarters, and the Minister of Finance says: We want to save $6 million so that it can go toward the debt of the Province. Guess what has happened now? The office that is in Grand Falls is going to remain open. You are going to have to find the dollars to operate the office, the light and the heat, and everything else that goes with it. The superintendent might not be there, or the CEO or the assistant CEO - they might be in Gander - but you have two of them. You are going to keep the board office open in Burin. You are going to keep the board office open in Clarenville. Where are the savings? Why did you do it? It is, again, another situation of not negotiating with the people, not just giving people the pink slips before negotiations. It is no wonder that the unions, for example, are saying: We are the people who are going to bear the brunt of that. Why don't you stop and talk to us? Why don't you postpone it for awhile? The answer is: No, we are not going to do that. We are going to go straight ahead. We are going to do the things that we had in mind, regardless of the dollars that we are going to save or not.

I would venture to say that you probably will not save $1 million, no less six. What you have done, you have inconvenienced the families, you have inconvenienced the kids. You have taken a school board that was duly elected, a school board that represented the people who were represented and went to the voting box and cast their ballots for people to be chair and to be representatives for them, and just with the flick of a finger it is all gone. I am telling you, it is not lost on the people out there in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. You might think that somehow I am exaggerating just to make a point. You go and talk to the people in the district that you represent, or any others. They will tell you, unequivocally, not prompted, not looking for anything other, we did not vote for this government to do the things that they are doing.

I heard again somebody say today, one of the speakers, it is not political that we are doing it, and we might have to pay the price or whatever the case might be. People like to have people to make decisions, but they want to make sure that the decisions are well thought through, that they are rational and so on; but, I am telling you, what has happened in the last six months to the people in the Province, they have become totally disillusioned with all of us as politicians.

I said here in the House, one day before, on a scale of one to ten we are probably 1,000 or 2,000. It is all of us lumped in together, because, when you go and tell people something and they depend on you, they think you are honourable, and this is your word, and before you have a chance to turn your back you say: I did not mean that. I am going to say something different.

I am telling you, it is a sad commentary on all of us - on all of us. We talk about the piece of legislation that is here, Bill 18. Even the title of the bill itself - people have gone back to work. People have gone back to work. The thing about it is, you say we have to have it for stability. You do not need it for stability. It is just an excuse. We talk about, all of us - I am sure that every one of us can talk about people who have had a need to get to health care, and there is nothing worse than having an appointment postponed until a later date. None of us in the House, in one way or another, have not been connected, where family members have been sick. The Member for Lake Melville talked about his own family. I am no different. My family has seen the same thing too, and it is a trying and a testing time for all of us when we have to go through that.

What we are doing here tonight has nothing to do with all of the backlog of cases and procedures at the Health Sciences. This has to do with government exercising its power to have a binding contract on workers against their will, as I see it, for no reason. You cannot justify it. The thing about it is, a lot of you guys and people across there, you are fair-minded people. You are good people. I say this in all sincerity, that deep down within your own heart and soul - I do not have to prompt you - sometimes you wonder in your own mind, are we doing the right thing? You have to. You cannot hide behind the screen of doing it because of the state of the Newfoundland government's finances. It has nothing to do with it - nothing whatsoever - and I will keep repeating it forever and ever and ever. It does not have anything to do with it. It has to do with power.

You know, I think about the other day when the Premier talked about the signing bonuses. We have had signing bonuses for nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador. We have had them; they are common. Then he says: Signing bonuses are only for people in the NFL and NHL, not for NL.

To think about what happened on Thursday, when people were offered fish and chips, chicken and chips, and a piece of pizza as a signing bonus. I tell you, there were people who were upset. I had them on the weekend, saying: I tell you what; I did not eat it. It was an insult to me. After I lost a full month of salary, two full weeks of a cheque, and you offer me, as a signing bonus and an item of goodwill, a piece of pizza, or fish and chips, or chicken and chips.

I heard that one guy was so upset that he hit an object and broke his arm, when he saw it being delivered. That is how irate people are. I am telling you, they are irate and they see it as an insensitive thing to do - people who have lost their wages for a full month, two people in a family on strike and one has already gotten their pink slip. We get e-mails just like you do, and there are probably people on each side who get e-mails, probably not enough to be able to form an opinion one way or another, but I am telling you there are a lot of people upset and they will not forget.

One of the things that I have always learned - and I learned, I guess, through hard knocks - the first impression that a person perceives is a lasting impression. Do you know what? The first impression of this government is the fact that you do not care, that you are not sensitive to the needs of people, and you are looking at covering all the ills because of the financial situation of the Province. Do you know what? People are not buying it. I said in the House, and I will say it again, over and over again, the people who we represent in the districts out there, they are not stunned. They know what is going on. You cannot camouflage it. You cannot have it with smoke and mirrors. They are intelligent people who understand the whole situation. They see what is going in here and they do not buy it. They just do not buy it. There is no way that you can sell it or I can sell it to them. They cannot do it. It cannot be done.

I am telling you, if you heard some of the comments that I did over the weekend, people said: If we had a mechanism in place to impeach the Premier, we would do it, because this is not what he promised us when he ran for election back in October. This is not what we voted for.

I am telling you that you will find it more and more and more as you go through, because you have only hit the tip of the iceberg now. You have nurses, you have teachers, and you have the Allied Workers and so on - these are just a few of them - and schools in September. These are the types of things.

I said in the House, and I will say it again just before I conclude: The people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, as public servants, want to be able to trust us. What the Premier has done over the last number of months is, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador have lost trust in him. Do you know what? Regardless of what particular deal he will get on the Lower Churchill or Upper Churchill or new gas fields or oil fields, you know what the people are going to be saying? Is it true? These are not my words. That is what they are saying. It is a sad commentary, that we have gotten to that.

I want to conclude by saying that I do not believe we should be doing this piece of legislation. There is no need for it. It is not about money. People have gone back to work and there is no need for us, as a House of Assembly, to be here tonight debating this particular piece of legislation, to force it upon the government workers, people who have already paid the price by being on the picket line for a full month without salary. I am telling you, they will remember. When the time comes for you to go and knock on the doors of these people again, they will remind you. They will not remind you subtly but they will remind you very, very loudly that you have betrayed the trust that they gave to you, and they will remind you about what is happening in this Legislature tonight.

Thank you, very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Terra Nova.

MR. ORAM: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I stand here tonight and I guess I really take exception to some of the things that the hon. member across the way just said. He is talking about the people across here. I guess, when he talks about the people across here, he obviously includes me in saying that we do not have a heart, we do not care about the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would just like to say tonight that I have spent, and I know a lot of members across the way here have spent, hours wondering and agonizing over what we should do about this legislation and what way we should proceed with this legislation. It is not an easy decision, because nobody wants to legislate anyone back. Nobody wants to tell people what they have to do; but, because we have a heart tonight, we stand here and we say we must and we will pass this legislation. It is because of people like a friend of mine, who lives in Hare Bay, who needs to be checked on because of cancer that he has in his arm. Yes, we know that the workers are back to work, and we thank them for that because that is very important. Of course, it is great that they are back, and every worker out there is important in not only health care but right across this Province in every other sector, but the fact of the matter is that my friend in Hare Bay right now is still waiting, and he is waiting because it took so long for us to get this thing done.

We feel tonight, as a government, that we need to move along and we have to bring stability back into this system. We waited long enough. We have tried everything, Madam Speaker. I feel that the Premier, I feel that the Finance Minister, have gone the extra mile. We go back day after day, and no matter when we go back, they would still say we are going to try it again. We are going to give it one last-ditch effort. They did everything they could possibly do to bring this to fruition.

I am tired of hearing, as well, that: Oh, you know, all the members over there are puppets - and all these kinds of things. I take exception to that as well. I want to tell everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador tonight, and the members opposite tonight, that I am not a puppet for anybody, and nobody told me how to vote. There has been nobody ever tell me, not the Premier, not the Finance Minister, not anybody in the Cabinet or the caucus have said to me: Paul, you have to vote like this. Paul, you have to say this. Nobody wrote this for me, these notes I have here, only Paul Oram. I write these notes and I feel passionate about this tonight because I realize how serious a situation this is. Some members may laugh about it, but it is not a funny situation. It is a serious situation in this Province. I want to make sure that we keep stability in the system, as I said before.

Madam Speaker, I believe that all hon. members here wanted to see an agreement. Again, I stress that; we really did. Our employees are invaluable to us. We saw this first-hand because of the fact that, look what happened when 20,000 workers walked off the job. Everything was in disarray. Even though we had our managers and everybody in place to do what they could, and they did a fine job, the fact of the matter is that we needed our workers back. We realize the important role that they play in this Province. I saw this first-hand on the weekend.

I was into Gander hospital, where my grandmother is, and our employees - and she calls them angels, of course, and I think somebody on the other side had alluded to that as well - she said, they are angels here. The LPNs and the nurses and the lab techs and so on and so forth, and the janitors and everybody who is in that hospital, the James Paton Memorial Hospital in Gander, they are angels. They work very hard and they give quality, compassionate care to the people they serve every single day.

The question, I guess, that is asked, Madam Speaker, is: Do they deserve more money and more benefits? That is a question, I guess, that people would ask. I can answer that very quickly. Absolutely, yes, they do. The problem is that we do not have the money to pay any extra. We have given as much as we can possibly give, and we just do not have any more. I believe, as I said before, that we have gone the extra mile.

Madam Speaker, I think about places like Charlottetown, who have no running water - they do not have water - where kids get up in the morning to go to school and they do not have water for a shower. That is a serious situation. In 2004, in this Province, we have students who get up in the morning to go to school and there is no running water. They have to bring it in buckets. That is a sad situation. We just do not have the resources to give water to some communities in this Province. I cannot stand back or sit back and spend, spend, spend, as the previous Administration has done, and the previous Administration before that has done. The money is not there to continue to spend. I have seen cases upon top of cases where seniors have tried to get into nursing homes and have not been able to get into nursing homes, and have to wait for eighteen months or twenty months in order to get into the nursing home. It is because we just do not have the money, Madam Speaker.

We want to bring this Province on track. Is it all negative news? No, I do not think it is all negative news. I think there is some positive news that will come, and it will come in time. I believe one of these days we will be able to pay our public employees what they deserve. I really believe that, but we have to get control of things like our natural resources and all of these areas, and our fishery. We can build on this and build wealth in this Province and create a tax base that will be able to allow us to give our citizens what they deserve and give our public sector employees what they deserve, but it cannot be done overnight.

I just cannot believe that somebody can sit across the other way and continuously, always, be calling down this side because they did this or they did that or they did something else, and saying that we do not care. We care. We are here today because we care. Everybody on this side, and of course on the other side as well, put your name on a ballot. Why do we put our name on the ballot? We put our name on the ballot because we wanted to do something good and positive for this Province. I know I have said before, and I will publicly state it again, whatever I can do for my district and for this Province, I will do. I make no bones about that. I refuse to, and I am not going to let my children have the worry of a massive debt. It is not going to happen. We are going to make sure, when the history books are written, that my name will not go down under the saying: Paul Oram gave away this. Paul Oram did that. Paul Oram this - all in the negative. I want to set up a structure for my family and for the families in my district and the families in this Province that will give them what they need. Debt is not what they need, I can tell you that right now, Madam Speaker.

I want more money for education for my children. I want more money for better roads, for hospitals and nursing homes and doctors and nurses and all the other workers, but we have to take control of our destiny. How do we take control of our destiny? It is very simple. First of all, we need to take control of our spending. It is a very important part of everything. I know that in my own life. I can go out and I can look at all the things around me that I would love to have, and yes, I have a number of things. I will be the first one to admit. I have worked for the things that I have, just like everybody else here has. I can tell you now, there are things that I would love to have that are probably even better and bigger, but I realize there is a limit to what I can have because I cannot afford to have everything that I would like to have today. I can tell you, I work towards that goal just as this government will work towards giving the people what they rightfully deserve. We just need to be able to make the right decisions that will increase our revenue, that will increase the way that we can do business in this Province and, of course, increase the services that are so rightfully people's right.

Madam Speaker, Bill 18, as I said before, is going to bring stability, I believe. It will bring stability to the health care system, to all government departments, and I have to vote for this tonight. I make no bones about that. You know, the members on the opposite side were saying, I think it was Thursday night: Why don't you get up and speak? Why don't you get up and speak? The opportunity has come today for us to speak, and I can tell you again that we were not told you cannot speak, last week. We were not told that. I want to set that record straight for the people in the Province, for the members opposite, that we were not told you cannot speak. We could have spoken. We can speak when we want. We have been told, if you want to speak, you can speak, and we do that. Not only do we speak here in this House, but we speak in caucus meetings. Every morning when we have a caucus meeting at 11 o'clock, a briefing, or on Wednesdays when we have our caucus meeting, I can tell you now we go around the table and we present our arguments, we present our problems, whatever we have, and we are listened to. We are listened to by the Premier and by the Cabinet and we speak together, and at the end of the day we come up with a consensus. I am proud of that, and I am going to do what I feel is right for our district, for my district, and for our Province.

Tonight, I can tell you that Bill 18, I believe, is very important to this Province. It is very important that we make sure that we give not only the people of the Province stability but our workers stability. I met with a worker at Gander the other day when I was there, and this person said to me: What is going to happen? Are we going to be out on the road again? Are we not? We need to bring stability for our employees as well. They want stability, and I want to be one of these people who will vote for Bill 18.

As I said, I have no problem with voting for Bill 18. I want to make sure that the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador continues to be the best Province in Canada to live in, and not only the best Province in Canada to live in, in terms of the services we provide, but the finances. I want to see our young people have a future in this Province. This will be the best Province in Canada not only to live in when it comes to nature and being able to do things out in the open, but also financially. That is what it is about. I just want to reiterate, Madam Speaker, that this debt will overtake us if we are not careful. I have to support this bill because I have to support what we need to do for this Province.

Again, I would ask all hon. members to reconsider what this bill is saying tonight. It is talking about stability. It is talking about stability for my family. It is talking about stability for your family. It is talking about stability for our Province, and I believe tonight that we will have stability.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. ORAM: I believe that we will have stability for our Province with Bill 18. I thank the hon. members for listening. If they would just give me another second I will clue up, because I gave them the opportunity to speak. I would just like to have another opportunity to end off tonight.

I would just like to say, let's make sure that the primary concern is not political, because my concern is not political, I can tell you that now. My concern is not politics. My concern is, very simply, that I want to make sure this Province is a good place for my children, your children and your grandchildren to live.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am sure you will be glad to know that I probably will not take my fully allotted time this evening, not because I do not think there is something worthwhile to say for an hour, but because my throat and my voice are not up to par for speaking that long, I don't think, but I will see what I can do in the meantime.

With respect to the Member for Terra Nova who just spoke, Madam Speaker, if you have to spend that much time trying to convince somebody that you are allowed to speak, that you actually do speak in your caucus - imagine having to explain to somebody: Oh, yes, I am allowed to speak in my caucus. That speaks volumes in itself, that you would have to stand up and suggest publicly to the people of the Province. What it acknowledges, Madam Speaker, is this, it acknowledges that he knows and they know, that the people of the Province know, that they do not speak because the record has already been crystal clear. When we had a debate a week ago on a Tuesday evening, when this bill was introduced, we, who were in here, and those who were in the gallery, saw the Government House Leader go around and tell people to stay in their seats, don't say anything. We witnessed it with our own eyes. Not only that, he even said: Don't heckle.

Remember the time when the Minister of Justice got up and made his brilliant intervention about - get to the topic, he said, to the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans. Stick to the topic, he said, and let us get on with the government business.

MR. T. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Justice and Attorney General.

MR. T. MARSHALL: Sorry for interrupting the hon. Leader of the Opposition, but what I said that night was to cut out the personal attacks and get on with the business of the Province. That is what I said, cut out the personal attacks.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, as it was then, no point of order. He was told then, because he made no sense that night in what he said - which was not what he just described by the way. He was told then, not by the Chair and the Speaker, but by his own House Leader, who left and went over to him and said: Now, the best thing for you to do is sit down and shut up so you do not embarrass yourself anymore during the night.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: That is exactly what happened here a few nights ago. We witnessed it, and the people of the Province have understood that to be the record and the status quo.

Let me say this, Mr. Speaker, I am not intending to be meanspirited or anything with respect to this. This debate, that has gone on too long already about an absolutely ludicrous piece of legislation, has already helped the people of Newfoundland and Labrador formulate pretty long-lasting opinions as to what this government is all about. Tonight I am glad to see them speak. I am glad to see them speaking. Now, albeit, pretty scripted. I am pretty sure, because I watched one of the presentations on television in the back room.

The Member for St. John's Centre - a person I have known for some time - I do not believe that his constituents recognized him when he stood up with a piece of paper and read the three or four things he was given to say because they know he is a person of passion. When he believes in something, when he really believes it, he does not need a piece of paper to look at and talk about why these two or three things, or what he is going to do. He does not need that at all. He speaks from the heart. He speaks to the people, when he is really convinced of what he is doing is right.

We saw a number of very carefully crafted and scripted responses this evening. Many of the members, even Cabinet Ministers who know this better than the rest of the caucus, stood up and read out their notes. That is how much they believe this. That is how much they have internalized it. That is how much they have understood it. That is how much real belief they have in it. That is how much passion they have about it. That is how convincing they were to the people about why this was right and why this was proper. Now they are even doing that. They are even trying to apologize, sort of. Now at least they are trying to say: Well, we don't take any real joy in this. We don't take any real satisfaction in it. Again, when you are reading that, people understand that is not from the heart. They understand that, again, they have been given a set of instructions. They have been given some scripted notes. Just about all of them have stayed pretty close to the text so far today and read the speech that they have been given.

The problem is this, the unfortunate part, I feel, Mr. Speaker, is that I appreciate the opportunity to speak on topics when I am given a chance in the Legislature, but it gets a bit frustrating because I am getting to the point of feeling and sensing that it does not matter if you make a logical argument, there is no way of penetrating the group opposite. It does not matter if you make a passionate argument, it does not penetrate the group opposite. They have this shield built around them. They have closed minds and closed hearts with respect to this issue because they have all decided tonight - there is an old adage, and it is one that is used in the union halls as well as used anywhere else: It is better to hang together than it is to hang separately. I think tonight the reason they are talking is that their master commander has told them: Tonight you all walk out on the gangplank and you tell them how you are going to vote before you jump off the end with me, because we are all going to hold hands together and I am going to make you say it.

I am not sure if before the evening is over we will see the Member for Windsor-Springdale make his speech or not. I am not sure, but we may very well because I believe today the instructions have changed. It is to get up, read your notes, and tell them why. Then we are all going to join hands together in one big circle and jump off the plank into the ocean and the deed is done. We hope that people will forget about it in three-and-a-half years time. We hope that we can move on to other agenda items, by closing the Legislature, for starters. Making sure there aren't any Question Periods for the rest of the week. Making sure there is no scrutiny in the Legislature, even though it has not been open for a year. Let's do the dastardly deed tonight and then let's skitter away and hide away for a week or so and hope that even the passage of a week settles down the rhetoric and settles down the bad feelings about this.

The problem is this, Mr. Speaker. In the reasons that they are giving, even with the scripted speeches, they are missing the point. Now, this has been covered by several other speakers on this side, and I have listened to all the interventions this afternoon and the early part of this evening, but let me restate a couple of them. It started off with resume, because it says: resume and continue with public services. An Act To Provide For the Resumption and Continuation of Public Services. So, resume, you get the Member for St. John's West, who spoke for the first time, a veteran, experienced politician, read her notes. I have never seen her read notes in this Legislature before, but she read them today. She read her notes because she did not want to go off cue in terms of what she was told to say today. I have heard and seen her speak from the heart, when she felt strongly about issues of poverty, child neglect and so on. She did not need any notes because she believed in certain things and she told the world what she believed in. Today she read her notes and she said resume.

Several of them talked about the health care crisis and so on and then they have even gone and said: Okay, but we are not back on track yet. It is largely over. It is not as bad as it was. We are not back on track. They forget to say, by the way, we are not fully back on track and will not be for a while because the Minister of Health and Community Services still will not make a definitive commitment to the health boards as to whether or not they are going to be able to keep the foregone salaries from the last month to use for overtime to catch up. They are still waiting for an answer.

Mr. Tilley, from the Health Corporation, is on again tonight saying I cannot get an answer as to whether or not I can bring in somebody on overtime because they will not tell me if I can even keep the same salary budget that I had, which would give them a full month savings one-twelfth of the year; over 8 per cent of the full salary budget for that group. She will not let them know whether or not they can spend the money on overtime to catch up with the backlog that was created in the last month. But, largely, the resumption of service, everybody now acknowledges that it is done.

Tomorrow these people will have been back to work for their eighth day. It is done. So, you take that out of the purpose of the act and they acknowledge that. A couple of them - St. John's West did acknowledge that. St. John's Centre did acknowledge that. The Member for St. Barbe did acknowledge that. He said: Yes, we recognize that. Now there is no need for that in the bill anymore because they have gone back to work. But they still spent some time talking about it, saying: Well, when we first brought this in, when we first gave notice of this - which was when? April 22 or something?

AN HON. MEMBER: April 22, yes.

MR. GRIMES: April 22; ten, eleven, twelve days ago. They are talking about why it was brought in then and acknowledging that part of the reason or excuse does not exist. Then they talk about: Well, what about the other part? What about the continuation? Which was - of course, I talked about the Premier and their leader last week, and the example and the analogy to a frog on a lily pad jumping from one to the other, because if the lily pad starts to sink in the water you jump to the next one. If that does not hold your weight then you jump to the next one. The lily pads are like alibis or excuses. The frog, in this case, was the Premier as the leader of the Province. His first one - when he brought in the bill he had his Finance Minister stand up and read a statement that was about seven minutes long talking about: We have to give notice of this bill because we need to resume the services because the people have been off work too long and there is a backlog in the health care system. So, the first lily pad, the first excuse was: People are not working. There is a crisis developing in the health care system. The elastic band was about to crack. The balloon was about to burst. Does everybody remember all of that?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, yes.

MR. GRIMES: That was the first volley. Now that sank when the unions went back to work, and sank real bad. What did he jump to next? The next lily pad was, oh, we need stability, they might go out again, we do not know but they will go out again, ignoring completely the requirements in the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, under which this is done - for additional notice, if you resume a strike that you voluntarily ended. The strike was over. You just cannot start a strike, because if you do it now without the proper notice it is not a legal strike, it is an illegal strike, which is a different matter all together. Then you can go to courts, get the injunctions and force the people back because they are breaking the law, or go to the Labour Relations Act and have it declared as an illegal action, if they do not give the proper notice. They did not want to talk about that. That did not support it anymore, so now he had to look some place else to jump for the stability front. It took us a long time and you can understand why it is that you have difficulties at the bargaining table.

The next one was, we have to do, not for stability because there might be another strike, not because there is a crisis in health care, but because there is no contract in place. You have to have a contract. I read the article in the House, several examples from all of these, every one of them, showing the provision that says, the contract is in place until a new one replaces it; all the terms and conditions, every one of them. It took us, I think, three days in questioning to get the Justice Minister, the Labour Minister and the Finance Minister to finally do what? Contradict the Premier. The third lily pad did not hold up either, he was sinking again. For the third time in less than a week his alibi was disappearing out from under his feet: there was no contract in place.

Even today, in Question Period, the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board, albeit reluctantly, finally did say, yes - here is the quote from this afternoon - everybody knows that a contract is in place and stays in place until it is replaced by a new one. For three days the Premier wanted to use that as the reason why this bill was still necessary. When the first excuse was gone, the second excuse was gone, he was off to the third alibi and the third excuse. It does not really matter, just look for another reason to not change your position.

Then we had the whole notion - this one I found kind of funny, as well. The President of Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance was at it again. As late as today, as late as this afternoon, he was saying - because we made another offer. We said, lets go back to Committee, by consent, lets put in place the new arrangement, the parking lot arrangement, that was offered, which is different than what is in this particular piece of legislation and which the Premier, himself, offered to the unions, so it must be good. They are even nodding. The government caucus, Mr. Speaker, is even nodding to that. They have to nod to that one, because they know that if the Premier offered it himself it must be good. As a matter of fact, not only is it good, it is right and it is fair and it is proper and it is probably even perfect, because their leader came up with it all by himself. The parking lot solution - we said, lets go back to the committee, we are not going to vote for it, we are not voting for any of this because we think that it is totally unnecessary. They are going to vote for it anyway in a few hours time. Now it is only a matter of what are you going to vote for?. What is it that you are going to make the unions and the 20,000 employees take whether they like it or not? What medicine are you going to give to them, and force them to swallow and live with for the next four years? It is not a matter of if, it is now a matter of what?

He said, let's go back, and the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board jumps up and says, oh, no, no, but sure the other day we offered, and you fellows voted against, Schedule C, which has all of the agreed to items in it, the ones that were done at the bargaining table, something to do with hours of work or a clothing allowance or a uniform or when you report in or those kind of things. There was a whole raft of them. He said: You know, we have to pass the bill, we have to pass the legislation, or none of that can happen.

Let me read the article again: Amendment to agreement. This is article 37 in this particular agreement, which is student assistance. There is a similar article in every single agreement, all seventeen of these agreements. It says, amendment to agreement. I will read it out loud. It is agreed by the parties to this agreement that any provision in this agreement may be amended by mutual consent of the employer and the union at any time. All these things that they have agree to, the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board today is saying, oh, no, none of that can happen, if we do not ram this bill down your throat. This has already happened! Matter of fact, this was a huge big waste of paper. This section does not even need to be in the Bill. These things have been agreed to by the parties. There is no disagreement between the union or the government with respect to these items. There is an article in every one of them that says: We can change it any day of the week if we both agree. You do not need to pass Bill 18, a piece of back-to-work legislation, to get agreement on that pile of paper right there. There is the little lily pad that the Finance minister had propped up for himself, that has sunk in to the water. That is the nature of the beast that we have been dealing with, Mr. Speaker, in the last little while.

The excuses that were laid out and prepared for them started to disappear, then the speakers, who I am delighted to see participating tonight, and I hope we hear from all the rest of them, every single one of them, I think they have been given their instructions. Every single one of them is to walk out on the gang plank tonight, I think, and jump off together. I doubt if I am going to be wrong in that prediction. I am wrong sometimes, and I have never claimed to be perfect, and I can tell you one thing, sometimes they even relish the fact they are trying to prove me wrong. I do not know why. I mean, I should not be any bother to them. There are only ten or twelve of us over here. They can do what they like with their thirty-four. They need not even worry about us. As a matter of fact, the problem is, they do not and they do not listen either. They do not listen even though there is another view and another voice which resonates with a lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

Tonight, what do they go back to? You fall back to the last refuge. You fall back to the speeches fairly articulately made by several of them. They go back to, we cannot afford it. The Member for Terra Nova said: You know, I am not going to have my name in the history books saying I passed this along to my children and grandchildren. That is one of the lines they use. The Premier uses that one all the time. I am not going to pass that along to my children and my grandchildren, this legacy of debt and indebtedness and so on. I would not do that, I am more responsible than that. That has nothing to do with Bill 18. That has nothing to do with the back-to-work legislation. That might have a lot to do with the Budget debate but it has absolutely - and let me point it out for you, Mr. Speaker, and maybe the Premier might listen to this one. He does not listen to very much that I can tell, or to very many people that I can tell. He might listen to this one. Here is why that line, as good as it is in quotations - some people think it is a great line - everybody, I would suggest, to the members here, everyone who has gotten elected and had the opportunity and the privilege of serving the government of Newfoundland and Labrador has consciously tried to make decisions that bettered a lot of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for today and for the future. You can mark that down. We do not do anybody a service, as a matter of fact, we do all of ourselves a disservice, by suggesting that decisions we made that improved the welfare of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the past few years, and will improve their lot into the future, although there is some debt associated with it, that we were, somehow and some way, willfully and wantonly disregarding those issues and just doing it because we wanted to spend money for the sake of spending money. That does not do a service to anybody, Mr. Speaker. All it does is bring a discredit to politics, as a profession and a career, and politicians, as people, when we stand up hours on end saying: You can believe me but you cannot believe him. The next one says: You can believe him but you cannot believe her. (Inaudible) saying you cannot believe any of us, and trying to discredit everything that people have done over the years to try to build a better Newfoundland and Labrador.

We are back to this one, the old touchstone, the old keepsake, go for the heart strings. I am going to protect my children and grandchildren. They cannot pass it on. Well, that has to do with money. That has to do with debt. That has to do with spending more than you can possibly afford, spending more than you can sustain. Let me demonstrate for you, Mr. Speaker, and demonstrate for the Premier, if he will listen this time, how that has nothing to do with the back-to-work legislation. Here is the scenario. In the back-to-work legislation we have a two-year wage freeze, which the unions, by the way, had indicated even before the strike started they would agree to. I did not think I would ever see that in Newfoundland and Labrador. So they did listen to the government. They did understand the financial circumstance, and they were willing to make a contribution and head in the right direction. Then they talked about salaries in the out-years. As a matter of fact, we have a bill here today that says the government believes it can pay them 2 per cent in the third year and 3 per cent in the fourth year.

Everyone says it is down to three issues. If you follow it closely you will see where I am coming from. If you listen to your Leader, there are three issues outstanding. There is what is called the Warrant Report, the hours of work for school board hours. Now that has nothing to do with future debt, future liability, all those kinds of things. It does have something to do with management rights because the Minister of Finance has been up, by the way, bragging that this government has put $1.1 millions more into the Budget for those hours of work than we did last year. That is not going to break the Province. That is not a financial issue. That is not something that they think is going to ruin the perspectives for their children and grandchildren, because they have made a conscious decision - unless the Minister of Finance has told us something wrong - to increase the allocation. It is just that they will not sign the letter that says the money will definitely be spent for maintenance, for janitorial services, for secretaries. They are going to increase the amount to the school boards, but they are not going to guarantee that it is used for the purposes that it was intended and the purposes that were there and caused a nine-week strike a couple of years ago.

It is not about the future, it is not about bankrupting the Province, it is not about money, it is not about your children and your grandchildren, it is another principle, that a Tory, right wing, business dominated government says, you cannot put in clauses that say the money must be spent to clean your building. You have to give the money to the school board and you have to let the school board spend it on what they like, because they are in charge. They forget that that is exactly the way it has always been, and it was the fact that it was not dedicated funding to clean the schools and make sure there was some secretarial time that caused the nine week disruption, just a couple of years ago. They want to ignore the fact that that ever happened and that people like Vic Young, by the way, thought that was good solution. He thought that was a good idea. He thought that was the right thing to do. Dr. Phil Warren, I do not know what they think of him. Maybe they think he is an idiot. Maybe they think his recommendations do not mean anything. The Premier is shaking his head, no, to that, so they respect the man. He thought it was the right thing to do for educational purposes, the right thing to do in the schools of Newfoundland and Labrador. Their Finance Minister has bragged that they have increased the actual dollar value by $1.1 million extra. So, that one item of the three cannot have anything to do with your children and your grandchildren in debt, because you realize that you need to spend more money on it. You are just arguing over how it is done.

Then it is one of two other things, as I have finished that one, Mr. Speaker. Either it is not a problem, anyway, because the money is in, and I hear in the media - now, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs thinks that I talked to somebody else. The Premier thinks I talked to somebody else. I get my information from the public sources, and I can tell you this, the media reports that Mr. Puddister and Mr. Reynolds have said publicly that they have seen a letter that for them would settle the hours of work issue, that they would recommend to their membership.

MR. REID: Danny said it was off the table Thursday night.

MR. GRIMES: I understand that. That is why he is saying there are still three issues, but the two union negotiators are saying: That is not an issue for us. We have seen something that we are satisfied with on that issue. Now, even if that is not true, even if the Premier is right and it is not settled, then why worry? Because, remember back to the lily pad analogy. The old lily pad as to why they could not change that one, was because sure it was not in the agreement anyway. Sure, if it is not in the agreement and you carry on with the current agreement, what does the government lose? Nothing.

Lets follow the argument again. The argument is, it is not in there, although I have shown you today that it is in there. It was right in the middle here and they had to tear it out. They argued it is not in there. It is not in there! Let's assume they are right, it is not in there. Well, if it is not in there, as they say, it is a non-issue. If it is in there, as the unions claim, then the two union leaders have said: We have already talked enough to the Premier and the Minister of Finance to suggest that what they proposed to us, what we saw in writing, is fine with us and we will recommend it to our members.

Now we are down to two issues. Remember, we are down to two issues, and members opposite are saying: I support Bill 18 because, even though none of the other reasons now apply, I cannot pass along increased debt and indebtedness to my children and grandchildren. That is the line they are all giving tonight.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: I apologize for the pause, Mr. Speaker. My throat is just a little dry this evening.

Then you get to the other two issues: money and sick leave. In this piece of legislation which the government and their members are standing up tonight saying: We are going to support and we are going to support it as it is because it will not jeopardize the future - yes, they are nodding. That is what they said so far today. They are going to support that because the zero, zero, two and three, we can afford that, said the Premier. It is a stretch, I think he said at one point, but he has agreed to put it in the law, in the back-to-work legislation, so the people of the Province must now have some comfort that he feels quite confident that we are going to be able to afford that: zero, zero, two and three.

The sick leave provision that is in this bill says that all new employees get twelve days instead of the current twenty-four, and their accumulated bank is 240 instead 480. That is in the bill. That is what they are standing up saying they can support. If they are standing up saying they can support it because the Premier said it is okay, then it must be okay. That is not going to bankrupt the Province either. So get it again now, get that locked in: Zero, zero two and three in terms of money is okay. That does not jeopardize the future. All of our children and grandchildren are safe. Everybody is okay. Twelve days sick leave and an accumulated bank of 240 days is okay. That does not jeopardize our children and grandchildren. Everybody is okay. The future is secure.

Meanwhile, Mr. Speaker, in the parking lot, here is what happened. In the parking lot - the greatness will go down in history, the great parking lot negotiation. The great parking lot caper, it will probably be called over time.

The Premier, by the way, came to this House and answered, upon questioning from myself, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, and I think the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans who asked questions about it, and he said: What I offered, I thought, was fair. I thought it was reasonable. I thought it was just. I thought it was affordable. I thought we should do it. I thought it was the right thing to do. That is why I made the offer.

Those are all the words that he said, and he made the offer, and he could not see why the union members would not take it. Now, let's examine what he offered. He offered more than twelve days a year sick leave. Can you imagine that? So I guess the twelve days a year that is in this bill is not going to bankrupt the Province, and the Premier described to us last week, on Thursday in the House, that the twelve days going to eighteen days going to twenty-four days, that he was willing to put his name on that and say that was not going to bankrupt the Province either. For the members opposite, now, this twelve days that is in this bill that you are going to vote for in a couple of hours, which says it cannot change, Schedule B, Sick Leave, "Amend the sick leave clause in the named collective agreements..." - this pile of collective agreements - "...with the addition of language to the following effect: Any employee hired after the date of signing of this agreement will accumulate sick leave at the rate of one day per month to the maximum of 12 days per year and a total cap of 240 days." That is what you are going to vote for. Your Premier, your leader, is after telling the whole world, in the media and in this House, that a deal that gives twelve days for the first ten years and eighteen days for some intervening period, and twenty-four days for people at the end of their careers, is a good deal; but you are not allowed to vote on that tonight. You are not allowed to vote on that tonight. We are not even going to talk about amending that tonight. The rules do not allow us to even suggest why would we not now put into law what your Premier, you leader, just offered the union leaders and the workers a few days ago. It blows my mind, quite frankly. It defies logic as to how he could say it, because you know what he said? Again, let me repeat some of the words. It is only fair, it is only just, it is only proper. The people towards the end of their careers might need a little more sick leave than new employees. I thought it was the right thing to do. That is the only reason I offered it. I came up with this. Listen to the words: I came up with this.

Now, for the caucus and the Cabinet you talked about a little while ago, all those discussions that you had - the Member for Terra Nova is shaking his head, understanding that the first time he heard that was in the news, like everybody else, because that is where he heard it. That is where he heard it, because the Premier called Leo, as I understand it, 11:15 in the night. It wasn't after he skidded out of here, having a caucus meeting, saying: What do you think, gang, if we change the twelve days? Let's move it to twelve going up eighteen going to twenty-four. What do you think of that?

They never heard of it until they heard it on the news, because he felt it was fair and right and proper and therefore he felt that the Province could afford that because he would never risk the future and he would never risk our children and our grandchildren, which is their speech for tonight.

Now, what did they tag on to that?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: Yes, there you go. What did they tag on to that? In this bill it is zero, zero, two and three. The Premier has never specified an amount, whether it is half a percent or 1 per cent or whatever, but he always said that if they would have agreed to that, I was willing to offer them some more money. Because that serves his purpose, you see, when he is trying to drive the wedge in with the union, when he is trying to divide and conquer, when he is trying to have these people call the Open Line show, saying: Why don't they vote? When he has people like the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island, the Government Services Minister, stand up tonight and make a speech, saying: I still believe. I used to be a shop steward. I used to be involved, and I still believe that if they put the vote before the strike they would have voted for it.

There is a way to contribute to building good relationships again, the old suspicion move, the old divide and conquer speech. Try to downplay the leadership. Try to second-guess the leadership. That is the way to show it. That is the way to build it. That is the way to build the morale, the co-operation that the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development is going to need as she tries to grow the economy in Newfoundland and Labrador with the help of the valued public service, the valued public employees. That is what we are going to get. So, what did we have? We had an offer of more money - more money than two and three. Guess who made the offer, folks? Not the Member for Terra Nova, not the Member for St. John's Centre, not the Member for Lake Melville, not the Member for Burin-Placentia. None of those.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who did?

MR. GRIMES: The Premier. It wasn't even the Finance Minister. It wasn't even their chief negotiator. The Premier himself said: I have come up with this offer.

Now he has them - he handed out their speech to them tonight: Here is your speech. The last thing you say when all the rest of it fails is, do not forget to say that I do not want to leave this increased cost to my children and grandchildren. They were each told: Say it in your own way. Do not read exactly the same words, but make sure that you get it in. Some people say it with a little more feeling and oomph than others - some just read it - but make sure you get it in. So, what do we have? We have a group that will pass this bill tonight, and in that bill will be less money - less money - than your Premier, your leader, said the Province can afford. Less money. He said they could afford it.

Now all of you believe - and they are nodding again, Mr. Speaker - all of them believe that he never would have offered more than two and three if he did not think it could be justified, if he did not think the Province could afford it. As a matter of fact, if you listen to some of them, you would think that they sat around in a caucus meeting and he said: Now, gang, here is the plan. Don't say it out loud. We will do this two and three thing. (Inaudible) twelve days. In order to get the deal, I will up the sick leave a bit and give them a little tiny bit more money.

Now, here is the other part of the argument where it falls down completely. The Minister of Finance, in answering questions today, the President of Treasury Board, says: You do not expect us to give them more money if we cannot find a way to get the savings.

Obviously he did not speak with his Premier, because what did his Premier do? His Premier offered them more sick leave and more money. The Minister of Finance was up today suggesting: Well, sure, we would be foolish. If we would going to give them more money, you think we would have asked them for less sick leave.

He did not understand, or he missed it or something, or he never chatted, that his boss, his Premier, has just offered them both, and the members opposite know that their leader, their Premier, our Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, would never, ever, do that, I can tell you. He has me believing it, that he would not do that, unless it was affordable. I believe that. I believe that he did not offer more sick leave than the twelve days that are in this bill just because he thought it was nice. He offered it because he believes it is affordable, and he said it was fair, because the older you are, the longer you are in the workforce, you might actually need a couple of extra sick days. You might actually get sick. You do not expect new young workers - the first ones we get in the work force will be in ten or twelve years' time. At this rate they will forty-five or fifty before they get into the public service. They will probably need a lot of sick leave because they are going to be older getting in. They are not going to come out of university and get it. They are going to come out of university and go to the mainland, and they will come back here probably to retire and see if they can get into the public service for a couple of years on the way out the door, when they will need the sick leave. Anyway, that is half in jest, because it is a serious issue and it is too serious for that.

The point being this: The members opposite are going to stand up, finish their scripted speeches in a little while, and make the point that, even though all of the rest of the reasons do not exist any more - none of them exist any more, not one of them exist any more - I cannot do it to my children and grandchildren.

They are making that speech even though their Premier, who would never offer it unless it could be afforded, offered them more sick leave and more money. Now he is making all of you stand up tonight and vote in a very punitive, mean-spirited fashion - very punitive, very mean-spirited fashion.

We are willing to sit down. I am sure the NDP will agree. We are not going to vote of it. We do not have to vote for it. You are going to vote for it and you are going to pass it. We are speaking against it and we are going to vote against it, but that is not going to stop the inevitability of it passing.

One last plea, and I know I am wasting my time, which is what makes it so frustrating: Why not again take us up on our offer to go back procedurally to the Committee stage, a commitment absolutely of no debate, no delay from us, bring in the parking lot deal, put it in this bill in place of the March 31 deal, which is there now - the same terms that were there before the strike started. That is what is in the bill, by the way. So, all of the negotiating and all of those offers, do you remember the word flexibility? Do you remember your Premier and your Finance Minister, President of Treasury Board, saying: We tried so hard. We put forward so many offers. We made so many overtures. We put out all of these olive branches. We are never going to give up, to the last minute. We would like to get a negotiated settlement. Well, obviously the negotiated settlement seems to have alluded everyone. Now you are going to impose a settlement.

It is not a settlement at all. You are going to impose a contract. There is no agreement. You are going to impose a contract on someone, and you are going to ignore all of those fair, reasonable, different offers that your President of Treasury Board and your Premier themselves made on your behalf; but, tonight they have told you that you are not allowed to vote for any of that. You are not allowed to vote for any of that. Now we have to go back and say, that crowd dared disagree with us for a month, before they went back to work. They dared stand up to me, as the Premier, so now they are not getting one sniff other than what I offered before they ever went out. Never mind, forget about all I told them. Forget about the fact that I said it was fair. Forget about the fact that I said it was reasonable. Forget about the fact that I said it was sustainable. Forget about the fact that I said it was affordable. Forget about the fact that he is on the public record saying it is time to rebuild the relationship. How do you rebuild the relationship tonight, with your support? Rub their noses in it. That is how you are going to do it.

That is how you are going to vote tonight. You are going to vote to rub their noses in it: a group that voluntarily went back to work; a group that has been offered more on sick leave by your own leader, who now will not let you vote for it; a group that has been offered more money by your own leader, by your own Premier, but you are not allowed to vote for it. In the meantime, they will stand up and say that if the members voted for it, if they were given a vote, I am sure they would take it. Well, guess who else is not being given a vote? You are not. You stand up and condemn the union leadership for not taking it to a vote. Guess who else is not being given a vote on the latest offer? The PC caucus, the government caucus, is not being given an opportunity.

I ask the Member for Gander: Where would you vote if you were given an opportunity to vote into law twelve days per person per year or twelve days going up to eighteen, going up to twenty-four? We will never know because, Mr. Premier, you would not give him the choice. You have your members and your caucus standing up and saying: Isn't that awful, that the union won't take that out and let people vote on it? You will not even let your own caucus vote on it. You will not let them vote on it - talk about the double standard.

All the lily pads have sunk into the pond. There is nowhere else to go, and the last big one jumping on the rock, you know, at the edge of the pond. All the lily pad, jump on the rock. The rock was supposed to be, our children and our grandchildren cannot afford it, and the rock turns out to be a myth because he has offered more than that. He has offered more than you are being asked to vote on tonight.

What we have, Mr. Speaker - and I will conclude with this - is a real opportunity for the government to acknowledge that they have used the power of the Legislature, to acknowledge that they have imposed their will on the workers who are the public employees, the valued public employees. We have an opportunity for the government to be gracious and to put a hand out and say: Okay, we had a pretty good tiff the last month. We have bumped heads pretty seriously in the last month, our employees and ourselves, as the employer, but let's start mending fences. Let's start moving forward, because next week, if I am speaking as the government, I am saying: I want the employees in Innovation, Trade and Rural Development to be eagerly and anxiously volunteering to work with the minister so we can go ahead and put our programs in place, grow the economy, generate some revenue, create some opportunities and make Newfoundland and Labrador a better place. Let's put a hand out now. The fight is over. The fight is over! The group are back working. Now, let's build the morale.

I heard the Premier's speech on VOCM news. It is important to start rebuilding the relationships that we are going to need. What is being offered tonight? A boot to the back of the head, nose down in the dirt and grind, instead of a handout saying: Okay, I offered all this, you did not take it, I have to impose it upon you, but I will not impose anything worse than what I offered you because I am an honourable person, I want you to respect me. But, no, what does he say? The actual quote was: If I have to legislate, they will not get what I have offered. Now, there is the real telling comment.

What kind of leadership - because I have heard a couple of people today say: That is leadership! Yes, that is leadership alright! It is not the kind of leadership that anybody appreciates. It is not the kind of leadership that many over there are very proud of now, from the look on their faces. You are supposed to say: Listen, we have won. We are the employer, we have won. We have imposed our will on these people. There are people back in these buildings, back in our hospitals, back in the nursing homes. feeling completely and totally demoralized. What are you going to say to them? You stood up to me, I have to legislate, so guess what? I offered it to you but now I am taking some of it back. That is leadership? They stood up and, in their speeches today, Mr. Speaker, said, that is leadership! That is real leadership!

I think that it is absolutely appalling, and I have never seen the like of it in my time involved in elected politics, and I hope, for the sake of Newfoundland and Labrador, that we never see it again. I can tell that there are members in that caucus, who I am looking at right now, who know that there is a good deal of truth to what I am saying. They have not been given an opportunity to have that real debate in their caucus meeting because it has not occurred, and the people of the Province, by the way, know that it has not occurred. There are no t.v. cameras in there, there are no microphones in there, but they can tell from the scripted little speeches, the pathetic little speeches, that were read tonight, that there was no feeling in it, there was no heart in it, and there was no belief in it. It was marching to the drum. The orders were given, and you have to punish them, because we are going to legislate, so we are not even going to give them what we voluntarily offered them in the first place. That is the charade that we are involved in here tonight. The Premier will get up and spin the usual story, and try to convince people again that it is something other than what we are actually dealing with here this evening.

We have all kinds of issues that have been raised today. I will just point out one other. They stand up, and there was one part of one speech that I listened to that I found very telling because it was said in a sincere fashion, and it was said to make people believe that, I care. I will refer to the person who said it in a minute. It was said to bring credibility to it. It was said to show that the government does not play politics. The government really has an agenda where they are trying to do what is in the best interests of Newfoundland and Labrador. It was the Minister for Human Resources, Labour and Employment, the Minister Responsible for the Status of Women. She talked about making decisions in her department, to make Newfoundland and Labrador a better place. I listened to it very carefully. I was taken by it. I was impressed by what she said. Then she said this: We will make our decisions, though, and they will be evidence based decisions. Right? Yes, she did. She nodded in agreement, because it is true. She is proud she said it actually.

I heard the phrase, Mr. Speaker, because it is a phrase that we used when I was the Minister of Health and Community Services, that those issues, when you are talking about delivery of health care services, actually for all services, when you are talking about dealing with young people, when you are talking about social work, family interactions, children and so on, they cannot be politically motivated decisions, they have to be evidence based decisions. They have to be the best possible decisions. She was making that case, and the only thought that crossed my mind was: I could even believe that, if it was not for the ferry going from Goose Bay to Lewisporte. I wonder what the evidence was on that one, because the evidence in the report that they commissioned for $130,000 never ever recommended that option, never ever recommended it. As a matter of fact, the news is still continuing. The growth with respect to the disappointment with it and the disagreement with it is still mounting and growing in Labrador, in case the minister and the Parliamentary Secretary do not know.

There are a few people that agree; absolutely! Are there a few people that like the choice of putting their car on a ferry in Goose Bay and taking it off in Lewisporte, instead of in Cartwright? Absolutely. Can you find some people to say that they are glad that is happening? Yes, you can. Is there any evidence to support it, on the basis of being the preferred choice, the least cost-effective choice, or unnecessary choice? The answer is, absolutely no. It turns out, it is about $1.7 million a year, over $5 million for the next three years. One point seven million dollars in any one year would pay for the Alzheimer's drugs and then some. Here was a choice, evidence based, the Health Minister saying, we cannot afford to put Alzheimer's drugs in this year, they will just have to suffer for another while. The families will just have to pay more. They will just have to lose their family members in front of their eyes, while they are still alive. We do not have the money, because I will not pass along that kind of debt to my children and grandchildren. Sound familiar? But you will pass along the $1.7 million for a choice which was not recommended, which was pure politics, the most pure, basic, fundamental politics you could ever play. Mark it down, no doubt about it. Even when I was taken by some of the speeches, and parts of it being sincere, it holds no water, just like the whole argument tonight holds no water. The arguments fail, every single of them.

What you have, Mr. Speaker, is this: My arguments will fall on deaf ears, unfortunately, but not for everyone in Newfoundland and Labrador, for everybody in that caucus, because some days they are not allowed to open their mouths, like last week, and I guess most times they are definitely not allowed to open their ears and certainly not their hearts. Mark that down, for sure. They are not allowed to listen to this. They are told: Now, don't mind him when he gets up tonight. Just sort of put in your earplugs, tune him out, don't pay any attention. He only has an hour, he will sit down, and get on with your business. A few more will make the speech and I would say they will talk about the children and the grandchildren, because none of the rest of it makes any sense, and no more does that in this context.

Then again, even tonight, you have the matter of stifling the debate, moving a motion, the Acting House Leader standing as the first speaker, knowing that by the parliamentary rules he could get up and introduce the order, speak to it and introduce a motion so that we could not bring in an amendment tonight, even if we wanted to. We even offered to do it voluntarily, let's go back and put in the offer that the Premier wants, but none of that was allowed to happen. The last offer that the Premier made, no, not willing to make that to anybody anymore, because I made it, I thought it was fair, and I thought it was right. As a matter of fact, I listened to him on Open Line one day and he described it as being just about perfect. If it is perfect, put it in the bill, put it in the legislation. I know it is being a bit repetitive, but he never would have offered it if he did not think it could be afforded. I do believe that much about the Premier and the caucus.

What we are going to do is pass the bill with less benefits, less pay, for 20,000 valued public employees, than what the Premier offered them as recently as the weekend. Because they did not put their hand up and say, okay, I will take it, he is going to say: Now, you cannot have it. It sounds like somebody taking their ball and going home, to me. I did not win the game the way I wanted to, but I own the ball, so I am going to take the ball and the bat now and go home, or I am going to take the hockey stick and the puck, or the little ball to play road hockey, and I am going home. Maybe I even own the net. I am going to take the net, the sticks, the ball and everything, and I am going home out of it. I could not win the way I wanted to, so I am picking up the works and I am going home out of it, and you are getting nothing.

What we have, Mr. Speaker, as I conclude, is this: I think we have a very sad day, I think we have a very dark day, with respect to labour relations in Newfoundland and Labrador, the climate here, and how we are seen across the country and around the world. We have an opportunity for the Premier - I hope he proves me wrong. I would like for him to stand up now and be a real Leader and reach out and say: We are going to amend this legislation tonight. I am going to take them up on their offer, that if they will commit to not delay the debate, I will put the parking lot deal right in there, substitute it for Bill 18, and give them at least what I offered them on the weekend. They will still disagree and we will still vote against it, but you can all do the right thing and vote for what your Premier said to them a couple of nights ago, that was good and fair and proper and affordable. You will need, and I hope you do get, the co-operation and the support and the productivity out of our public employees that we need.

Basically, I think tonight, if we proceed on the course we are on, we are running the risk of demoralizing the public service of Newfoundland and Labrador more than ever. The action tonight will do more to damage the relationship than the twenty-seven days of a strike, because at least then they were standing up for themselves, they were standing up for what they believed in. Now they go back to work voluntarily, and if you proceed the way you are going tonight, they are going to say, they offered a hand, they said, okay. It is almost like crying uncle. Remember that when you were young? You would twist somebody or grab them by the neck or twist their arm and say: Say uncle and I will stop twisting you, I will stop hurting you. You would hold out as long as you could, sir, because you did not want to say uncle. The unions have sort of said uncle and they went back to work. What does the Premier want you to do tonight? He wants you to twist their arms and twist their necks even more. This will demoralize them more than anything else. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we run the risk of not only embarrassing the government, but embarrassing our entire and complete and total Province. There is still time for the Premier to stand up and prove me wrong, reach out to the public employees and get it right as bad as it is.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Well, it has been a tough month for all of us, it has been a long week, and it has been a long weekend. I think it is finally time for cooler heads to prevail. I think, what I would like to do this evening, Mr. Speaker, if I can, would be to start off by thanking all the people who have actually been involved in this process. It has been a long process, it has been an arduous process, it has been a tough process. I think everyone generally worked to the best of their ability.

I think, if I was going to start of thanking anyone, I would have to thank the strikers. The reason I would thank the strikers is for the way in which they conducted themselves, Mr. Speaker, the way in which they handled themselves on the picket lines, behaved in a very orderly, peaceful manner. There were times when there were some verbal demonstrations, but the police were present. There were no arrests. It was a model strike, from that perspective, and, on behalf of the government and the people of the Province, I truly thank them for what they have done.

As well, they showed good common sense, and they showed courage when they decided they would go back to work. They went back to work for the very reason that we gave notice that we were going put in the legislation, in order to ensure that the health and safety and security of the people of our Province was there. They decided to go back to work, and the people of the Province should be eternally grateful to all of them for doing that, as we are, as the government, and I think all members of the House are. We truly thank all the members of the public sector who were on strike.

As well, Mr. Speaker, throughout a very tough time, I want to thank the management, government managers throughout the Province, who took over in very difficult circumstances. You do not just take 20,000-plus people out of the system and not put it under some very severe strain. They stepped in and they performed admirably. There were times when some of them ran three, three-and-a-half weeks straight, twelve, fifteen hours a day, under stress, under strain, under duress, under pressure, with very serious demands being placed on them, and they withstood that. As well, they were subject to demonstrations on the parking lot, which is fair - proper demonstrations, proper picketing, it is the process - but they had to stand out on the lot and they were subject to some ridicule. They accepted it, they behaved in a very peaceful manner, and then they went home. I thank them.

I thank our essential workers, who are in our institutions throughout the Province, who kept the system going, again under very severe and very dire circumstances. When the system was under stress, when that elastic was going to break, when that bubble was going to burst, they managed to cope with it, they managed to deal with it, and they did a very, very good job.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, a small group of men and women who had to deal with a very, very large public sector strike, and they managed it, again admirably, with no confrontations, no arrests, no problems. I know, I watched them manage it. I watched it as we tried to get in and out of the building from time to time. There was every attempt made to avoid confrontation. Sure, during the course of the strike, sometimes the doors might have been locked here by mistake. There was no deliberate attempt here to keep any hon. members out. There were times I went to the door myself, and the door was locked and I could not get in. For security reasons that is the way it had to be. The men and women of the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, conducted themselves very, very admirably, and I think we all, as a Province, should be very, very grateful to all of them.

To the negotiators, to our negotiators and to their negotiators: Tough job!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: It is not a laughing matter, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. members opposite would show me the courtesy, at least. This is a serious moment.

Mr. Speaker, the negotiators, our negotiators and their negotiators, they made significant progress. They did it under very, very difficult circumstances, again, but they stayed at it, day after day, night after night, and narrowed it that close. Unfortunately, we just could not close it. We did absolutely everything we could to try and close a deal and we could not do it. They did work very hard and they are very skilled at what they do, and they are to be complimented for what they do.

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to thank all the members of our caucus, each and every one of them who were out there on the front lines, who took the criticism, who took the flack. You do not have 20,000 people and their families on strike and not expect them to be annoyed, and rightfully so. They are out on strike, they have to get angry at someone, they have to vent their frustrations. They did so, but our caucus took it and listened to it and responded to their e-mails and dealt with them and explained our position. I thank them, all of them, for their support throughout.

I also want to thank the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board who, as lead negotiator, conducted himself very admirably in difficult times, in difficult circumstances, to try and bring this to a conclusion. Unfortunately, it just was not there. He persevered, he was creative, he was innovative, he worked with myself, he worked with our negotiators, informed caucus, informed Cabinet, he did absolutely everything he could to try and bring this to a conclusion. Unfortunately, an agreement was not to be had between the parties.

Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who put up with all of this. It has not been easy. It has been about a month. They were subjected to severe problems with our health services. There were some very, very unfortunate circumstances that happened. Everybody was doing their best, everybody worked to the very best of their ability. People on both sides did everything they could to try and reach an agreement. No blame should lie anywhere in those circumstances. They were very tolerant and they withstood it as long as they could. Their health care system was ultimately being effected, their education system, their transportation system, and finally an end had to be put to it. We had to proceed with back-to-work legislation. I do thank them, on behalf of the government, and, I think, on behalf of all government members.

Mr. Speaker, throughout the day, you have heard the various members speak, and I guess we all may be regarded as silver-tongued politicians who get up and say what should be said and then we sit down. I think it would be appropriate tonight if I read to you just some of the e-mails, some of the thousands of e-mails, that have actually been forwarded to our offices.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I want you to know that you have my full support and the support of many of my fellow recent Memorial grads. You give my generation hope for the future and I truly believe in what you are doing and the decisions that you are making. Our government has respected the Collective Bargaining process, but there comes a time when reasonable measures have to be taken for the greater public good. We, too, have respected this process, however we feel that the unions are not acting in the best interests of their membership and do not appear to be seeking a reasonable settlement. Thus, as NAPE members, we implore you to use the Legislature to end this fiasco and enable us to return to our jobs providing valuable services to the public.

While everyone wants more money, better benefits and job security, it cannot come on the backs of the average Newfoundlander and Labradorian. There is not a bottomless money pit or even one that has much in it. Over the years, unfortunately, we have acted like we can always spend because someone will always be there to bail us out. Although it may not be apparent at this point in time, it is my sincere belief that subsequent governments of this great Province, albeit behind closed doors, will thank this current government for finally addressing an issue that should have been dealt with many years ago.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) John Efford.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Just so I am not accused of anything improper, no, that I was not Mr. Efford.

If we do not stop running deficits, we will not be able to afford to live in Newfoundland in the future, and I do not plan on leaving. Thanks for doing the right thing and not the easy, more politically favourably route. It is the same old story, everyone wants a brighter future but nobody is prepared to accept the sacrifice to make that happen.

I, like many other hard-working taxpayers in this Province, am tired of seeing our Province slip further and further in the hole at our expense. There has been a tremendous waste and abuse of taxpayers' money by previous governments in this Province, and unless we now work together to turn things around, we can be assured our children will not have a very bright future.

As a long-time union member, I am disgusted with the tactics and smear campaign. I know I speak for many retirees and low-wage earners when I say we cannot pay higher taxes and services fees to keep extra workers on the payroll. Sick leave abuse is widespread and we cannot afford wage increases at this time. I am glad to see you and your government show leadership to get Newfoundland back on a sound financial footing. I want this Province to work and to prosper and I know that you do, too, and I know that what you are doing needs to be done. When I hear people complaining about this and that, I cannot help but feel sorry for them. I wish they had courage enough to realize that we all need to pull together and make a few sacrifices in order to turn this thing around.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, one sentence, one phrase: If we continue to do what we have always done, we will continue to have what we have always had. I think, Mr. Speaker, that last quote says it all, because that is really what it is all about. That is why we are here. That is why all the government members are here. We are here to make a difference. We are tired of not seeing this Province live up to its potential.

I heard Wally Young today talk about the waste, the wasted opportunity, in this Province because there has been. I have heard people talk about the giveaways, the giveaways in this Province. Nobody knows better than the Leader of the Opposition about giveaways. Nobody know any better.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the mentality of giveaways, the mentality of quick deals, is something that we have to put behind us, as Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Mr. Speaker, this government is not going to sign deals for the sake of just signing deals. We are not going to put our signatures on something that constitutes a quick fix or a giveaway. We want to put this Province on the road to self-sufficiency, and to stability, and to prosperity. That is what this is all about. We have to start here. We have to start somewhere.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The Leader of the Opposition has made reference to children and grandchildren. He has mocked that and made fun of that. Well, that is really unfortunate, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have listened to the Premier, and I expected that he was going to make a serious speech about Bill 18, and whether or not he is going to punish the workers, which is what we have here, or be fair to them, as he said last week. I did not talk about children and grandchildren in any kind of a mocking or anything but a serious manner. I have children, I hope to have grandchildren, and I have always worked to make Newfoundland and Labrador a better place every single day, and the next day, than it was the day before.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Leader of the Opposition to get his point of order, please.

MR. GRIMES: I think he should get back to the debate, and if he is going to continue, I will be up on further points of order asking that you impose the rule of relevancy in third reading, which, if you check all the precedents, is very narrowly interpreted.

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Acting Government House Leader, to that point of order.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, we listened to the Leader of the Opposition speak for, I guess, pretty well close to an hour, and many of the observations that he made had as much to do with the bill, or were as relevant to the bill, as the other side of the moon. The Premier -

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: The Opposition Leader should be quiet when somebody else is on their feet.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: The Premier is making a few points here, as he has a right to do, and he has been very relevant in the remarks that he is making.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

This is a very serious debate that is taking place here tonight. Most people have had the opportunity to speak and be heard in quietness. I ask if we would allow the present speaker, the Premier of the Province, to be heard, and offer him that respect as well.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I find it very, very hard to believe that comments about the future are not relevant to Bill18 and the amount of the settlement, the amount that we have bargained and the amount that we are going to pay to our public sector employees, and the amount that we can afford.

When it comes to children and grandchildren, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition has indicated, I guess if that is the company line and if that is the line that is going to be said, that is a line that I am quite proud to say. I happen to be a poppy. I happen to have two grandchildren -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - a granddaughter and a grandson. That is what this is all about. That is the truth of it. That is what this is all about. My own children will be contributors in this Province, and I want to make sure that they are not burdened with the debt that we could inflict upon them if we did unaffordable agreements. That is what it is all about.

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that nobody will ever go to Abbigayle and Gabriel and say that their poppy and his government ever sold them down the river, because that simply will not happen while we are in government. We will do affordable agreements.

Mr. Speaker, as well, once we get the fiscal problems straightened out, it is our plan to grow this economy. I know the hon. members opposite do not want to hear that. We intend to create jobs. We intend to have economic development in this Province. We intend to have rural diversity. That is what it is all about. That is what the two-pronged approach is all about, but we have to have fiscal stability, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition and his government know what the situation is, because they have heard all the statements that have been made. They have heard the statements from BMO. They have heard the statements from Toronto-Dominion. They have heard the statements from Moody's. The hon. Leader of the Opposition, tonight, referred to Mr. Young and the Young Report. Well, Mr. Young also headed up a commission, and in that commission he echoed the statements that were made by all the others that I just mentioned, and that is that we had an unsustainable situation in this Province. An unsustainable situation is an unaffordable situation. We cannot keep on going. We cannot keep spending more than we have. That is a basic principle that is known to every single person in the Province. You cannot spend beyond your means. We are drowning in debt. I have made that statement before and I will make it again. Even Minister Efford has said that we have financial instability. Mr. Lucas has said that we have a financial house of cards in our Province. It is being acknowledged everywhere. Everybody knows it. That is the legacy that has been left by the hon. gentleman opposite and his government, and the governments that preceded him. That is what we were left with. We did not ask for it. I have even indicated publicly to Mr. Puddister -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Puddister is part of Bill 18. I have indicated to Mr. Puddister, and publicly to Mr. Lucas, that it is unfortunate the situation that we have found ourselves in, but we were landed with this situation. We did not create this situation. It was placed upon us and we have to deal with it. It is an unfortunate situation, but we are dealing with it and that is what we intend to do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask that the Premier be heard. I ask if we would extend the courtesy of hearing the Premier deliver his remarks. He has one hour. I ask that we listen in silence.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, we could take the popular decisions. We could do what others who have gone before us have done. We could make the easy decisions. We could just hand it over and let somebody else worry about paying it back, but we are not prepared to do that. We are not going to do it just because it is popular. We are not going to do it just because it is easy. We are not going to do it just because it is political. The reason we are going to do it is because it is affordable and because it is right. We have been criticized, making tough decisions. This tough decision was not made to penalize the workers of this Province. If we are making tough decisions, we will make tough decisions against everybody. We will be firm with the federal government. We will be firm with big business. We will be firm with people who come to negotiate with this government, because it is about time that we dug in. If not, there will not be a future in Newfoundland and Labrador and it is about protecting that future. That is what this is all about.

Mr. Speaker, we just went through a Budget and, in fact, because of the circumstances, we are actually spending $840 million more than we take in. We have managed to reduce the cash deficit. We managed to try and claw back, here and there, $240 million - $240 million, Mr. Speaker - but the hon gentleman opposite and his fellow members would want us just to hand all of that over to the public sector. That would be irresponsible. That would be negligent of us to do that. There are another half a million people in this Province who make the contribution. They are the people whose fees have gone up. They are the people whose hospitals have been deferred. They are the people whose schools have been deferred. They are the people whose clinics have been deferred. You want us to take that money and then turn around and just pass that money over to the public sector, and possibly pass more money over, and what do we do then? Have to close more schools or close more hospitals? We have a full Province of half a million people that we have to deal with. That is where our responsibility lies. At the same time we have to be fair to our employees, and that is exactly what we have tried to do. We do still have the highest -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We still, Mr. Speaker, have the highest unemployment in the country. We still have the highest personal taxes. We still have the highest per capita debt. We still have the highest out-migration. We still have the highest poverty in the entire land. These are facts. This is reality. That is what we are dealing with, Mr. Speaker.

There is some important information that I think should be brought to the attention of the people of the Province, just to put this all in perspective. When you go across the country and you look at what the situation in the other provinces is, the only other province with a deficit, besides Newfoundland and Labrador, which has tabled a budget, is the Province of Prince Edward Island. They have a deficit of $33 million. Our deficit is $360 million, eleven times, and that is the cash deficit. That is not our consolidated deficit. That is not the $840-odd million, the rest of the deficit. They are the only province.

New Brunswick has a surplus of $50-odd million. Nova Scotia has a surplus of a couple of million dollars. Quebec has a balanced budget. The Prairie Provinces are balanced. Alberta has a surplus. British Columbia has a surplus. British Columbia, the Province that has just turned around, after four days, and legislated a 15 per cent rollback - a 15 per cent rollback of wages - something, of course, which the hon. gentleman opposite is familiar with. He knows all about cuts: 3,100 in two years. He knows all about wage freezes. He knows all about rollbacks.

We are not about rollbacks. That Province has a $100 million surplus and has two more years of predicted surplus. We have ongoing predictions of deficits that we have to try to clean up, because we have a mess on our hands. As well, these other provinces, like New Brunswick, who have a surplus, have actually cut 750 jobs - and they have a surplus. Saskatchewan has cut 400 jobs. Saskatchewan's three-year agreement with a surplus is zero, one and one. This legislation is zero, zero, two and three. So, over the two years, the total is the same. They have a surplus.

When you start to look at the other provinces around this country, Mr. Speaker, we are so far out of whack, we are so far in debt. Not only that, our debt is going to go to $14 billion over the next four years.

I cannot impress upon the people in this House, and the people in this Province, that we have an extremely serious financial situation on our hands. There is no doubt about it. Look at the rest of the country. There is only us and P.E.I., and they have $33 million. We have $360 million, with an $824 million consolidated. We cannot sustain it. Why have all these people said it is unsustainable? TD, BMO, Moody's, Royal Commissions, John Efford, they have all said it: We have a financial nightmare on our hands. Every one of them. Are they all wrong? Is it all so funny? Will you not all be out supporting Mr. Efford in the federal election? I would certainly think so.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Are they all wrong? It is a very, very serious situation we have in our Province. That is why we could only negotiate an affordable agreement.

Mr. Speaker, the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, which we commissioned, confirms just that. It confirmed that we had an escalating debt that was going to the highest in the country: $14 billion to $15 billion on a per capita basis. It confirmed that our deficits were going through the roof and had to be gotten under control. It confirmed that our interest costs have gone through the roof and had to be gotten under control.

Let me again put it into perspective for us. Mr. Speaker, the wage settlement that was given by the former Premier was five, five and five. That is $110 million a pop. The total cost over three years for that agreement is $660 million. That was awarded just before we came into office, the year before we came into office.

AN HON. MEMBER: In 2001.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: It was retroactive, but when the agreement was reached. Six hundred and sixty million dollars for three years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The first offer which was given and which was put on the table by NAPE and CUPE in this particular round of negotiations was seven, seven and seven. That was put on the table at the beginning of this year. The total cost of that, Mr. Speaker, is $968 million. Just think of how realistic that is. That is $1 billion for a three-year wage settlement when we have a $1 billion deficit that is unsustainable and a multi-billion debt that is also unsustainable. The Province wonders, the government wonders, why we reacted? Why did we come out and do a State of the Province Address on January 5? Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? Because we had to place the unions on notice, that we had a very, very serious situation. Their offer was way up in the clouds: seven, seven and seven, at a cost of $968 million. It is not even conceivable. It is not even possible. It is not even close. So, what we had to do was bring them down to reality. We indicated that there had to be a wage freeze. Do you know something? To the full credit of NAPE and CUPE, they recognized that. They did, and they listened. Coming out of the gate, they acknowledged that there was a need for it and they did come from 21 per cent right down to zero and zero for the first two years. I give them full marks for that, Mr. Speaker, but that reality check had to happen.

Mr. Speaker, just by reference again, on March 31 - and I am going to come to the negotiation - on March 31, the unions' final offer that particular evening was zero, zero, six and six. Mr. Speaker, that is $132 million a year. The total cost of that for the four years would be $404 million. That is the total cost of zero, zero, six and six.

As I have said publicly, Mr. Speaker, if we were to get all the revenues, 100 per cent of the revenues, from oil and gas, from the oil in particular, which we have asked for from the federal government, if Paul Martin was to turn around tomorrow and give us all of those revenues, when those revenues peaked in year three or four, they would not go over $400 million. So we would basically have to take the money that we got from the federal government, on behalf of all the people in our Province, which totalled less than $400 million, take that money and add some money on to it and give that to the public sector employees on a zero, zero, six and six agreement.

Mr. Speaker, that simply was not on. It simply was not affordable. It simply was not possible. As well, Mr. Speaker, we had just taken $240 million out of the Province - everybody in the Province - that would have been passed over. It cannot happen. It just simply could not happen. We have to get this deficit under control. We have to look at the future. It is about our children and our grandchildren, like it or not. That is what it is all about. That is exactly why we were doing it, Mr. Speaker.

So, when we go to the negotiations - and, believe me, Mr. Speaker, I, the chief negotiator, all the members of the caucus, we can sleep at night on the basis of what we have done here. We did absolutely everything we could to strike a deal. Absolutely everything we could!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: When negotiations started, Mr. Speaker, on the night of the thirty-first, we were there. It was a good - in all fairness - cordial negotiation. People were getting their points across. There were no hotheads. We progressed, we progressed, we progressed. We got to a point, when we were at seven, they were at fifteen, and Mr Puddister said: Come on, let's cut to it. That is what I like - love it - to get down to the short strokes, a couple of hours away from a deadline, negotiators cut to the quick and get it done. He said: I think you have three left on the table. We looked at him and said: No, Leo, we do not. Loyola and I have known Leo a long while, and looked him straight in the eye and told him that; he knew.

We did not have it on the table. So what we did, we said we were going to go and stretch, and we stretched and we did stretch, and we put a point on the table. At that point Mr. Puddister turned around and said: Give us fifteen minutes. We walked out of that room, we went outside. We brought in officials from the Department of Justice. Our own officials were there. We honestly thought we had a deal that night. We stretched that night. We stretched beyond what we even felt we could afford. We wanted to get a deal, that is why we did it. We did not want our employees on the street, and we did stretch.

When we came back in the room, something had happened. To this day I do not know. I have no idea. My colleague has no idea. We do not know, but somebody pulled the rug. Who did it? I do not know! I do not know whether it was some of the people who were at table who did not agree with the position. If that is the case, that is fine - or if it was someone outside the room who was involved in the negotiation. But, the problem is, when you are at a table with a lead negotiator you have to take the lead from that negotiator. That is who you interact with. That is who you try and cut to the quick. That is where you try and cut the deal. Experienced negotiators will tell you that is the way it is done, but this fell off the table. Then it went, it was gone! At that point we had our offer on the table, and we left it there.

A couple of days after we were coming through the picket line. I was coming through with my window open, as I did everyday, so I could hear what had to be said, what any of the picketers had to say to me because I felt I had an obligation to each and every one of them, that if they were out on the lines, and I was part of the reason for them being out on the lines, then they had a right to express themselves, and they did. They asked me what the deal was. When I got out of the vehicle and I indicated what the deal was, they were surprised. So, I went back into the building and I received a phone call. I was asked to come back and put that in writing, and that is exactly, exactly what I did.

Myself and the Member for Ferryland, the Minister of Finance, both went to the picket line. We went down and handed them the copy of the ad that was in the paper. It was signed as being the deal because they did not understand that to be the deal, for whatever reason. Maybe they had not read the paper that day but they did have a copy of it and they were given a copy of it. Then, as a courtesy to that membership, we left that open for the entire weekend so that the leadership would have an opportunity to reconsider it and to put it to the membership because we had every indication, both on that picket line and privately, that that was a good offer, and we left it there until Sunday night. Then it fell apart. They did not want to take it. So, then we went back and decided we would go back to putting proposals in writing, and that is exactly what we did.

The minister knows and the minister has confirmed that we exchanged two or three proposals each in an attempt to try and reach some consensus, but at that point we were dealing with a moving target. At that point the zero, zero came off the table. Money went on the table in the first years. Every time one percentage point goes on the table in the first year, that is a total cost of $88 million for four years. So it is very, very important. That is why we needed the wage freeze in the first two years. We could not have any cost incurred in the first two years because we simply could not sustain it or afford it.

All of a sudden now there is money in the first two years. Then there is another offer that comes in. What do we have then? We have another moving target. Now, a signing bonus is a new factor. The signing bonus was put into effect and we all know what can happen when signing bonuses get out of control. Everything topples under its own weight. It is probably going to happen to professional baseball leagues. It is probably going to happen to professional hockey leagues. You do not put signing bonuses on the table in a Province that is nearly the most bankrupt in the entire country; has the highest deficit by far, a deficit eleven times that of Prince Edward Island. How can you possibly put, and responsibly put signing bonuses on the table? That is what we were faced with, Mr. Speaker. That is what myself and the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board were faced with. So, we went through that process and, obviously, we could not agree to that. That was just simply not the case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, there is one very, very important point which I neglected to mention. I am glad the Leader of the Opposition gave me an opportunity to pause so I could remember it. On March 31, we took the concessions off the table. We took off sick leave for current employees. We took severance off the table. We took pension indexing off the table. They were gone. They were a major sticking point for the union membership. Their leadership, in all fairness to them, said to us at the table: We can't get that by our membership. We looked them straight in the eyes and said: Fair game. If you cannot get that by your membership then it comes off the table. That is exactly what we did. We put our best foot forward on the financial side and we took concessions off the table.

Mr. Speaker, we have been moving forward very fairly, very responsibly. That is what we tried to do throughout. We then went through a process where we exchanged documentation, we exchanged proposals. There was a point where it was the unions next move, if I remember correctly. They did not want to make a move. So what we did was we extended the olive branch. The minister came out and indicated we will meet, and that was exactly what we did. Then a series of meetings went on for a period, and it went on after that for a period of three or four days. It went on and on and on, and we tried to negotiate. We did absolutely everything we could. We stayed at the table. Every time they wanted to move, we gave them move. Every time they wanted a response, we gave them a response. We did absolutely everything we could. Five exchanges, is that how many there were?

MR. SULLIVAN: Five exchanges in total in that four weeks.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: What more could we do? That is exactly what we did.

We then went back to the table face to face again, myself and the minister, Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Puddister. We made every attempt, again, to get an agreement, but at that meeting there was no movement whatsoever on sick leave, the Warren Report or wages. There was no movement. We walked into a room to negotiate and there was absolutely no giving whatsoever. So, we tried again. We did everything we could. We tried face to face. I got involved once, twice. The minister got involved twice. We then went to mediation. We had a mediator involved. We tried that. The mediators did everything they could to try and reach an agreement, to try and find an area where there was some consensus. It still did not work.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what more could we do? At that point we were throwing up our hands. Our caucus was throwing up their hands. We would come back, we would report, we would ask them for direction. They would look and they would shake their heads. It was quite obvious, there was another agenda. They never wanted an agreement in the first place, and that has to come from the top. That is not the membership. If the membership had an opportunity to vote on those offers that were put to them, I suggest to you, that they would have taken it. We did absolutely everything we could.

Then, finally, we had no choice. We had to give notice that we were going to put legislation in the House of Assembly. We had absolutely no choice, and I do not think any of the hon. members would deny us that. I do not think there was any choice at that particular stage in the game. It had to happen. The health care system was on bust. We could not take a chance. Myself, Cabinet, caucus, were not prepared to risk lives of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We had to put it to an end. We had to bring the process in place to try and bring it to an end. That is exactly what we did and we started that process on that Thursday. We still continued to negotiate. We still continued to try to mediate. We still continued to try and reach an agreement.

The next event was, workers came back to work. They did a very noble and a very honourable thing, they came back to work. On that same evening we chatted and we looked at all the various proposals that had come down from the union with regard to sick leave and the Warren Report. We looked at the proposals that we had presented and then we looked to see if there were any new or creative proposals. Then we looked at this other proposal, the twelve, eighteen, twenty-four proposal.

Even though the Leader of the Opposition made jest about the parking lot meeting, as I said before, I will meet anywhere, whether it is a parking lot, hockey rink, curb, field, wharf. It does not make any difference. I will meet anywhere. If we could get a deal and we could negotiate an end to this, I would have met Mr. Puddister wherever he wanted me to, and I did not call Mr. Puddister at 11:00 o'clock in the night. It was much earlier than that. I even indicated to Mr. Puddister that we could wait until the following morning, but he said: No, we will get together. So, I said in the spirit of negotiation I will meet you halfway. I drove out from the Confederation Building and he drove from Bay Bulls. We met halfway. We did meet on a parking lot and we did meet at a service station.

MR. SULLIVAN: After 9:00 o'clock.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Yes, it was a little after 9:00 o'clock, and it was a North Atlantic service station in Mount Pearl. I am sure the hon. member has gotten his gas there from time to time because I have as well. We sat there for about half-an-hour and I put an offer to him. We felt it was a very fair offer. It was an offer where after ten years, it was twelve days; from ten to twenty-five, it was eighteen, and from twenty-five forward it was twenty-four. At that point, as I said today, we would get our twelve on the front end, he would get his twenty-four on the back end, and we would have eighteen in the middle. That was put on the table. He did not take it. He did not want it. We put it to him. What more could we do? We put that offer to him. He did not want two tiers. If you imposed it upon him now he would say: I do not want it. That is exactly what he would do.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We not only put that, we put other offers to him. We said: Your twelve will not even kick in. If you hit certain milestones - and you could hit those - and you can get the average down below, we will not even ask for the twelve. If you can hit the thresholds that you think you can hit and you say you can hit, we will pull it off. He did not want that. We made another offer. We suggested that if the twelve days are in effect - he might be concerned about somebody who has a very serious illness, somebody who needs more than twelve days. We indicated that we would make an exceptional circumstance for people who were very ill. We have done it all. We have thrown the kitchen sink at him. We cannot throw anything else at him. We gave every possible offer that we could put to him that was affordable, and they rejected it. We have gone to our limit. It is quite obvious, Mr. Speaker, that they simply do not want an agreement. As I said weeks ago, as I said back on March 31, it is quite obvious. You cannot reach an agreement with somebody who does not want to agree. It is as simple as that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We have tried everything we could. Now the other interesting happening here was on Friday we received yet another offer from the union, but this time it is only signed by NAPE; just Mr. Puddister has signed this offer. So, are we to assume that this is a NAPE, CUPE offer? Because the offer they gave us before that was a two-headed horse. They have had one salary package here and one there. Obviously, one was NAPEs and one was CUPEs, but this offer on Friday, when they submitted it to us, was only signed by Mr. Puddister.

MR. SULLIVAN: I wrote CUPE asking them if they were part of that and I did not get a response.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: The minister wrote CUPE and asked if they were part of that particular offer. He is still waiting for a response. He never got it. The same day we get a press release that says there should be a cooling off period. Well, who should cool off? The unions were not pulling together at this stage. First of all, we do not know if we are negotiating with the people at the table. The next thing is, the people at the table are not negotiating together against us. How do we deal with it? On Saturday I get a call from my Minister of Justice who tells me that a secondhand offer has been put to him through somebody else to come to us. You simply cannot negotiate like that. We did everything we could that was reasonable. On Sunday the minister contacted the union and indicated: Let's get together and let's have one more shot at it.

MR. SULLIVAN: We wrote them on Saturday and they called back.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We wrote them on Saturday and then they called back and they indicated.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Sorry, it was the day before. We contacted them the day before. Again, we did everything we could. The minister sat with a negotiator and two representatives of the two unions for two-and-a-half hours on Sunday morning. That was it. At that particular meeting, they rejected twelve, eighteen, twenty-four. They rejected twelve with milestones. They rejected twelve with exceptional circumstances. What else could we do? We could -

AN HON. MEMBER: Make them.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Make them take it? You are going to vote against it. They do not want it. What kind of sense does that make? It makes absolutely no sense, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I am going to wrap up, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The debate is not facilitated by shouting across the House and I ask all hon. members - the Premier is giving a speech. He has one hour to do it. It is a very important issue. He is making the points of behalf of his Administration, and I ask for co-operation of all members so that he can give his address in relative silence and with the co-operation of all members.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that we go back through the history, as I have just done. It is important that we lay out for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador what we have done. Obviously, the hon. member opposite does not want to hear that. He does not want to hear the fact that we went to every possible limit to try and get an agreement. We watched him in the House day after day: smiled when we said there wasn't an agreement and frowned when we said we were going back to the bargaining table. That is what he did every day. He did not want to see us get an agreement because that did not serve his political best interests.

Well, let me tell you, Sir, we are not going to be political. We have no intention of doing things for political reasons, just because they happen to be popular, just because they happen to be opportune. We are doing things because they are the right thing to do, because we are going to have an affordable agreement. We need to be able to guarantee our public sector workers that we can actually pay the cheques. It is no sense signing them and leaving them for someone down the road who does not have the money to pay them. That, Mr. Speaker, is why we are doing what we are doing. That is why we made every effort.

I think back to the doctor's strike, when we were in Opposition. We did everything we could to make sure that we did not inflame that strike under any circumstances. We did not get embroiled in it. We did not do it. The hon. gentleman from Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi knows that as well. We stayed back in order to let that take its course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I ask all hon. members - we may disagree with each other very strongly, we may believe in our positions very passionately, but this House has to function with a certain degree of civility. That is the essence of Parliament. We have to respect each other's viewpoints. I ask all hon. members to permit the Premier to continue his address without the constant interruption from members opposite.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in the government news release on August 30, 2000, he said, "We are on an extremely dangerous course which, if not contained, could lead to financial disaster...". This is what this is all about. That is why, in my opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, I indicated the very serious situation that we had on our hands. I indicated that we had a $900 million-plus offer, a first offer from the unions. We had a zero, zero, six, six, $400 million offer from the unions. We simply do not have it, Mr. Speaker. We have an obligation. We have a responsibility to everybody else in this Province. If we were to accept the first offer, the seven, seven, seven, $900 million, we could get it because we could take 60 per cent of our health care money away and we would be left with 40 per cent of our health care. That is where you would have to get it. It is not there. It does not grow on trees. We do not have it. We cannot keep adding it on to our deficit. It is not sustainable. We are being told by anybody with any authority, anybody with any knowledge, and we know ourselves from our own personal experience, it is simply not sustainable. So, Mr. Speaker, we put an offer that was a very, very fair offer. It was zero, zero, two and three. The cost of that offer, Mr. Speaker, was $155 million, a lot of money; more money than we would have even liked to have given but we felt that we owed it to our public sector workers to give them that offer - and we stretched.

On that night in question, on March 31, we looked at each other and said: Will we do it? We did, and we did it to try and get an agreement, and we did it to try and keep them off the streets. I understand, they lost 8 per cent of their wages. That is a big loss. That is a very, very heavy loss. Mr. Speaker, I am very, very sorry for our workers, for that happening, but it is not our responsibility. It simply is not. We did everything that we could in order to make an agreement happen. I can say that and I can sleep at night, and so can all hon. members, because we did our best. The problem was, we could not get an agreement because the other side did not want to agree or could not agree or could not get their entire unit to agree. That was the problem. We are not going to sit here tonight and impose now upon them, pluck one out of a clear blue sky and, as the hon. member would suggest, impose on them.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion - and I have probably gone on a little longer than I even expected to, but because of the interruptions I felt I had to - as a Province, as a government, we have to look out for the future. We do, in fact, have to look out for all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We do, in fact, have to look out for our children and our grandchildren -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - because they are the ones who are going to have to pay it back. You will not have to pay it back, and I will not have to pay it back, but it is the next generations. That is why these e-mails were so important. That is why you cringed so badly when you heard those e-mails, because you did not want to hear them. You did not want to hear them because you understand. You know why this mess was created. You know why money was spent -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - for political purposes, to try and get elected. Fortunately, those days are over. That is not going to happen with this government. It will not happen. We are going to have affordable agreements. We will be firm and tough with whomever we have to deal with. It is not the workers. It will be the federal government. It will be big business. It will be everybody, but we will do it in the best interests of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians for their future, and we are proud of it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I note there is not a lot of enthusiasm over on the opposite side for the Premier's speech, but I do want to echo one of the opening phrases of the Premier's remarks, Mr. Speaker, when he said that this is a time for cooler heads to prevail, because I think it is, in fact, a time for cooler heads to prevail and I would urge all members opposite to think about what it is that they are being asked to do here tonight.

Government is about choices, and legislation is about choices as well. The kind of choices that you are being asked to make tonight are not a simple housekeeping matter, not routine. If you listen to some of the speeches opposite, and even the Premier's, you would think this was some sort of a finance bill, that this was a piece of legislation that was designed to help balance the Budget. If that is the purpose of it, it is simply a matter of not wanting to do - you know, we do not have to do the popular thing. We are going to do the unpopular thing. Why would we just do the popular thing and not pass this legislation?

Well, Mr. Speaker, it is not about that at all. This is not a piece of legislation that is designed to balance the Budget, or even help balance the Budget. It is not about money at all. This is not a money bill. This is a piece of legislation that is absolutely unprecedented in Newfoundland and Labrador history. Never before has this Legislature, in its 134 years or whatever, since 1832, never before has a piece of legislation been passed like this, that imposes a back-to-work agreement on workers who are already back to work, under pain of dismissal, and, in addition, legislates away benefits that have been negotiated through collective bargaining. Now, let's put that in perspective. That is what this legislation is about. It is not about saving a few million dollars or balancing a budget or anything like that. It is not about that at all. It is about imposing terms and conditions of employment on public sector workers who have the right to strike, who exercised that right, and who this government and this Premier really were not able to reach an agreement with. That is all - could not reach an agreement. There is no crisis, there is no emergency, there are no public services at risk, nothing, except that this Premier and this Minister of Finance have not been able to reach a collective agreement with them.

Now, what do you do in circumstances like that? What do you do? The Premier just said: We did not interfere when the doctors were on strike. Seventeen days the doctors had withdrawn their services; obviously not essential services. The doctors who provide, directly, the medical service that members opposite talked about being concerned about, they were on strike, and the Premier just said: We did not do anything. We did not interfere. We did not cause a fuss. No, because they agreed, Mr. Speaker, that those doctors be given the benefit of an arbitration system. They agreed with arbitration for the doctors who were on strike for seventeen days, and said: That is fine. That settles the strike. It goes to arbitration.

They agree with the legislation that allows the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary to have binding arbitration, in the event that they are unable to reach an agreement. That is on the legislative books - that is here - and we may end up in a situation, in a few months' time, Mr. Speaker, where the RNC do not get the wage agreement that they want. I will bet you dollars to donuts, Mr. Speaker, that you will not find this Premier and this government coming in and saying: We are taking away the right of binding arbitration in the RNC legislation.

It is good enough for the doctors, it is good enough for the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary - and I do not disagree with that, by the way. For a long time, in this Province, we had legislation for the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary that was binding on them but the government could, and did, come in and change the results of the arbitration award; and the Liberals, when they were in power, did it. I am not letting them off the hook, you here listening to my speech tonight.

The government will come in, after the binding arbitration, which was binding on the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, and pass a resolution in this House and say: We will change item six; we will change item seven; clause 14, we will agree, as follows.

The Member for Cape St. Francis, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, knows that, because he was sitting right here next to me when that happened. That legislation was since changed to make it binding both on the government and on the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary. That legislation is going to be put into effect, Mr. Speaker. That legislation will be followed.

When we had the strike in the public sector here, and it went on for several weeks, and it got to the point where the government was getting a bit antsy, concerns were being raised, despite the provision of essential services in the medical field, the government decided, on April 22, that they were going to do something about it. They said: Our patients are suffering and at risk - having quoted the Medical Association. Our ability to provide emergent and urgent care is significantly reduced. As the Premier said today, the health care system is on bust. We did not want to put lives at risk.

Mr. Speaker, that was on Thursday, April 22, more than ten days ago. That very day, this government and this House of Assembly could have put an end to that strike, under existing legislation, under Section 30 of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, which requires a simple resolution of this House. It was suggested to the government, on that day, by me, by the Leader of the Opposition and other speakers, who said: This could be over today and the employees, the health care workers that this government said we are so desperately in need of because the health care system is at risk, the patients are suffering, and there are hundreds and thousands of medical procedures, the Premier said, that were not being done, that people were waiting for diagnosis - we heard the crocodile tears over opposite. I am not going to name anybody in particular, but we heard people talking about medical procedures, and someone looking for this and looking for that.

What did we get, Mr. Speaker? No legislation, no resolution, no Section 30 of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, and when we get them back to work, not even a cent for overtime to catch up. That is the choice that this government opposite has made. They say: No, no, we are not going to use Section 30 which will end the strike. It could end it immediately, put everybody back to work and provide medical services full tilt.

What would you have? The same as the doctors, Mr. Speaker, binding arbitration. On what, Mr. Speaker? On what was left. Not on the 230 things that were already agreed upon. That is not going to binding arbitration. Only the matters that are in dispute, and what were they? At that point, Mr. Speaker - everybody in the Province knows it, and the Premier said it tonight - we were this close. Well, they have been this close for a long time, but there has been one thing keeping them apart, one thing and one reason only why this strike was never settled. There is only one reason. From the very beginning, Mr. Speaker, there was one point that was not going to be moved on by the unions in this Province, and that was made very, very clear from day one. Mr. Puddister and Mr. Lucas said: We have no mandate to give concessions on health benefits. We will not have a two-tier system for sick leave. We will not do it. We have no mandate to do it.

Guess what, Mr. Speaker? Every single proposal that came from this government, every single proposal that came from this Premier, every single proposal that came from the Minister of Finance, contained what? A two-tier system for sick leave. That is why there was never any resolution to this dispute. The Premier knew it from the very beginning and he knew he was never, ever going to get one. He did not want this dispute to be resolved.

I have praised him from time to time as a good negotiator. He knows how to get a deal, if he wants one. If he wants one, Mr. Speaker. When those two unions and their negotiation team walked in, on March 31, and said to the Premier, here is your zero and zero, the Premier had an opportunity to work out some sort of a deal. He had won. At that point, he had won. Find a solution, get closer and closer, and cut a deal. It did not happen that night. Well, it may not have happened that night. It may have happened the next day, or it may have happened three or four days later, but what happened, Mr. Speaker? Up she goes. Within forty-eight hours, the Premier had everybody in the Province up in arms about what was going on with the unions. The leadership was not talking to the members. There was somebody going to do something to the caucus members or his family. They were going to be out until the cows come home. Remember that? It was not very long ago. Within forty-eight hours - the whole thing was supposed to be this close.

I heard Bill Rowe on Open Line the next morning, saying: Boy, these parties are pretty close. I know a lot about negotiations. I have seen it going on. Every single labour negotiator in this Province will tell you that there was a deal to be had, if you wanted one, in those negotiations, especially in the early days. It did not happen, Mr. Speaker, and it did not happen because, for some reason, the Premier did not want one.

Everybody today is asking the question, why? Why are we debating back-to-work legislation when the workers have been back for a week? That is question number one: Why are we debating back-to-work legislation when the workers have been back for a week? Question number two: Why does that legislation contain dismissal if they do not go back to work or stay back to work? Question number three: Why does it impose terms and conditions of employment that are not as good as what the government says is fair and reasonable and they are prepared to offer?

These are open questions that do not have answers, Mr. Speaker. They do not have answers. You are being asked to pass - and this has been described, not by me, although probably by me, too, but by a professor at the University of Carleton, as the most regressive legislation in Canadian labour history.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: This is interesting. The member opposite says before B.C., and he smiled. He was delighted. I think the Member for St. John's North was delighted when Gordon Campbell out in British Columbia ordered hospital workers back to work after four days and imposed a 15 per cent wage rollback. Wrong again, because - I do not know; there are a lot of funny things going on in B.C.

I will tell you one thing. I do not know if the hon. member opposite heard, on Thursday evening, a very interesting interview with a reporter from British Columbia talking about this legislation. Ted Blades, on CBC, was interviewing him. He said, when asked about it: Boys, it is terrible, you know, the ordering back to work. This is pretty tough.

Tell me about the penalties, Ted Blades said. Tell me about the penalties - because we have just been talking about how you have to be tough to get people back to work. You know, you have to force them to be dismissed if they do not go back, and you have to up the fines, the highest in Canadian history. Up the fines. We have to do that because, you know, that is the way it goes.

What are the fines? What are the penalties? Do you know what the answer was? There are none. There are none, Mr. Speaker. What do you mean, there are no penalties? Well, what do you do? Well, after a few days, if the employer wants to do something about the fact that the strike is now illegal, they go to the Labour Relations Board and ask the Labour Relations Board to make a ruling and make an order for them to go back to work. If they do not go back to work, then you can go to court and get an injunction, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. There is a process.

Well, guess what we have here in this Province? We have something called Section 18.1 of the Labour Relations Act, and guess what it says? Now, maybe it does not apply to the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. The Minister of Labour is not here to tell us that, so I will tell you. It probably does not apply as is. It is very simple for a piece of legislation like the one before the House to say that Section 18.1 shall apply to the public service and to this legislation and to the public sector.

So, instead of all this draconian legislation, the worst repressive legislation, they exercise a choice. We are going to put that in. They could have just said that the Labour Relations Act, Section 18.1 applies. All of a sudden, they do not have the most repressive legislation in Canadian history; but, no, we are going to be tough. We want to show that we can do things that nobody else is prepared to do, and you are being asked to pass that now. You are being asked to pass it tonight. There was no debate on this, by the way. There was a one-day debate, and I call that no debate because we are operating under closure. There were no amendments at second reading. In fact, everybody on this side did not even get a chance to speak in Committee because it was cut off at 1 o'clock. We started the debate on Committee very late, twenty-minute speeches allowed, and no matter whether anybody had spoken or not, at 1 o'clock the vote was taken and we were here for eighteen votes, or however many it took to get the legislation passed at second reading and this debate today.

No amendments allowed today. No amendments, such as the one that I made, which said: Let's send it back to Committee for reconsideration of clauses 5, 6 and 7 with a view - and this is important because you can give instructions at third reading - send them back to Committee for reconsideration of clauses 5, 6 and 7 for the purpose of ensuring that the punitive, regressive and unnecessary measures that do not contribute to the goal of stability in the delivery of public services are removed by amendment or deletion.

That was an opportunity, Mr. Speaker, for this House and members opposite to say: Well, do we really need to impose these conditions or can we have arbitration on one of them and come to a deal on the other one? Secondly, do we really need penalties of dismissal and $250,000 per day when people are back at work and we do not need to end this strike because it is already over?

Reconsider. Think about the fact that you are being asked not to pass a financial measure because, as the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out quite eloquently, there is more money there than even is being imposed. We do not know what the number is, but the word has been passed around over the last month that there was another percentage point there. We know a percentage point is worth $22 million. If it was in year three and you add that together with the other one it is $44 million, so there is $44 million more that is there. Whatever you are going to save, if anything, on what you are imposing on sick leave for new employees is not very much, but the Premier is prepared to water that down a little bit. So, you could reconsider all of these things. In fact, you could take out these punitive measures that are painting members opposite, some of whom are only here for the first time since last October, with having been passed as your legacy, the worst labour legislation in Newfoundland and Labrador history but also in Canadian history.

I heard the member opposite from Terra Nova talk about, I came here to make things better. Well, I will tell you something, you are not making things better for public sector workers of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: If you want to make things better, you come here and you make things better by not imposing things that take back something that has been negotiated and been in place for years and years.

When we talk about sick leave, the Premier talked about making special arrangements for people who have serious illnesses. Well, you know, the favorite talk from the Minister of Finance and the Premier is that the public sector has everything and the private sector has nothing. Well, the private sector, by the way, is better off in sick leave than the twelve days per year being imposed by this government. Do you know why? Because they have short-term disability plans. They have short-term disability insurance plans that kick in after the sick leave and take them up to unemployment insurance. They all get one year of sick leave benefits before long-term disability kicks in. That is the private sector, Mr. Speaker, and they have to pay premiums. The employer has to pay premiums for that. Unions negotiate that all the time. Do they negotiate with the government? No, Mr. Speaker, because the government does not want to pay premiums to insurance companies. They decided, years ago, that they were going to self-insure.

When the employees said: Look, people get sick more than ten or twelve days a year. What are we going to do for them? We want a short-term disability plan. The government said: No, no, no, we are not going to give you a short-term disability plan. That will cost us a lot of money. We will have to pay for everyone. We will have to pay a premium for everyone, even if they do not use it. We do not want to do that. We will self-insure. So, if someone is sick more than eight, nine or ten days a year, we will just increase the amount of sick leave.

That is what government did. They thought they were saving money at the time. This was a negotiated benefit. Now members opposite are being asked to take it back on some ground, some specious argument which says that somehow or other the public sector are on the pig's back, that they have things too good, pitting Newfoundlanders and Labradorians against other Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, just as the Premier was doing within the leadership of the union and the membership of the union, just as the Premier was doing between the union membership and the people they were trying to protect when the school boards went on strike three years ago and got some benefits. They said: What are you doing staying out for 3 per cent of your members? What kind of understanding or lack of understanding of union solidarity is possessed in the minds of the Premier and the President of Treasury Board?

That is what being in a union is all about, fighting together, one for all and all for one. Have you heard of that before, folks? Have you heard of it all before? Because that is the way it works. What are you doing, staying out for people who are not even in your union yet? Well, they happen to be the same sons and daughters that the Premier once talked about, the children and the grandchildren.

If you work in the public sector and your son or daughter wants to go to work in the public sector when you retire, or when there is a job opening, they are the ones you are taking the benefits away from. If you want the legacy - and I speak again to the Member for Terra Nova - if your son says: Dad, what did you do for me, working in the public sector? Well, I just took away your benefits.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

MR. HARRIS: May I have a moment to clue up, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been granted.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

I do appreciate the moment or so of leave, but I only have twenty minutes to speak as opposed to the hour spent by the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I do say to members opposite: Have a sense of history. Have a sense of proportion as to what you are doing. You are taking a sledgehammer here and you are battering the institution of collective bargaining in the public sector when it is not necessary. It has been said time and time again, if you took that concession of the two-tiered system off the table the wages would have been settled in fifteen minutes or half an hour. That has been said many, many times. It is still true today.

What you are doing here, you are not solving any emergency. You are not solving any emergency that exists. You are not solving any crisis that exists. You are saddling yourself, however, with a legacy of the worst labour legislation in Newfoundland and Labrador history for no reason at all. The excuses that we have heard, about the need for stability, about the need to ensure services, about the need to save money, are all pathetically weak excuses. I would urge you, even at this late date, to reconsider your position, to vote against this legislation, or not be here for the vote so that the members opposite here can outnumber those who stick around to vote, and save yourself, and all of us, the embarrassment of having back-to-work legislation for people who are already back to work, and imposing terms and conditions of employment on people who would be readily able to agree to terms and conditions of employment as long as they did not involve a two-tier system.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. O'BRIEN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take up a few moments of your time to speak to Bill 18. I would like to state up front that I will be voting in favour of Bill 18 for a number of reasons I guess, and I will get into them as I go along.

I heard today one of the members of the Opposition mention that the members who are here now, who were on the other side a few years ago, that in 1999 they sung a different tune when they were on that side of the House. Now they are singing a different tune when they are here. Well, I say that the hon. members over there are singing a different tune today and all along. That is the way I see it, Mr. Speaker, in that they sing a different tune. That is their place because they are the Opposition. That is their role, I guess, and I respect that. If I had been elected in 1999 I would have loved to serve in the Opposition because it is a very, very good learning experience. That is their role and I respect that.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to compliment the public sector employees and the unions, especially the ones in Gander. I was back and forth there on a number of occasions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. O'BRIEN: Also, Mr. Speaker, they conducted themselves in a very professional - they had a lot of pride. They were out on the lines; every person out on that picket line. I watched the people in here as I walked into Confederation Building and they respected us as employers and they did what they had to do as union members. I do not think they lost anything in this regard. They governed themselves accordingly. As I said, they acted with professionalism. I tip my hat to all of those public sector employees and they are valued, very valued.

I had a number of calls from residents of Gander with regards to the strike, Mr. Speaker, in regards to people who had to go and access services from the hospital. Not once, Mr. Speaker, were they abused or even stopped at the line. They were treated cordially, with respect. People crossed back and forth over the lines whenever they needed to.

Also, hon. members, this weekend I was in Gander and I spoke to one of the people that I had met at a function. They said they had to meet with a person who had to come in over the line. They were a manager in Government Services. The person phoned previous too, he said: God, we are on strike and you are going to have to cross the line. He said: Do you really want to come across the line? He said: Well, I have to. He crossed that line, Mr. Speaker, and there was never, ever anything said to him. He was a person from outside the district. Once he told them the bit of business that he had, he was treated with respect and all the cordials of the world.

Mr. Speaker, as members and MHAs - and I am new in this House - we bring things forward. I received many e-mails and many phone calls and we bring them forward in caucus. That is our right. As the hon. member, the Leader of the NDP mentioned I think last week, that the caucus is the way to do business within government. The hon. members on the other side I think remember that also, that they use their caucus to bring things forward to the Premier at the time. We do the same, and I have done the same. I have tabled just about every e-mail and every phone call that I had, and I did it with pride. Yes, I did have heated e-mails and I did have probably some heated phone calls. Each one of them treated me with respect, both on the phone and in e-mails. We went back and forth with our e-mails and as we proceeded along they seen some of my points and I seen a few of theirs. Mr. Speaker, that is part of the process.

I feel that we have given Bill 18 ample time. We have delayed and we have not rushed this bill. We have tried to negotiate and they have negotiated. We all have negotiated in good faith. I commend the union and the union leaders for that. They have negotiated in respect to their members. They have put everything and their whole heart into it, and I commend them for that. Our negotiating team is our negotiating team. We are MHAs, we are not part of that negotiating team but we can influence that negotiating team, the same as the members of the unions can influence their negotiating team.

Mr. Speaker, what put us here at this point in history? Reality, Mr. Speaker. I have been thirty years in business and in thirty years of business I have always relied on my chartered accountants. I advise anybody who would enter a business that if they do not rely on their chartered accountants they will be out of business pretty quick and they will be eaten alive.

Mr. Speaker, our report from an independent firm, their submissions - I hear things said that it is bogus, that it is trumped up, that the numbers are wrong, et cetera and on so forth. That really stands the hair up on the back of my neck to be honest with you, because if the government of the past, or any government of the past, did not respect and understand and believe in the submissions by, especially, an outside firm, I shudder to think how they ran the government because no reputable firm here in Newfoundland, nationally or internationally, would put their signature to a submission by that firm in regards to the finances of this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. O'BRIEN: The other thing that runs through my mind, Mr. Speaker, is why would we try to mislead the people? - if you want to put it that way. I have heard those words in this House a few times over the past couple of weeks, mislead the people; that we have less money than we have. Why would we do that and put ourselves through this twenty-seven days of what we have gone through? It does not add up to me, to be honest with you.

Mr. Speaker, there comes a point and time in history when we have to make hard decisions and we have to come to terms with what we can afford. Many, many times in the past, as a businessperson, I have had to make hard decisions on the recommendations of my chartered accountants, and some of those recommendations were recommendations that I did not like. It affected the staff, staff that I had to let go, and many other things to do with business. That is just the way it is, Mr. Speaker. That is life. That is all there is to it. If it comes to this, that is what it is. That is why we are here. That is why our team went out and negotiated honourably. That is why their team negotiated honourably. As spoken in this House tonight, the union has accepted zero, zero, because they accept it and honour it and believe that we are in the financial state that we are in.

Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador elected this government (inaudible). I think the bulk of the basis anyway was to get control of the finances of this Province. I heard that from time to time, from house to house, from door to door, not only - to be honest with you - in 2003, but in 1999. That is a part of this, as negotiating collective agreements, that we can afford. That is a part of the process. It is one part of the process of getting control, but it is a part of that process nevertheless, Mr. Speaker.

At this particular time, and as I said earlier, we tried and tried to come to an agreement. I wish we did. I do not like to be up here speaking to this bill, Bill 18. I do not like to be here. I would rather not. I am new on the block, so to speak, as the hon. members would recognize. Yes, I understand what the hon. Leader of the NDP is saying there in what we have to do, but I believe, with conviction, in what we are about to do. I believe this is what we have to do and this is the only thing that we can do. We have to have stability, regardless if they do not like the word stability. We have to have stability, not only in the health care system, not only in the education system, but also in government, Mr. Speaker. That is exactly what we have to do. We have to move forward.

They are talking about us moving this Province forward in six months. In my maiden speech I mentioned that it takes three to five years to put a business on a good financial foundation. It is not going to be easy, Mr. Speaker, but I believe in this government. I believe in this Cabinet. I believe in the Premier. We will move this forward, and with no doubt at all. I am going to work hard, as I have worked hard all my life. I will fight for Gander as I have fought in the past and I will keep fighting. But when I fight, I will make sense. I will base it on the facts. I will go piece by piece and then I will state my case, and then we will see how it comes out in the end.

Mr. Speaker, I will not take up much more of the time because I think there is a lot that has been said here tonight and today in regards to Bill 18. I think we are at a juncture in government and juncture of this strike that we have to, we have no other choice. We have to move this Province forward. I think we are respected. I was out in the district this week and, yes, I have had some comments in regards to arbitration and what not, and with the finances of this Province we just cannot afford arbitration. We would be arbitrating everything. Once we arbitrate one, we will be arbitrating right down along the line. We cannot stall this bill any further because, for the simple reason, this will be hanging over our heads and hanging over out heads to the point where we will not be able to do anything else in government -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. O'BRIEN: - and the people of Newfoundland are expecting us to do something to this Province, Mr. Speaker, and I am going to be a part of that and I feel proud to be a part of that. Once this is over tonight and we get back to business on Monday of next week, we will move this Province forward.

I heard also - to end off - that we are using a sledgehammer, which is destroying collective bargaining in this Province. Well, I disagree with that because I think both parties stated their case. They negotiated honourably. I believe the unions will be back again and they will be negotiating and negotiating hard, and I respect them for that. That is a part of the process, Mr. Speaker, and I wish them all well. We will try to do our best for this Province and we will continue to do that as long as we are here.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the opportunity to have a few words on Bill 18. This is third reading, at which time you focus upon the final form of the bill. That seems to be a bit odd here tonight because the form of this particular bill was made known on April 22 and, based upon the manoeuvers that government has taken, it is still the same form.

We had Standing Order 43 invoked so that you could not do anything in second reading in terms of amendments. We had closure invoked in Committee Stage so you could not do any amendments, and we have had Standing Order 43 invoked today in third reading so you cannot do any amendments. So, contrary to what third reading usually means, where you focus on what you have left and say what is now the focus of this bill that we have gone through this process on and see what you started with and what you ended up with it, we got what we started with, because we have experienced, in the last couple of weeks regarding Bill 18, a completely intransigent government who under no circumstances were prepared to listen to anything anyone had to say that might be in any way beneficial to Bill 18.

We hear this oxymoron being talked about, a legislated agreement. There is no legislated agreement here. You have a legislated contract. An agreement implies, by its very definition, that two parties have come to an agreement, that they mutually agree upon. We do not have two parties here who are, as they say in law, consensus ad idum. We have one party who thinks that what they have here makes sense and they ram it down someone else's throat. Now, that is not a legislated agreement. That is a legislated contract. You can call it imposed. You can call it dictated. You can call it forced, but you certainly cannot call it a legislated agreement.

The purpose of Bill 18 - very ironic. From day one there has never been a purpose stated for Bill 18; never. The only thing that came close to being a purpose was they said, refer to the title, which talked about the resumption of services in the Province. That is the sole purpose of the act that we could find. The purpose has disappeared. We do not have it anymore. So, if we are still here tonight debating it, you ask yourself again: If the purpose has been taken away, what are we indeed doing here? What is the other motivation that exists for being here to talk about Bill 18, other than to force an agreement upon someone? We cannot deceive ourselves on that. We can sugar coat it, use all the nice words we want. The only possibility of being here today on Bill 18 has only to do with imposing an agreement, nothing to do with the resumption of services. Now, you might want to see it in different lights and put some nice flowery, candy-type words around it but that is not going to work. There is only one thing happening here. It is imposing an agreement, which gets into union bashing and gets into beating up on the collective bargaining process.

We have had a lot of deflection. The Member for St. John's North talked about: Oh, B.C., we are not so bad as they were in B.C. But, again, information is a wonderful thing. The Leader of the NDP pointed it out so ably towards the Member for St. John's North: You should read what they did in B.C. B.C. did not put in any penalty section. There were no fines if you disobeyed the legislation. There was no dismissal if you disobeyed the legislation. That is why the gentleman in Cambridge University, who said that this was the most oppressive piece of labour legislation in Canada, was absolutely right. It still was before the B.C. law, and it still is. Another thing about B.C., we do not live in B.C., not that it is relevant. The fact is, the B.C. Government and the unions were, at the end of the day, able to come to a negotiated agreement. Their legislation is off the books now because - notwithstanding what the government had done - they sat down at the end of the day and them and the unions still were able to come to an agreement. So, it is never too late, even when you have it passed, as they did in B.C. It is never too late for the parties to get together and do what is right. We do not seem to have any indication of anyone here wanting to do what is right.

Now, we have heard all kinds of excuses from the other side. I cannot use any other word, and I am not being nasty about it, but we have heard all kinds of excuses as to why you cannot support this piece of legislation. There has been lots of references to stability and our children and our grandchildren and the financial mess that we are in. All kinds of things, but the Leader of the Opposition - and I noticed the members opposite were pretty quiet when the Leader of the Opposition was talking, because I do not care what party stripe you were, if you listened to what he had to say it made some sense. You may disagree with the final product but the bottom line is, it made sense what he had to say here tonight.

When he talked about the wages, what are you giving anyone if its zero, zero, two and three? We all agree now to amend it. If he had half a penny on the table, or another point on the table and the Premier were to say: Fine, that is what I agreed. I can afford it. Let's do it. What is wrong with that logic? The Premier agreed to it. What is wrong with the logic on the sick leave? If the Premier thinks it was such a good plan, what is wrong if everybody agrees, including the Premier, to say let's be sensible about it and do what he says is right and we all agree is right? What is wrong with the Warren Report, if everybody agrees that a resolution of that matter was on the table between everybody? What is wrong with doing what everybody agrees is right? Because you have one foot in your mouth does not mean you have to put a second in there. There is an old saying: If you put both feet in your mouth you got neither leg to stand on. That is what we have done here. Why are we being so obstinate? Do not look for excuses. Do not look for excuses to say why you must pass Bill 18. If you are going to pass it do it right; at least do it right.

This brings me back again to the purpose. What is the purpose of it again? It is not to resume work anymore. It is not economical, because the Premier has said he could live with what is in this and he could live with the parking lot agreement. So it is not economic anymore. It is not fiscal anymore. So, what is the reason we are still dealing here tonight with this bill the way that it was worded on April 22? That is where anybody who is a thinking person - we have thirty-four thinking persons over there. I suspect we have thirty-four people and there is neither one over there who feels totally comfortable in their skins tonight about what is happening here.

Again, I say, I do not care what your political stripe is, it is very difficult to oppose common sense. It is very difficult to be opposed to what you, yourself, have suggested as a resolution on the matter, and that is all we are talking about here when we talk about this amendment. If you are not interested in that, what are the motivations? To crush unionism in the Province? I cannot believe that anybody in their right frame of mind would want to do that, to be punitive and punish the 20,000 public sector workers in this Province. I cannot believe that anybody would be capable of having that as a motivation. Or, is it to improve - and the only other thing I can think about: Is it the Premier's desire to impose his will upon the unions?

I noticed the Member for Gander used the word team. It is very apt, I think, because somewhere in the last thirty days I think this concept of team got in the way. He said: Our team and their team - referring to the government negotiators and the union negotiators. Our team and their team, he said, gave it their best efforts. The problem was, if you start out with that team concept, mixed up in that somewhere from the government side, from the Premier's side, was that my team must win!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Never was it acceptable to the Premier. Never was a tie game - never was a resolution that benefitted all parties ever in the cards. It just did not fit, because he likes his hockey, he likes the team concept, and he has to win. That is not the proper motivation for passing this legislation.

We have already had a very good explanation as to why the three outstanding conditions should have been put into this agreement by amendment. This House can do anything that the parties agree to. The Minister of Education is over there. I have known him for the last five or six years; a very sensible person. He cannot be comfortable in his skin knowing that he is going to pass something here tonight that is going to drive the public sector workers of this Province home with something less than was on the table in the parking lot. It just defies anyone's common sense and logic to do that.

The other thing I noticed about this act - this is an option that I have been thinking about and wondering about - the proclamation date. Every piece of legislation normally has in it a proclamation date. Sometimes it says: This act is proclaimed. It will come into force on the day it receives royal assent. Other pieces of legislation say: This act will come into force on a day to be proclaimed. We do not have any proclamation date in Bill 18. Why? I wonder why we don't. Is that an out?

If the Premier and the Minister of Finance are true to their word, that negotiations are never over, that there is always a chance, why do we have to have a self-imposed Monday, May 3, deadline on Bill 18? If the government wants to pass Bill 18, with or without the amendments, they have it in their wherewithal to do it tonight. They can pass Bill 18, with an amendment, and we will certainly agree to such an amendment right here, right now, without debate, that this act will come into force upon a date to be proclaimed.

Government can walk out of here tonight, as a last resort, with everything that they want; voted on it, passed, but not proclaimed. Now, if the Minister of Finance and the Premier want to take that agreement and put it on the shelf and say: Okay, Mr. Puddister and Mr. Lucas, it is still not over. We are still not going to ram this down your throat. We have it over here if we need it. We do not have to fool around with the House of Assembly anymore. It is done, but we are not going to ram it down your throat. Let's go back to the table again. Let's give it another try. That option is there for this government. They do not lose a thing about what is in this agreement. They can do it without debate and they can do it without Opposition. They can do it, in fact, with this crowd over here voting for such an amendment in there. So government loses nothing. Again, I say, why is government so intent on doing something that is so morally, ethically wrong if there are options out? That is why I say I am not comfortable in my skin if I were to do such a thing, and I do not believe the thinking people on the other side of this House are comfortable in their skins knowing that there are other options and still plowing ahead.

I have some concerns about how the legislation came about. I asked the Minister of Justice about it. Even thinking about it, if you go ahead tonight and pass this, what happens to it? I mean, let's not kid ourselves. Because the workers are gone back to work and services have been resumed, does anyone believe, in their imagination, that NAPE and CUPE are going to accept the validity of it?

The Minister of Justice commented back to me in Question Period last week, he said: Well, if you got problems with the Charter of Rights, boy, maybe you should take it up in court. Now, that might be an answer to give me in Question Period, when you have short time to think, but it is not a very reasoned, responsible answer. This does not end here tonight. The validity and the enforceability of this Bill 18, once it becomes law, is still going to be tested by the labour unions.

We have section 2(d) problems. That is why I raised the question because I am wondering, who gave the input into Bill 18? I asked the Premier here in Question Period one day - I know that the Premier commented on a Monday, he said: What we have done in this particular matter is we have taken the advice of the Department of Justice. We have checked other legislation around the country and we have seen that fines have increased.

The Premier tells us on Monday that he took his advice from the Department of Justice, who I can only assume is represented by the Minister of Justice. So, two days later, on a Wednesday, I asked the Minister of Justice, I said: My question, just so there is no misunderstanding, is for the Minister of Justice. Minister, did you receive any legal advice from within your department or external sources regarding the content of Bill 18? If so, would you name those lawyers who advised you, internal or external, and provide the House with copies of any written opinions rendered and can tell the House if the advice has changed now that the urgency has ended? The Minister of Justice's response to me that day: Mr. Speaker, as the Attorney General of this Province, I have read Bill 18 myself and I have formed my own opinions.

Now, that is laughable in the sense that our Premier tells us he asked the Department of Justice about this bill and the minister says, yes, he did not take any advice from the forty or fifty lawyers who work in Justice. I know, because I was there. Very competent people, men and women. He did not stand up here and say I got advice from my department staff. Forty or fifty of them, not good enough to advise him. He did not go to any external sources, like government often does and gets an opinion from some renown labour lawyer who might get an opinion on him, or constitutional lawyer. He did not go to any labour relations experts. He said: No, I read Bill 18 myself and come to my own opinions. Well, that is pretty good. We have probably the worst piece of labour legislation in the history of Canada and the Minister of Justice says he read it and it is okay, and our Premier relies upon that. That is what we have here in Question Period, those types of answers. Well, I do not know, maybe that is marshal law. It gives a new meaning to the term marshal law because we are indeed marshalling this down their trade unions throats in this Province.

I say to the Minister of Justice, who apparently represented himself - and the lawyers over there would know what I am about to say - a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client. That is the kind of input we have gone into this Bill 18. Now, I am saying this in a very critical manner, but somewhere hidden in amongst this there should be some insight coming from the other side that we are just not saying this for the sake of saying it. Some suggestions have come from across this side of the floor, from the NDP, from the Opposition here to the other side of the floor, but like the Leader of the Opposition says: The wall is up. It is not even being listened to. There are options, but options are irrelevant and will never be tried if the party to whom you are speaking does not wish to hear you. That is the problem we have here.

It was nice to hear the members on the other side speak. We sat here last week, it got kind of nasty sometimes, the barbs going back and forth. It is nice to hear them speak tonight. I say in all sincerity, the words we hear of children and grandchildren, the words of stability and the financial mess that we are in, that might be the messages, ladies and gentlemen, and most of you who said it were sincere in what you said. But I say in all sincerity, you missed the point. You missed the point. This is not about getting a bill through this House. This is bigger than any of us, I submit to you, will realize. This is not over and done with on May 3, 2004. Mark it down. You heard it here. This is not the end of the discussions of Bill 18. The ramifications of Bill 18 will be felt economically from a labour perspective, and politically by you people on the other side. That is not a threat, because I am in no position to threaten that, but that is a reality if you listen to anyone in this Province. The people in this Province accept that there is a financial reality they must live within. I will agree with the Minister of Finance and the Premier when they say that. People realize that we are in a difficult financial circumstance and we have to make some tough decisions - not an issue - but people will never accept, in this Province, the way that this is being done. It is the approach and it is the attitude that is being exercised in this manner here.

I think the Leader of the NDP made a good point on the program Issues and Answers the other day when he talked about the Premier's negotiating skills. A great negotiator, a great brain, no question about it, but I think he was off base. It is different in negotiating as a labour negotiator than negotiating a personal injury action, than negotiating a commercial transaction, than negotiating a contract. I have done it all. Lots of the lawyers on the other side have done the same thing, but I say with all due respect, the Premier has missed the boat as a labour negotiator. It is obvious, it has been very amateurish, what has happened here.

In my last minute, Mr. Speaker, all I would say is, I feel bad that the members on the other side did not listen to at least some of the good suggestions: Put aside the political rhetoric. Put aside the triteness and the criticism, but, for God's sake, you should have paid attention and you should have listened to some of the rational, logical, common sense suggestions that were made.

It is still not too late to do that. The public knows what has happened here in the last number of weeks in this Province. We do not have to stand here in the House of Assembly and repeat to the public, like the Premier did in an hour-long speech, what has happened in this Province. That is history now. We have to turn the page on that. We know about closure in the House now; this has been brought about. We know about Section 43 and how we all get stifled. That is the government's right, and in the rules that we live in here to do that. They know all about the ramming of this agreement down people's throats, but I say to the members opposite that the people are very knowledgeable, the people are very forgiving, but when you foist something upon them against their will -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave to clue up.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that the people are very knowledgeable and the people will be very forgiving if the reasons that something is imposed upon them are valid and rational, but that is missing here.

I will be voting against this bill because, in my heart and in my soul, the wrong approach was taken here. The wrong conditions of employment are imposed in this contract. There is no need for them to be there. Yes, if you are going to give it to people and ram it to them, at least give them the best deal that you yourselves acknowledge to be the best.

Finally, you should put in a proclamation clause because you do not need to hit people over the head with this hammer if there is another opportunity to negotiate further, and I do not think that option has been checked out.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am just going to take a few minutes to make reference to a few general things. The Premier addressed most of the issues on the negotiating end, and when I spoke at second reading of the bill, and introduced the bill, I gave an explanation. There are some things I want to talk about, things of a general nature, and a lot of the things that have been said here tonight that do not reflect the true situation.

The Leader of the Opposition talked about demoralizing the public service. His memory is too short, Mr. Speaker. It is too short, when he sat in government when agreements were negotiated and signed, and then went back and rolled them back in this Legislature, and he participated in support of that process. In 1999 -

MR. REID: What did you say?

MR. SULLIVAN: I was not in the House then, I will say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo who continuously interrupts. He has been doing it all night here. That is what I say.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, in 1999, they legislated here in this House, and all of a sudden they are so sacrosanct now. They rolled back wages.

MR. REID: What did you say then?

MR. SULLIVAN: They stood and legislated in 1999.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Then, they negotiated an agreement in 2001 and made reference to the Young and Warrant Report. The Young Report lapsed in June, 2003. It lapsed, because it was two out of the three-year period. The Warrant Report was prior to the signing of a collective agreement and has no validity in law and is not referenced within the former legislation.

The very Leader of the Opposition who signed an MOU to institute certain hours of works within schools for secretarial, janitorial and maintenance people, which was estimated to be $5.1 million to live up to the first eight sections of the Warrant Report - that is what it would cost. It would be about $4.5 million, the four that were outside the terms of reference - only put in his Budget last year, $2.5 million. This year in our Budget, to address those same areas, we budgeted $3.6 million. The very person who signed that MOU did not put in 50 per cent enough money to be able to meet the requirements to which he put his signature. We came back and put 40 per cent more money in than he put in. Now he is talking about who has the greater commitment to the people who are working within our school system. He paid lip service, Mr. Speaker. He did not put his signature and pass a Budget last year that looked after and put extra money in. You can play games, and I am tired of listening to people putting out stuff that is not true, absolutely not true.

Talking about job evaluation, joint trusteeship signed by them. What did they do for the last three years? Absolutely nothing on these issues they signed off three years ago. Absolutely nothing. There is nothing done. There is no joint trusteeship in place. There is no job evaluation system. They signed it, he said. He said he signed it back in March, 2001. Actually, it was not signed then. He should know that because he was a party to it, but it was not when it was signed. It went out to the membership. He should know that, and he should not be making statements in the House that are false.

Mr. Speaker, they talked about the Easter break, the hypocrisy of saying, take a break at Easter. There is a calendar here and I vice-chaired a committee that did the Standing Orders of this House that we put in place with a former member of their caucus who was here, and the former Government House Leader. They are talking about the hypocrisy, what they are doing. We are here since April 1, ever since, and we are still on the same budgetary motion in over one month in this House, and we are only on the sub-amendment. We have to pass an amendment. We have to pass the main motion. They have been five weeks in this House dealing with one single motion that we are hours from finishing. Then they are talking about: Get on with the business of the day.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: To me, Mr. Speaker, that is pure, outright, hypocrisy. I remind them that they brought in a Budget last year and they did not have the gall, they would not pass in this Legislature last spring a bill to authorize borrowing for the Budget last year, and I have to stand in the House this month and introduce a loan bill to borrow for their Budget last year that they never passed -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - borrow for our Budget this year, and look for money to go to the market that they never even passed last year, and for the year before. They would not bring legislation to the House, legislation that is vital to maintain the financial integrity and pay the bills in this Province. They would not do it. Well, we are going to do it. We have thirty-some pieces of legislation to pass. We could be here until July. It will take until the end of May just to deal with the Budget. We have a lot of legislation. We are not running away and going home. We will be here for the month of June, maybe later, unless they fold their tent, give up and go home. That is what they may very well do; but, I can tell you, we have a lot of legislation to pass.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: We have no problem coming back in June and July, I can tell you. What did they do before they went out of government? They emptied accounts. They have ministers who spent every single cent they had for travel in a year, in six months. They transferred money from other accounts into their ministerial accounts and spent that. The members spent every penny of money before they left office. They emptied accounts. They flew on government taxpayers' money - helicopters - after elections were called. They spend money out of the public Treasury. They overspent. They took money of the taxpayers of this Province.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

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

The Minister of Finance, for the few days since this House has been open, has made reference, along with some of his other colleagues, about a Minister of the Crown spending money on helicopters during the election. Now, the Member for Cartwright stood last week and explained that in the House, and I ask him to withdraw the statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. REID: Well, then, tell us who it is. If it is not the Member for Cartwright, then tell us who it is, because the minster knows it is not true and I ask him to withdraw it.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order. It is a disagreement between members, but not a point of order.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Then he talks about the tyranny of governments. In the first forty years of this Province, from 1949 to 1989, there were five closure motions introduced in our history for the first forty years, and over twenty-three by that government in the first six years that they took office. Twenty-three closure motions. They have the gall to stand here, when we introduced one closure motion, and talk about the hypocrisy of what we are doing.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, they are delighted, they are happy -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members if they would co-operate and keep their voices down.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We passed bills before.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. SULLIVAN: The Member for Fogo does not understand. We passed a bill there on federal money that was coming - the Minister of Education. I passed a bill here in this House back in March, for which we had support on that side. The Government House Leader co-operated on getting a bill through on that side. I do not know where the member was. If he was here, he was not paying attention. If not, he was not here. I cannot control if he does not know what is going on in this House. I think Dwight Morrow said it right. Dwight Morrow said it right. That party over there always wants to take credit for the rain, but it also has to be willing to accept responsibility for the drought.

They only want good things. Yes, and I think Woodrow Wilson said: The way to stop the financial joyriding is to arrest the chauffeur and not the automobile.

The former Premier got arrested back on October 21 and he got fired from the job. We are going to stop the financial joyriding of this Province and we are going to put us back.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I have sat here and I have listened to the utter nonsense going on, and I am not even going to waste the time. We have dozens of people here wanting to speak tonight, to put forward their points of view. The Member for Twillingate & Fogo does not like to hear the truth, on that side of the House. They are too long trying to tell the people of this Province -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member on this side and all members if they would extend the courtesy to the hon. minister so that he can continue his speech and not be continuously interrupted.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will just close with a statement that, since 1999, the people on that side of the House sunk us $2.7 billion more in debt. It is an enormous debt that we are trying to grapple with, but I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, we are going to get out of it. It might take us four years to get back to a balanced Budget, but we are going to do it and we are going to put this Province back on the right track, regardless of the nonsense they get on with on that side of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

I appreciate the comments of the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, and I notice the Premier is here. Since this is the last opportunity for the Minister of Finance to make some comments on this very important Bill 18, maybe if he might like to stop - and we certainly have no problem, if he might want to take another five minutes - stop the tirade and address the issue here in third reading of Bill 18.

It is fine to get up on your feet and toot and blow your whistle, but if you would like to have five minutes to get up here and explain - have the decency and courtesy now to explain - to the workforce of this Province, who everybody values so much, why you are the perpetrator of Bill 18. Your name is on it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair, in listening to the comments by the hon. Opposition House Leader, each member is allocated twenty minutes, except for the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition. How they spend that time, or whether they spend all of that time, in the debate is entirely up to that member. I cannot direct the member's content in his speech, so therefore there is no point of order.

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

MR. SPEAKER: On a further point of order.

MR. PARSONS: A further point of order.

The Premier shouted across the House, Mr. Speaker, when I was up on a point of order. It is you, I understand, who is the boss in this House, not the Premier who shouted across the floor of this House and told me to sit down. I sit down in this House when I am told by Your Honour to sit down.

AN HON. MEMBER: He said you were foolish.

MR. PARSONS: He called me a fool. I say to the Premier, there is an old saying that would apply to you, Mr. Premier: It is better to stay quiet and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Insults across the House do not serve any purpose at all, whichever side they are coming from. We have a very serious situation. Let's get on with the business of the evening, and see if there are any more speakers from the opposite side.

The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDGLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when I gave my initial speech, my maiden speech, last week or the week before, I referred to a piece, a brief piece, called The Penalty of Leadership, in which the author spoke about the risks that are taken, and having the courage to lead and make decisions that are hard. This may very well be one of those times when we address ourselves tonight to Bill 18.

When I speak of leadership, I am not just talking about those who were chosen on that side of the House and our side of the House as official leaders of their parties. I speak in a broader sense, Mr. Speaker, because we have all been sent here by our districts because those people felt we had leadership qualities.

Mr. Speaker, we, on this side of the House, have been given the honour and the privilege to govern. We have been sent here because people saw in us qualities, leadership qualities, that they thought would bring something constructive to this Province, and those on the other side of the House have been sent here with the same thing in mind. They have been chosen by the people in their districts because the people in their districts saw in them qualities that they felt could make a contribution to the Province.

Some people over there, the Liberal Party, had the privilege of governing the Province for some fourteen or fifteen years and history, I guess, will judge how they have done.

Mr. Speaker, the people on the other side of the House are now being asked to play a different role altogether. They are asked to be the Opposition in this hon. House of Assembly. We expect from them aggressive questioning. We expect them to research their questions and to hold our feet to the fire. To do anything less than that, I think, would be an injustice to the people of the Province, an injustice to the people in their districts. Their job is now a different job. It is to oppose us, and to bring forward and to point out parts of the legislation that we suggest in order to improve that legislation.

Anyone who has read about the improvements in the Ireland economy will realize that one of the key elements in turning Ireland around was a co-operative effort between the Opposition, the governing party and the labour unions. There was a recognition over there, Mr. Speaker, that there had to be a co-operative effort in order to turn their country around. I would suggest that, at this time in our history, we need something of the same type of effort. That is not to say that the Opposition must go away, that they must walk hand in hand with the governing party, but it is to say that there should be more of an attitude of co-operation rather than destructive personal attacks on members on this side of the House. That is not why we were sent here. We were sent here, as I say, by the people. They have entrusted the Province to us and they believe, in their hearts, they have put it in good hands. When comments take on a personal tone, when they are destructive in nature, it does not serve anybody any purpose. It does not do justice to anyone in this House, and I would submit that it does nothing to move the Province forward.

Mr. Speaker, I have copious examples of destructive and personal-attack comments that were used last week. Suffice it to say that the hon. Leader of the Opposition, in his speech last Tuesday night, used ten different examples, derogatory terms, in referring to the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDGLEY: There was just a comment offered at this time that it was not enough, and that is exactly, Mr. Speaker, what I am talking about. That is not the reason why we were sent here. We were sent here to act in the best interest -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDGLEY: We were sent here to act in the best interest of the people of Newfoundland, to do what we can, as governing party and as opposition, to move the Province forward. Politics, Mr. Speaker, must be more about the people and less about politicians.

I was struck tonight by the Leader of the Opposition. I would say that, if Nixon was famous for his Checker's speech, the Leader of the Opposition gave a good speech tonight and, with his reference to the lily pads and so on, it may well go down as his Kermit speech.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDGLEY: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition made reference tonight to a decision that we have made, a researched decision that was made, and he said it was made for purely political reasons. I refer back to August of last year, when the then governing party was about to release their policy, their platform, on insurance. In their leaked Cabinet document, and I quote: The primary goal of the announcement and follow-up activities must be to promote the reform initiatives -

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A point of order has been raised by the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, I was listening to the member speak on the government side and I certainly do not want to interfere, but he referred to the people of Newfoundland. I remind you, Sir, that I am a proud Labradorian, and it is the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I would suggest, Sir, when you refer to the Province, that you refer to it in its full name of Newfoundland and Labrador.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order, but a point of explanation.

The hon. the Member for St. John's North.

MR. RIDGLEY: A point, Mr. Speaker, that I should be more aware of, and I thank the member for pointing it out.

I will repeat again: The primary goal of the announcement, at that time, and the follow-up activities, must be to promote the reform initiatives and the accomplishments of the Premier and his government. The campaign will be ongoing for a period which will extend into the provincial election campaign.

Mr. Speaker, part of our new approach to government is to make the hard decisions, regardless of the political consequences. We are committed, as a government, to act in the best interest of the people of this Province. I am committed, personally, to act on behalf of the people of my district, the people of St. John's North. I am committed to aggressive debate, non-personal debate, and at the end of the process to vote as I see best for the people of St. John's North. I have done this on this occasion, Mr. Speaker, with reference to Bill 18, and I am prepared to vote for the bill.

As I mentioned in my earlier speech, St. John's North has its problems. We have a junior high school which is busting at the seams. It was built for 350 students. It is now accommodating 499. We have a bifurcation road that was left - it is called the road to nowhere - and even the former Member for St. John's North referenced, in his outgoing days, that the $3 million was lost somewhere. He could not explain it. That road has to be completed in St. John's North to serve the whole city.

There are people out there crying out for the Alzheimer's disease. I have spoken to some of them in St. John's North. The age-related macular degeneration, which removes the sight from people as they get up in age, we would love to be able to finance that. There are many in St. John's North on the lower end of the social economic scale. I have been to their houses. I like to go to their houses. I have seen, Mr. Speaker, where gaps in doors and windows are stuffed with supermarket bags. A mother and father -

MS THISTLE: (Inaudible) Bill 18.

MR. RIDGLEY: I am explaining the reasons, I would say to the hon. Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, why I am prepared to vote for it. I am voting for it because it has more ramifications than just the narrow ones that she sometimes sees.

I have a mother and father whose two children has serious asthma difficulties, and the dampness in their house is making their illness worse. A mother of a child who is in a wheelchair, who needs a ramp outside the house. There is not enough money in Newfoundland and Labrador Housing to do all of these things. I have been crying since last fall, Mr. Speaker, to have a fuel subsidy platform change so that people whose oil subsidy runs out the first of October do not have to wait through the month of October until November, until they get more oil. That will cost this Province in the vicinity of $70,000 to $100,000.

As I have considered voting, I say to the member, on Bill 18, I have taken into account all of these things along with the financial position of our Province. It is not simply us saying this, Mr. Speaker; it has been recognized in the editorial in The Telegram, when they say: One thing that cannot be denied is that the Province spends hundreds of millions of dollars more than it collects in revenue. Mr. Speaker, that is recognized in the paper, not just our position, and not just the position of the independent auditor.

Several of the members on the other side, Mr. Speaker, encouraged us to take a stand, and that is exactly what I am doing, but it is a matter of looking at the whole picture. Am I enthused about voting for Bill 18? No, I am not. I am not anxious to vote for it. I would have wished that it would have been settled through negotiation, but unfortunately it did not. I am not sure that the strike ever should have happened, but the fact is that it did happen. I am sure that there are things said on both sides, on the union side and on the government side, that, if time were wound back, would be changed. They would be taken back and done differently. I believe that both parties negotiated hard. We have had spirited and inclusive discussions within our caucus. I believe we have been forthright and honest from the start and, even though there are those who put different motives to our discussions and our decisions, I believe this to be true.

Mr. Speaker, we have been creative and conciliatory in our attempts to resolve one of the most contentious issues, that of sick leave. We agreed to leave all current members of the unions with their twenty-four days and, in talking to people over the past three or four weeks, I have had people come to me and say: It is outrageous. They should not have this many days.

Mr. Speaker, I have said back to them: They have bargained for those days. They have those days. They deserve them. Therefore, we left them alone. We have not prepared to legislate tonight, concessions. This is not legislating concessions. It is on a go-forward basis because we recognize that something has to be done with the sick leave. As a point of interest, and some may not realize, is what the cost of the sick leave is to this Province. It costs $98 million on an annual basis. Over $38 million of that is for replacement workers going in, and some $60 million on an annual basis is for just those who are taking their sick leave days. That is over $98 million on an annual basis.

We have made efforts, as I say, on a conciliatory basis to reach agreement on this point. The union was adamant and they were unrelenting, and that is their right to be so, but that is what brings us to this impasse.

We, as a government, have to make a decision, and that brings me full circle to the point that we are now in the position of having to make a hard decision. We have been elected to govern in the best interests of the whole Province. We have agreed to lead, and we must have the courage to make the hard decisions. Our commitment is to the whole Province, and my personal commitment is to all the people in St. John's North.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I did not want to interrupt the Member for St. John's North during his speech, but he did make reference to the need for an extension on a school in his district because it had far more students than the school could actually accommodate. He is talking about Leary's Brook. Well, Mr. Speaker, when I left the Department of Education in October there was a million dollars in the Budget at that time for the extension in Leary's Brook. It was cancelled or postponed in the Budget Speech this year when the Minister of Finance said that it would not be going ahead. I have to add, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Finance - an extension on a school in Witless Bay is going ahead, even though it was not a priority for the school boards.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. A point of explanation and an indirect way to further engage in debate. Are there any more further speakers?

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I sat patiently waiting to speak. I listened to the Opposition come across with a lot of barbs, back and forth, criticizing this government.

Mr. Speaker, 1993, a $70 million reduction in public service benefits; 1994, $50 million cut; 1995, 475 jobs cut; 1996, 260 college system workers gone, 500 public services, 229 teaching positions; 1997, Mr. Grimes announced 468 teaching positions lost.

Mr. Speaker, we sat here and listened to the fact that we are devastating this Province. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and I say to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, they have done a great job themselves in devastating this Province, in putting us in the position that we are in here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DENINE: Mr. Speaker, we were also criticized here for not speaking up. Let me make a quote here. The quote is, "$70 million reduction in total compensation package for public service workers that government maintained for months was needed to revive the ailing deficit." The Advertiser in 1993, "Grimes has different view than Wells -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair does not wish to interrupt the member, but members should know that in reference to members of the House we refer to them by either their position or by their electoral district, not by their first names.

The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. DENINE: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. There was no disrespect to any member here.

Actually, what happened was, then it says - I can read the quote though. Is that the hon. member said that because he was the Labour Minister at the time, the hon. Member for Exploits was - the Leader of the Opposition was Labour Minister at the time and he had to apologize, basically, Mr. Speaker, to the Premier at the time. He had to veer from policy of government and apologize. He talked about us being puppets, then I would say the tables are turned pretty good over on that side now.

Mr. Speaker, also, the Opposition over the last number of days has spoken that they were on the side of the union. In October of 2003: The Liberals have a horrible track record, with that includes: layoffs, wage rollbacks, cancellation of union contracts. Wayne Lucas, quote: Mr. Speaker, they talked about what we are doing here today. They tore up contracts. They basically came to an agreement with unions. Three months after, Premier Wells at the time, then said: No, I am sorry, what we signed we are not going to follow through on. There is going to be a wage freeze, so you do not get your 5 per cent. That is what that Opposition government did. That is what the Opposition members did when they were in government.

Mr. Speaker, getting back to Bill 18. As most of our members, or all of our members are here to say tonight, that this is not a very good position for us to be in. Not everyone is happy here to be voting for this bill. We would have preferred a negotiated settlement. The Premier stood tonight and did a chronology of what happened; what took place over the last month. Mr. Speaker, it was like a roller coaster. From my perspective, there was a day when I thought we had a deal done, then all of a sudden it broke off. Then it was back on, then it was off, then it was on.

Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of exchanges of views or settlements, or some idea of how to settle this disagreement. Even the leader of a certain union said: We have passed so many proposals that it is useless to pass anymore. What we heard tonight - we heard the chronology of both the President of Treasury Board and our Premier state the chronology, and that is true. There have been so many passing of proposals that there does not seem to be a negotiated settlement here on this agreement. That is what I believe, Mr. Speaker. I think we have gone the full length to make it happen but, unfortunately, it did not. That is why we find ourselves in this position.

Mr. Speaker, with reference to the sick leave - and I must preface this by saying, there is not one employee, in either union, who is affected by any of this here tonight. They still have their same benefits as they had back last year. Whenever this is done, they lose no more benefits. This has to be said, and reiterated, that it is only for those employees who come on after. Then that will kick in. We offered alternatives. None of them were acceptable to the unions. None of them.

Just to quote, one of the leaders said - not quote. I cannot put it exactly as it was said but, basically, the gist of it was: If sick leave is there the way government wants it, there is no deal. So, right then and there, everything that was negotiated, or tried to be negotiated last weekend, was off the table, the proposals that were put forth. All these proposals were put forth to get an agreement on the last three issues. They were there to get an agreement. I am sorry, but I feel very positive about this in terms of, that we made every single effort to make this deal happen, and it did not. Now we are forced to this type of legislation.

Mr. Speaker, they talked about conciliation on sick leave. We offered the graduated sick leave system to the union. They said no. But if you take a negotiator with twelve days and the union has twenty-four, obviously the idea is that they would work toward the middle for a settlement. I thought the graduated system would be very acceptable to the unions but, obviously, it was not.

Mr. Speaker, we are doing this here with not a lot of happiness, not with great joy, I can tell you that now, but we do need a deal. We do need to settle this, we do need certainty and we do need clarity for our workers.

In closing, Mr. Speaker - and I will not go on any longer because a lot of it has been said - I, too, wish to congratulate the union people who went out on strike because they acted in a professional manner. Since October 21, my dealings with everyone in the public sector has been nothing short of professionalism, and I congratulate them on that. I look forward to the future working with these people. I know that there is a little bit of anguish out there now, but we have no alternative but to do this legislation tonight, and I will be voting for it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few minutes just to have a few words to say on Bill 18. I would like to start off by congratulating the people in my district for giving me the confidence to deal with issues concerning the people in my District of Windsor-Springdale. I would like to also congratulate the public sector workers who seem to be very considering of the people in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador and very considering to us as legislators here. We have a job to do. I would like to thank the union members for letting us do our jobs because it is not easy when we have to go out into our districts and deal face to face with our friends or family, immediate families, too, Mr. Speaker. There are a good many members who have immediate family who are union members that were out on strike.

I would like to thank the members for letting us do our jobs and thank them for putting up with this unnecessary situation that we found ourselves in. I know I, at least, was hoping for a settlement right up until today. I was hoping this could be settled in a way that could be negotiated in favour of all the union members, the unions, our negotiators and our Premier. I thought it would be very important that we could do that, but because we could not do it, then we have to make the choice that we have to make tonight. Myself, more than anybody, I guess, had a difficult time with it. The last few weeks have been really stressful and pressured, but I did listen to all sides. I listened to all the issues. I listened to all the media reports. I listened to the union members, the presidents, our negotiators, the Premier. I listened to all our members speak here in the House, and then I had to make a choice. I think there is no other choice for me tonight but to support Bill 18, because there are a lot of people out there who are depending on us. They voted for us to make the right choices. They voted for us to make the hard choices, and tonight we have to make a hard choice. It is not a choice that everybody is happy with, and I do not feel that I would be one bit happy tonight to have to do this, but I think it is a necessary choice. I think it is a choice that we have to do.

The Leader of the Opposition referred throughout the night so many times of our members referring to our children and grandchildren. Mr. Speaker, six and a half weeks ago I was lucky enough to have a granddaughter born. When I look into the face of my granddaughter I can only think of what I have to do to speak for her because she cannot speak for herself tonight. So, I think it is very important that we do these things based on our convictions; our convictions not only for our children and grandchildren but also for the children not even born yet. It is important because for the last five years I have been sitting in this Legislature trying to present the views of my constituents at my best ability. I feel I have done that, and I feel that my constituents have rewarded me again on October 21, and gave me the confidence that I can do it again for the people of Windsor-Springdale.

I say to all members of this House, we all deal with the same issues over and over. The members in the Opposition and the members on the government side, we deal with the issues everyday pertaining to road conditions, health care, schools, education. We deal with all of these - the drugs for seniors. We must be responsible. We must have the fiscal ability to make sure that these issues are taken care of in the future. If we do not take the step to do this - and I know that the Opposition members are always shouting out across the floor, saying: They are back to work! They are back to work!

Well, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that in the last few days I have had more calls and e-mails from union members who are so grateful that this is over and they are back to work, and that we are going to carry on with this legislation to make sure that in two weeks or two months or two years that they are not back in the same position again dealing with the same issue, because the people in this Province today want to make sure that in the next four years they can have stability in their lives. They may want to borrow money for a car, build a new home, take holidays. They want the ability, in the next four years, and the stability and the confidence to know that in the next four years they know where they are going. We have a responsibility to do that today. We have a responsibility to the taxpayers of this Province to make sure that our fiscal ability for the next number of years and into the future is well-maintained so that we can give the things needed, we can come up with programs for seniors, drugs for seniors. We cannot do all of that in the next few years.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that we had some tough choices to do with respect to our Budget. This all comes back to the long-term plan. The long-term plan of which we had to deal with issues starting from the beginning and will carry this plan to the end. In order to do that we had to deal with the union issue. We had to deal with the strike issue and this legislation.

The next issue we will have to deal with, Mr. Speaker, is bringing this Province into the future and bringing our economy back on track so that we can have good things in our districts. We can have, yes, the cancer clinic for Grand Falls-Windsor, Central Newfoundland area. We can have things for people in this Province.

Roads, Mr. Speaker: How are we going to get roads to give to our tourists who come into this Province if we do not take the bull by the horns now and put this Province back on track so that we could have a better economy, a growing economy, so that there is money in the government's coffers to do the things that we have to do? If we do not take this step now, Mr. Speaker, I am afraid in ten years, maybe even four years, it is going to be a lot worse with a $620 million cash deficit and almost a $9 billion long-term debt.

Mr. Speaker, for a Province of this size, with a little over 520,000 people, you cannot even comprehend the effect that has on this Province, when other provinces have the joy of enjoying -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HUNTER: - that they have no deficits, and even they have to make tough decisions. Even the Province of B.C. has to make tough decisions; we know that. They are talking rollbacks in their public service sector workers. So we have to do tough things also, Mr. Speaker. If we do not, that deficit is going to keep growing and growing and growing, and by the time my granddaughter gets of age to try to work in this Province I am afraid that it is not going to be there for her. She is not going to have the opportunity to even get educated here if we do not stop this debt from skyrocketing the way it has been doing in the last fifteen years from the fiscal mismanagement that the Liberal government has done to this Province in fifteen years.

If the members on the Opposition want to talk about issues, even when they were in power, and some of the tough decisions they had to make with rollbacks and legislation, nurses back to work, and with cancellation of projects. Mr. Speaker, they have done that in the past.

The Member for Grands Falls-Buchans, I do not know why she is harping on us all the time about doing these decisions when she was part of cuts in the past number of years. The Leader of the Opposition was part of it all in the last fifteen years. Some tough decisions that they made, but I am sure they did it based on their convictions, based on reasoning that they thought was the right thing to do. I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that people on this side, the government members, our Cabinet and the Premier, are doing it on their convictions, that this is the right thing to do.

I will say right now, Mr. Speaker, that I support our Premier, our Cabinet and our caucus members, with which we discussed this, even though the Opposition do not believe it. They do not believe that we had opportunities to discuss this in our caucus meeting, but we did. We have done a lot in contributing to what this government does. I say, Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition and the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, and all the members of the Opposition, do not want to give us any credit at all. I am sure they are really loving having to take part in this because they are grandstanding at the best of times, but this is a serious issue.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HUNTER: This is a serious issue for the people of this Province, the taxpayers of this Province, and for our public service sector people.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member over here if he would keep his voice down. The Chair is trying to hear the hon. Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know when I was on the Opposition side over there, how many times did our members ask questions to the government on this side and the former Minister of Finance would get up and say: Where is the money coming from? We do not have the money to do it. Now they are over there and are trying to label us the same as what they were doing when they knew and had control in the last fifteen years of where the money went. Now we have a mess on our hands that we have to try to straighten up for the future of our children and grandchildren. That is why tonight I made a decision.

In the last few weeks, I say to the members, yes, I did make a decision that is important, that I support this legislation. It is important that we carry on with our long-term plan. It is important that we protect the future of our children and grandchildren. It is important that we get the fiscal condition of this Province back on track so we can have the things that people in your districts, not only our districts but your districts, your members of your associations, your members of your communities are looking at us now, at least, for the next four years to make the right decisions. I say that this government has done it and we are going to continue doing it. We are going to continue supporting the things that are the right things to do, even though they are hard, even though we have to take a lot of abuse and flack from it, but we have to do it. We have no other choice only do it and we are going to do it.

I would say that a lot of members on this side want to speak. We do have a lot of people, thirty-three. On October 21 we were given thirty-four seats. Thirty-three people on this side want to debate this issue. Now, all last week the Leader of the Opposition was saying: How come you are not up speaking? Well, we gave you the opportunity to have all you wanted to say last week. You said everything you wanted to say. Tonight is a night that we want to say what we want to say. Now, we are going to do that and we will make the right choice.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Now, Mr. Speaker -

AN HON. MEMBER: Last week you were (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, I will not be long. I know the members here are depending on me to be short because they want to have a few words to say, too.

I say to the people in my district, I am working hard for the people of Windsor-Springdale and I will be accountable to what I do in the next four years for the decisions I make.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I refer to insulting comments back and forth across the floor. They serve no purpose. They do not serve to protect the integrity of members and they serve no parliamentary purpose whatsoever.

The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.

MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the Leader of the Opposition, he cannot handle the truth. If he had handled the truth in the last couple of years that he was Premier he would have done the right thing, instead of bullying himself through picket lines and unionized workers like he had done in Bishop's Falls back in 2001, when he bullied himself through a picket line on the Knights of Columbus steps and pushed people off the steps. Now, that is what the Member for Exploits, the former Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, would do.

Mr. Speaker, how can we stand here tonight and take the abuse of the former Premier, the Leader of the Opposition, the leader from Grand Falls-Buchans, the other members of the Opposition, using words of abuse to this side of the House? They should look in the mirror some mornings when they get up and look at the things that they have done. The accountability that they should face and the things in the past, when they cancelled projects in their own districts, when they moved stuff around. I have a list of things here. It would take me an hour to tell you, Mr. Speaker. I can tell this House things that the Leader of the Opposition, since 1989, did to the unionized workers of this Province. Now he is up there grandstanding, trying to take credit for fighting for the unions in this Province and the public service workers in this Province. Mr. Speaker, I tell you, this is unbelievable.

I sat here for the last month listening to all this stuff that the Opposition members were saying. I sat in my seat and took it day after day after day. I was thinking, a good many times, if the people of this Province could only see and reflect back in their memory, over the last fifteen years, of what the former government has done since 1989. I would say we would look like angels to what they have done to this Province in the last fifteen years.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, I only wish we had more time, but I am sure there is more time for debate coming up.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HUNTER: No, I consider my colleagues. They are depending on me to be short so they can have their say.

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying that I will support Bill 18 and I will be proud to support the Premier, the members of Cabinet and my caucus here to do the right thing.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to begin by, first of all, assuring the Leader of the Opposition that I do not have a scripted speech here tonight. What I am about to say is going to come from right here because I, along with the other thirty-two members of this House, care about this Province. We not only care about the union members of this Province, but we care about the other 500,000 people in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, on October 21 a huge majority of the people in this Province spoke up and they voted for change, and that change was a change in the way of thinking in this Province. For far too long the way of thinking here has been short-term thinking and it has been mainly politically driven. Well, the people of this Province have spoken and they want this government to think long term. That is what Bill 18 is all about. It is all about thinking long term.

The Leader of the Opposition got up earlier tonight and said that we are all up here talking about our children and our grandchildren. Do you know what, Mr. Speaker? So we should, and so they should be talking about our children and our grandchildren, too. It deserves to be talked about, it is that important.

MR. GRIMES: It has nothing to do with this bill, that is the problem.

MS JOHNSON: It has all to do with this bill, I would say to the Leader of the Opposition. Again, I say it is about long-term thinking.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, I ask members to my right to keep their tone down so that the hon. member can continue her speech.

The hon. the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde.

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Leader of the NDP said earlier tonight, what a legacy we are leaving to people because we are passing a bill, but I will say to the Leader of the NDP, and to all people listening tonight, that is a legacy that I am willing to live with. I am willing to live with that legacy because we are ensuring the future economic stability of this Province for futures to come. What I cannot live with is passing on billions of debt to my unborn children and to unborn grandchildren and all people in futures to come.

Now, I will speak specifically to this bill, Bill 18. The bill specifically states that -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair finds himself in the position that we may have to recess the House if we cannot have co-operation from all sides of the House. Members have a right to give their speeches without undue interruption, without insulting language back and forth. That is a right of all parliamentarians in all parliaments and it should be the rule in this House.

The hon. the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde.

MS JOHNSON: Thank you, again, Mr. Speaker.

Bill 18, just to talk specifically to that. This bill states that new employees entering the system will receive twelve sick days. This, I would suggest, is a common sense approach to saving billions of dollars. The reason I say that, Mr. Speaker, is that in at least thirty years - if we are to start today, in at least thirty years all public sector workers will be on a system where there is twelve sick days. That is a potential to save billions and billions of dollars. Now, I know thirty years is a long time for people opposite to grasp, but I suggest three years is a long time for people to grasp. But, we have to start here today. We have to start somewhere to save billions of dollars.

MR. JOYCE: Save billions?

MS JOHNSON: Billions, yes. Billions of dollars over the next -

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MS JOHNSON: Yes, it is $98 million a year, I say to the Member for Bay of Islands, and in thirty years time - I know long-term thinking is something hard to grasp, but billions can be saved.

Mr. Speaker, I was at a function in Carbonear the other night -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JOHNSON: I was at a function in Carbonear the other night and a gentleman said to me: You know, Charlene, two-tiered systems exist everywhere. Businesses have them everywhere, so why is this so hard to grasp?

I spoke to a MUN student, interestingly enough - and I, too, am fresh out of university and I was on the job hunt. They said something really interesting. They said: If I were to suggest in an interview to an employer - if I were to ask how many sick days I would get in this job, then they asked: Would that employer even consider hiring me? They also went on to say that there are many people out there who would accept twelve sick days a year. I think it is a very fair offer that we have put forward.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I take great offence when the members opposite say that we have planned this all along. I can certainly say that when I was elected -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I take note that there is still a lot of conversation across the floor of the House. The Chair may have to recess the House if we cannot carry on our parliamentary duties without undue shouting back and forth across the House, interference with other members who are giving their speeches. I ask people to hear me when I ask you to observe the rules of Parliament. We are all Parliamentarians. We are supposed to be knowledgeable of the rules.

This is the third time the Chair has had to stand while this hon. member is speaking. I do believe that is totally uncalled for, and very unparliamentary. Again, I ask for your co-operation.

The hon. the Member for Trinity-Bay de Verde.

MS JOHNSON: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

I would say that when I was campaigning there was a buzzword going around: young blood, new fresh ideas. I do not know if the members opposite want to hear those fresh ideas, but I am going to give them anyway.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MS JOHNSON: They said before that this was planned all along. I can certainly tell them that when I was out there campaigning and running to be elected for the District of Trinity-Bay de Verde, the last thing on my mind was wanting to come in here and legislate people back to work and to pass this bill. I was not out there saying: I can't wait to get in there and legislate people back. I am sure the members opposite, also, in 1999, before they were elected, were not saying that they could not wait to get in and legislate the nurses back a few months after being elected, but they did so only after nine days, Mr. Speaker, I would say.

Unfortunately, there were 20,000 people out on the streets for about twenty-plus days, and that is certainly an unfortunate situation, and this government has worked very long and hard to come up with a deal. The members opposite suggested that this is our fault, that a deal was not made. I would suggest that there are two parties involved here, and, for an agreement to come, both parties have to come together. We did not see that happen. In fact, we saw deals going all over the place. That, Mr. Speaker, is why I am supporting Bill 18.

I am very proud to be a part of this government, and I would suggest that out of all the Premiers that this Province has seen elected, or not, I suggest that this Premier, along with his team, will go down in history as getting this Province back on track and taking care of future generations.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased tonight to have the opportunity to stand and make a few comments on Bill 18.

Mr. Speaker, eleven years ago tonight, I was first elected to this hon. House, and what a privilege and honour it has been to represent the people of my district. Politics is about making decisions, and tough ones at that. Politics is about standing in your place and doing what you believe is the right thing to do. Tonight is one of those times. We are faced with a tough, uncomfortable, financial situation, a financial mess, Mr. Speaker, that is left after years and years of waste, and that waste was brought on by consecutive governments since 1949. None of those previous governments are immune from taking part of the blame, Mr. Speaker.

The previous governments under Premier Wells, Premier Tobin, Premier Tulk, and then Premier, Opposition House Leader today, brought our deficit and debt to record highs. Then, with that mess, after 174 months in office, the crowd across the floor cannot understand why we do not have it all straightened out in seven months. They are upset because we are trying to do the right thing on behalf of the people of the Province. They are upset because we are trying to build a foundation that will protect our social system well into the future. Then, because the members opposite could not stand for the truth to be told about their 174 months in office, they fell back to the last refuge, as the Opposition House Leader mentioned today, the refuge of name-calling, gutter politics and innuendo. We have heard it all, Mr. Speaker. Name calling: dictator, Little Napoleon, puppets, and the list goes on and on. Gutter politics, when they stood up here in the House for two weeks saying: You are over there, you are conniving, you are putting together back-to-work legislation, when they knew we were not doing so. They are over there saying that we had it all planned from day one. That is not the case. Innuendo, saying that we did not want to deal. Innuendo, saying we are not being forthright, upset about meetings that had been held. They talked about the parking lot meeting. The Opposition House Leader spoke several times on it today.

Mr. Speaker, I say in all honesty, I would not care if the Premier went to the beach in Point Lance to try and strike a deal on this important issue. I would support him in doing that wherever he had to go in this Province to sign a deal.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MANNING: Government has tried its best, and we find ourselves at an impasse. An impasse is at hand after the best efforts of government and the union leadership, Mr. Speaker, I would attest. Decisions have to be made in the best interest of all the people of our Province. Our financial situation is not a myth. The financial situation that we find ourselves in today in Newfoundland and Labrador is not a fabrication of our imagination.

Mr. Speaker, my grandfather ran a business for almost fifty years in Cuslett on the Cape Shore. He could not read or write but he had many sayings that as a child you listen to but, as an adult, you understand the true meaning of. One of the sayings that he had was, if you make a dollar and you spend a dollar one, the day of reckoning will come sooner or later.

Well, friends, for the people of our Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I believe our day of reckoning has arrived. This year, the deficit of this Province will be $840 million. Last year, we closed off at a deficit of $959 million. Our debt, Mr. Speaker, is in excess of $13 billion. Yes, I say to the members opposite, $13 billion. That is billion with a ‘b', I say to the Opposition House Leader. You can shrug your shoulders and think that is not a concern for people. I say it is, Mr. Speaker. I say it is.

Tonight we are making a decision to create stability in the services to the public. Whether it is health care, whether it is transportation or any government service, the public wants stability. The workers want stability. We are not stripping any existing contract, as the members opposite have said. We are not stripping any contract. We are not, as has been done in the past, tearing up existing contracts. We are not, as has been done in the past, rolling back wages. We are not, as has been done in the past, freezing wages for a decade. We are not, as has been done in the past, giving out pink slips two weeks before Christmas. We laid the cards on the table for all to see. We are doing tonight what we were elected to do: govern. We have tried our best to negotiate a settlement. All efforts have been put forward to try to negotiate a settlement that would please all sides. We find ourselves, today, not being able to do that. Therefore, we have to bring in Bill 18.

Mr. Speaker, I say to members opposite, as I said when I began, I was elected eleven years ago tonight to represent the people of my district to the best of my ability. I learned a long time ago that you cannot be everything to everybody in the world of politics. You do what you do in the best interests of all of the people you represent. You do what you think is best. You do what you were sent here to do, and that is why I will be supporting Bill 18.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear1

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS GOUDIE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to finally get to speak to this Bill 18 tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I speak as a former front-line health care provider and a former registered nurse and a Member of the House of Assembly for the District of Humber Valley. First of all, I would like to give you my personal perspective. As many are aware, I was legislated back in 1999, and what happened in 1999 is very relative to what is happening here tonight.

Mr. Speaker, I went back to school when I was twenty-seven years old, after working in the tourism industry for several years, to become a registered nurse, and I graduated in 1994. I went to Nova Scotia, while my husband was in school, with my daughter, and then I returned back to Newfoundland and Labrador and eventually went to work at Bonne Bay Cottage Hospital in Norris Point as a casual nurse. As a casual nurse, I had no sick days. Talk about a two-tiered system.

In 1999, our leader came to our community to discuss the negotiations around the strike of 1999. Before the meeting, we, as front-line nurses, sat around discussing the issues which we thought were important to us, as nurses, and to the health care system. When our leader came to town, the two issues that I thought were important were pensions and casual nurses having no obligation to hospitals, and no benefits, not even health insurance. Many of us who were not involved in negotiations were looking at it rationally and felt we were going out on strike, at that particular time, for the wrong reasons. I debated with my leader, at that time, about the issues and eventually she got up and left the room and left the executive director to talk to me. So, Mr. Speaker, we went out on strike and were legislated back ten days later. The reason I bring this up here tonight is that I want to compare the situation then to the situation now. I want to put all the facts out there tonight, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I read through the Hansard from 1999, from the 1999 labour dispute, and the debate centered around whether the then government, of which twelve of the members across the way were a part, had a surplus or a $160 million deficit. Today, the debate is centered around whether the credit card is up to the limit or whether we are on the brink of bankruptcy. Nurses were the last of a large number of groups to be negotiating at that time, and they already had thirty-odd agreements in place.

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe what I have heard over the past few weeks. I was elected on October 21, to come in here and represent the people of Humber Valley. As I have sat here over the past few weeks, I shook my head. I could not believe what I was hearing.

I would like to remind the public sector and the nurses that the members across the way came to the very same conclusion when they were the government, under totally different circumstances: the Member for Bay of Islands, the Member for Bellevue, the Member for Burgeo & LaPoile, the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace, the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, and the Member for Exploits and the Leader of the Opposition, whom I would like to quote here now, "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...".

The Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, the Member for Grand Bank, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, the Member for Torngat Mountains, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, they stood up and legislated nurses back, whether it was with a surplus or a $160 million deficit. I have watched them try to make a mockery of this House of Assembly. Well, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, I am not here tonight to make a mockery of nurses or a mockery of the House of Assembly.

Our government entered into negotiations in good faith and put all our efforts into avoiding a labour disruption prior to March 31, and, since then, into ending the strike. I would like to quote the words of the minister again, the now Leader of the Opposition, "It is standard procedure for everybody, once there is a complete breakdown in the discussions...".

Mr. Speaker, we have gone as far as we can afford, without any doubt. I have listened to Open Line, and I have not heard one union leader talk about what we did in our Budget to develop a skill mix framework so LPNs, RNs, nurses and all health care professionals work to their highest level of skill, which would lead to jobs, job satisfaction, and high quality health care.

I know the past few weeks have been very difficult for all public servants and their families, and I commend them for returning to work after the NLMA made the announcement that our health care system was no longer able to cope. I know what it feels like, Mr. Speaker. I was legislated back, and I went back to work. In the same professional manner that the public sector has today, I went back and looked after my patients in a very professional manner.

To the nurses, friends and public servants in my district, I respect your differing views and apologize for not being able to leave this House of Assembly to get out to talk to you. If the hon. members across the way do not mind, we will get out for a couple of days this week to discuss these issues with our constituents.

Mr. Speaker, our government will negotiate in good faith with nurses and teachers, and I will, as a front-line health care provider, continue to support nurses and lobby for better health care.

Back in 1999, I was a registered nurse. Responsible for my family and working as a causal nurse, I had to look after my financial situation and my future. Even back then I thought we should negotiate fairly. Today I am an MHA for the District of Humber Valley, responsible for all the residents of the twenty-one communities in my district and over 500,000 people in our Province, and a deficit of over $800 million.

Mr. Speaker, I have received many phone calls. Some of the phone calls I have received said: Pass this bill.

I was legislated back, but the situation we are in today is quite different than it was in 1999. During the past month I believe both parties have tried their best to get a mutually, agreeable resolution to this strike. Many items were agreed to. Some items were more contentious and became points of disagreement. We want a fair and reasonable agreement in line with our fiscal realities.

Mr. Speaker, it would be so easy for me to stand here tonight and not vote to the legislation so I would not take the criticism of nurses and public sector workers, but I am prepared to take the criticism and, with the same conviction as the rest of our government, I will do the right thing to stabilize our health care system and bring our financial affairs under control.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I stand tonight in support of -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services, and ask that she be heard in silence.

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

I stand tonight in support of Bill 18. I stand as a member of the government but also as the Minister of Health and Community Services, and indicate that health care is my number one priority. As I campaigned around the district last year people indicated to me that was their most important public service which they value.

Mr. Speaker, when this strike started April 1, I looked at it as, this is a legal strike. The health care boards had not placed their contingency plans for two weeks and they focused on urgent and emergency cases. Despite the daily monitoring, the health care boards informed me that they were coping, but as each day passed I knew that the system itself was strained.

On April 22, 2004, myself, the Premier and the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board met with the Newfoundland and Labrador Medical Association and also the Newfoundland and Labrador Health Boards Association. At that time, they indicated to us that their ability to respond to health needs was reduced. The managers who were providing health care services were tired. The system was fragile, patients were suffering, and the system could not withstand the continuing strike. Also, emergencies and urgent cases in the system were growing. Diagnostic tests were backing up and wait lists were growing. Mr. Speaker, we are all aware of wait lists in our system on an on-going basis, but with the implication of the strike it was more serious.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MS E. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if the members - I can hardly hear myself speak over here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

We still have some members who are interrupting the hon. minister. This is one of her first speeches in the House and I ask that she be given the usual courtesy that we give to all members giving their first speeches.

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

We made every effort to reach a negotiated settlement with the unions within our fiscal realities. We even delayed the legislation for a number of days. Many people suggested to us that we go to binding arbitration but, as a government, we could not relinquish the financial position of our Province to a third party. We were elected to govern the Province and that is what we are required to do. However, in the absence of a negotiated agreement, my concern is that there would be another strike and I do know that the health care system could not withstand another strike.

I would like to now talk about the fiscal realities that were left with this Province as a result of the former government. Mr. Speaker, this Province is in a serious fiscal situation. In March, 1996, the Province's debt was $8.3 billion. As of March 31, 2004, it has now increased to $13.2 billion. Since -

MR. GRIMES: That is not true. She did not (inaudible).

MS E. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Leader of the Opposition, I would like to indicate to him that I have discussed this matter with the chief accountant of the government, the Comptroller General, and that the information I am providing is accurate and reliable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS E. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, to continue on about the financial position of the Province, I would like to indicate that in 1949, when this Province joined Confederation, we had a balanced Budget plus $40 million in cash surplus. However, our fiscal history shows that we have persistent budgetary deficits, virtually uninterrupted accumulation of debt and relatively high levels of taxation.

Mr. Speaker, the previous government appointed a Royal Commission with regard to looking into the finances of Newfoundland and our place in Canada. That Royal Commission concluded that maintaining current spending patterns in Newfoundland and Labrador is not sustainable and that Newfoundland needs to put its fiscal house in order.

Mr. Speaker, the history of deficits of the government, since the Liberal government came into power, has shown that there has been a steady increase in the deficit of the Province. In 1996, the deficit of the Province was $174 million. In 1999, it was $187 million. Then it increased to $221 million. Then it went to $350 million in 2001; $467 million in 2002; $690 million in 2003. Then the last year that the former government was in power there was a projected deficit of $958 million. That is almost a billion dollars.

Mr. Speaker, to record deficits of that magnitude is one thing, but the one thing that really troubles me is that the former government went to the trouble of informing the people of the Province that the Province's financial position was much better than it actually was. In 1999, they recorded a deficit of $187 million, yet they informed the people of the Province that there was a $10 million surplus. In 2000, when we recorded a deficit of $221 million, they informed the people of the Province that the deficit was only $13 million. In 2001, the deficit was recorded at $350 million, yet they informed the people of the Province that the deficit was only $30 million. In 2002, our deficit was $467 million, yet they informed the people of the Province that the deficit was $47 million. In 2003, the deficit was $690 million, yet they informed the people of the Province that the deficit was only $36 million. In reality, Mr. Speaker, the government had lost control of the public purse and could not admit it to the people of the Province.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, the unfunded pension liability of this Province has now grown to a phenomenal, almost $4 billion. Just to put that into perspective, since 1998 government has spend $840 million on the government's pension plans, yet we still have an unfunded liability of almost $4 billion. In 2003, $148 million was paid in by the government, but the liability still increased by $164 million. Yet, members opposite deny the fiscal position of the Province and indicate that we do not have a problem.

While the former government was in power they looked everywhere for money to help balance or try to balance the Province's books. They went to their Sinking Funds. In March, 1999, there was $432 million in the Province's Sinking Funds. The money should have been used to retire the Province's debt. Yet, the former government took the money and used it for general operating expenses. So, while there was $432 million in the Sinking Fund in 1999, that amount declined to $278 million in 2002; down to $186 million in 2003, and down to $55 million in 2004. While they took money from the Sinking Funds they certainly never retired any debt.

In addition, they went to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. That corporation had a debt of $1.1 billion in March, 1996. By March, 2004, it had gone up to $1.5 billion.

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

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Health is not relevant to Bill 18. To the extent that it is relevant, Mr. Speaker, I should refer her to Exhibit V in the Estimates, which states, on page xvii, that there is $1,074.3 billion in the Sinking Funds of this Province, not the $43 million that she said.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. There may be a point of disagreement. I am sure that the minister is aware of the rules of relevancy. It would be incumbent upon the minister to make sure that her comments are made relevant to the debate on the discussion, which is Bill 18.

MS E. MARSHALL: (Inaudible) zero, zero, two and three is because of the financial position of the Province. The financial position of the Province reflects the way the Province was managed by the hon. members opposite.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I must support this bill.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I feel I must support this bill and it is not a decision that is made lightly. In fact, it is a difficult decision for all of us on this side of the House to have to support this bill because it is a tough decision.

The reason we must support this bill is to protect the financial integrity of the Province, to provide for a future for future generations. To turn around the direction that this Province has been headed in, we have to make this decision. We have tough decisions that we have made, tough Budget decisions that we have made. We have a provincial debt of over $11 billion. We have a provincial deficit of over $800 million.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. T. OSBORNE: It seems easy for the party opposite to criticize the Budget decisions that we have had to make, the cuts that we have had to make. That is rather surprising because it is that party opposite that has more than doubled -

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

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order has been raised by the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: I have sat here all night, Mr. Speaker - we are in the third reading of a bill. The third reading of a bill is that the debate should be specifically on the bill itself. I sat here all night listening to scripted speeches over there, written speeches. As a matter of fact, against the rules of the House. We have hon. members getting up reading transcripts and speeches, which is against the rules of the House. You can check Beauchesne. In fact, previous rulings in the House, people are permitted in this House to read a speech on Throne Speech Day and their maiden speech only. After that, they are only supposed to speak from notes. We get hon. members on that side tonight reading speeches.

There are two points of order here, Mr. Speaker. One is, there should be no reading of speeches. The other one is that the third reading of a bill is supposed to be on the bill solely, on the clauses of the bill, and not talking about all kinds of other issues that have no relevancy to the bill.

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

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, again, there is obviously no point of order. The hon. gentleman is just taking an opportunity to interrupt.

AN HON. MEMBER: There is a point of order.

MR. RIDEOUT: You see, Mr. Speaker, that is a point of order. That is the basis for a proper point of order. He is interrupting me while I am trying to make a point to Your Honour.

Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that when the hon. gentleman, who just raised this point of order, spoke earlier today, he talked about everything under the sun and I do not know if he ever mentioned the bill first nor last.

Members on this side of the House are taking the opportunity to make a few remarks. None of them are going very long. I would ask the hon. gentleman if he would stay in his seat. Then the members would get to finish their remarks more quickly than if he keeps interrupting them.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, members know there have been many rulings in this House, and I refer particularly to a ruling by Speaker Lush many years ago when members were reading from speeches. Some members require or like to have notes, and that is acceptable. I do remember the quote, that the member was using copious notes.

Therefore, I would rule that members are allowed to have copious notes but the spirit of Parliament is that members should try, wherever possible, to express themselves as clearly as possible without reliance on extensive notes that have been prepared ahead of time.

On the rules of relevancy, members know that we are on Bill 18. We ask members to make sure that, at some point in their presentation, their presentations are relevant to the prayer and to the intent of Bill 18 which is now in third reading.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Conservation.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the people opposite seem to criticize the decisions that we are making here very easily but I find it rather surprising that they do that because that party, while they were government, more than doubled this Province's debt. That party, while they were government, created a financial situation in this Province that we now call a crisis. That party, while they were in government, raided the Hydro fund time after time after time. That party, while they were in government, raided Newfoundland Liquor Corporation, took money from them. That party, while they were in government, took hundreds of millions of dollars from the sinking funds in this Province. That party, while they were in government, in addition to more than doubling the debt, took Term 29, an up-front cash settlement of $130 million from the federal government in lieu of the $8 million that we used to get annually from the federal government. That party opposite took an up-front cash settlement of $55 million on the South Coast ferry service, and that money is gone. Yet, we are charged with the expense of operating that service in perpetuity. That party created the financial situation that this Province is in today.

Mr. Speaker, that is what is relevant about this bill. That is what is relevant on why we find it difficult to be able to support everything, every demand, that everybody in this Province is placing financially on this Province. The Budget decisions that were made were difficult decisions. They were difficult decisions for us to make, but it is because no other party in this Province's history has had the courage to make the tough decisions that we are forced to make today. That is the reason we are in the financial situation we are in today.

On top of the cuts that we faced, on top of the up-front cash grabs that this government has made, we have looked at and have had to face discounts from the federal government on health and social transfers. We have had hundreds of millions of dollars cut in health and social transfers from the federal government. Mr. Speaker, that points to the financial situation that this Province is in today, and why we have been forced to make the tough decisions that we have been forced to make.

We would like to be able to give raises. We would like to be able to give money to different groups throughout the Province, but that is simply not possible. That is simply not possible to the extent that people would like to see.

Mr. Speaker, we have made some difficult decisions in this year's Budget. We have made some cuts, some deferrals. We have increased fees. Through all of that, Mr. Speaker, we have saved $240 million. I have had to listen to speaker after speaker from that side of the House say it is too much, too soon; but, $240 million, we are still going to have to borrow this year maybe three times that in order to satisfy the budget requirements in this Province. That is not too much, too soon. That does not put one dent in the $11 billion debt that is owed by this Province. It is going to take many, many, many years before we see any significant cut in the tremendous debt that this Province is facing.

Nobody took pleasure in making the tough decisions that we have had to make. Nobody took pleasure in the negotiations that took place with the unions. Nobody took pleasure in that. We would have liked to have seen a negotiated settlement, but you cannot continue to give what you do not have to give. Any raise that we are giving the unions - and in year three there is 2 per cent and in year four there is 3 per cent - that money is still going to have to be borrowed. There is no secret stash of money. There is no secret stash of money. That money is still going to have to be borrowed, but we are satisfied to do that because we recognize the valuable work that the public service do and we would love to be able to do more for the public service. In fact, when I did cross the picket line, I was treated with great respect from the workers. I was treated with great respect by the people on the picket line, and that has to be acknowledged because they conducted themselves very professionally. We would love to be able to give more money to the public service, but whenever you make a decision to spend money, that money has to come from somewhere, and any raises that we give the public service have to be borrowed. That is the reality.

For fifty years in this Province, politicians would borrow to satisfy their political desire in a political mandate. That cannot continue to happen. They would borrow with absolutely no regard of where that money was going to come from, or who was going to have to pay it, but we have mortgaged the future for far too long for the people in this Province. That is the reality and that is not foolish. When we have an $11 billion debt in this Province, an $800 million deficit in this Province, that is not foolish, Mr. Speaker.

When we have to borrow money to satisfy the Budget, even after the cuts that we have made, that is not foolish, and I am not going to stand by and see this Province go further and further and further into debt and be satisfied to make decisions for this political mandate knowing that my grandchildren or their grandchildren are going to be forced to pay for it. There comes a time, Mr. Speaker, when you have got to start paying the money back. Anybody who owns a household and who has car payments and who has Visa payments realize you cannot continue to pay the interest on your mortgage on your credit card. We have to make the tough decisions today, to protect the integrity of this Province's financial position and to protect the future for future generations.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I guess I alluded to Bill 18 a little bit when I spoke on the Budget last week, late last week. I certainly want to continue on with those few words on Bill 18, Mr. Speaker. At the time, I talked about the number of personal friends, even campaign workers and my immediate family, who are affected by this bill. Like I said at the time, I had never crossed a picket line until I was elected to come to this House so it was certainly a new experience for me. Like I said, my wife was on strike, so actually I would get up in the morning and come in here to work and she would certainly go to the picket line, Mr. Speaker. I actually sat across the table from someone who was on strike, so it was a daily conversation in my house, I can assure you.

It is not something that I take lightly. It is something that we have talked about at great length, naturally, and certainly we have had debates, as the fellow says, over the kitchen table over this. It has certainly been an interesting month for me, to say the least. I never, ever, dreamed that I would cross a picket line, and little did I ever think that I would be voting for a bill, like Bill 18, to legislate people back to work.

 

I guess I never really started thinking about Bill 18, or any kind of legislating people back to work, until probably about week three of the strike. In week three, I started to receive numerous phone calls, not from people who were upset because they were on strike, or people who were upset because they could not get the services. What I was actually getting was phone calls from people who had concerns about the health care issues. I had numerous calls, actually, in about a three-day period.

The first one I had, Mr. Speaker, was from a lady who was waiting on chemotherapy. I realized then that people had to go back to work. This was a very, very serious situation that was starting to unfold. As well, Mr. Speaker, I had a story about a little child, actually, who was in ballet with my little girl. Unfortunately, she had developed a lump behind her ear and in her shoulder blade and just before her - I believe it was an MRI she was to have done, her appointment was cancelled. Of course, with all due respect to the health care people at the time, they did not think it was as bad as some of the other cases that were out there, but you can imagine the stress and the strain on some of these parents. It was at that time, I guess, that it really hit home with me, that I would have to stand in this House and support legislation like Bill 18.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I honestly believe - and I say so with all sincerity - I really and truly believe that the Premier and the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury did make every available effort to get this deal done.

Last week in the House, for example, the bill was going to be passed on Thursday but it was decided amongst caucus that, no, we will wait. We will give it another weekend, in which conversations did take place back and forth, but I guess it came down to - the sick leave issue was the issue and there were multiple variations offered on what could be done and could not be done on the sick leave issue but, unfortunately, it did not happen. I guess a point that I would like to point out here now, a benefit and an agreement, it is a cost. Whether it is a benefit or whether it is 1 per cent increase on a wage hike, it is all a cost, and it certainly has to come from somewhere.

Mr. Speaker, one thing that I would like to point out in this agreement is - I guess you are never overwhelmed or happy when you have to legislate people back to work. The big thing about this is there are no concessions for current employees, and that is something I was glad to see. There was absolutely no concessions for current employees. When you read stuff from across this country - we just heard earlier from the Premier that we are probably the biggest deficit in the country currently, running the biggest deficit. We see the people in B.C. today talking about contracting out and to negotiate a 10 per cent wage and benefit reduction to their workers and a reduction of the hours of work. Now, this is a province that is much better off than us fiscally and this is the role that they are playing. I am proud to say that, at least, we have not gone that far. We are not going to reduce their wages by 10 per cent, like members opposite did back some years ago with wage rollbacks and so on.

Mr. Speaker, binding arbitration has been mentioned to me a number of times, and why would we not go with binding arbitration? I have a couple of reasons why. I do not think it is appropriate. We have just received an election mandate on October 21, a fairly substantial one. They placed us in this role to negotiate on behalf of the people of this Province. I believe that was what we were voted in to do and I believe that is what we should carry on.

As well, Mr. Speaker, this Province has a deficit. We all know it. It was in excess of $800 million last year. We just cut $240 million in the expenses of this Province. We certainly do not have the financial means to do what we would like to do. I would love to give people extra money. It would actually affect my bottom line, obviously. If my wife were to get a raise, that would certainly help us out financially. I was fortunate enough that I was working at the time she was out on strike, not like a good many more, unfortunately. Mr. Speaker, I would give anything for this House of Assembly and for this government to have the ability to give out a real increase.

Just to prove where arbitration could take you, if you give 1 per cent in year one - we have heard this from a number of speakers and I try not to belabour it. If you give 1 per cent in year one it would equate to $22 million. That is $88 million over the life of the four-year contract. If you give 1 per cent in year two, you are into $66 million. You are up to $154 million over the life of a four-year contract, and that is - 1 per cent is very little. To look at 1 per cent you would think that it is nothing, but it actually equates to $154 million if it is given in the first two years of the contract.

Mr. Speaker, it is no secret. Like I said, we currently have almost an $11 billion deficit. We are looking at going to $15 billion in the next four years if we do not get our spending under control.

Mr. Speaker, it is true what was said. I believe it was the Premier who said it one time. The Premier, the Minister of Finance, Mr. Puddister, Mr. Lucas, I honestly believe they were dealt a tough hand to deal with. They started to make new negotiations in a time - and the fiscal realities of the Province did not allow for any of the people at the table to do what they wanted to do or receive what they wanted to receive, and that is extremely sad.

Mr. Speaker, if I could just clue this up and give some other members a few minutes to speak. I guess there are three essential reasons why I am supporting this bill. Of course, we heard it talked about earlier, where the Opposition made fun of it and so on and so on, but we have to think about the future generations of this Province. Future generations are where it is at. We are fortunate today to have the health care services that we have, thanks to the public service, thanks to the public employees. If we continue on the road that we are going on today then maybe in four years, five years, and ten years time, our children and grandchildren, we will not be able to provide that service to them. I think, Mr. Speaker, we owe it to future generations to keep an eye on our spending.

The Member for Grand Falls-Buchans opposite, she should know more than anybody, the former President of Treasury Board. I am sure she has been briefed, like I was briefed the first week we formed the government, and found out everything that was happening in this Province financially. I have to tell you, I knew we had a deficit problem. I knew we were tough financially, but until you sit down and get briefed by the officials of the department, the bureaucrats, the people who spend their time here looking after the finances of this Province, it really is an eyeopener, I can trust you.

Stability as well, Mr. Speaker, in the public service is another key instrument -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

MR. FRENCH: - particularly when it comes to our health care. Again, I want to thank the workers for going back to work early. I guess they realize the strain that was on health care.

Mr. Speaker, right now, because of the way things are, we cannot be put in a position to have that strain reoccur again. I just want to give you a few quick statistics. There were only twenty, out of seventy, necessary cancer surgeries done. There were 1,000 Pap smears a week being done but were not being read. Mammograms were not being done. Mr. Speaker, 7,325 missed clinical appointments; 2,835 missed child clinic appointments. That is serious stuff. Now we have a backlog in the system. We have the Minister of Health who is speaking to the health care boards and they are going to, between the two of them, hopefully put a plan in place to see some of that stuff brought back to reality.

I will clue up on this, Mr. Speaker, and I believe this to be very important. The economy of this Province, obviously by the deficit that we are carrying, is certainly fragile enough. I think to have stability, economically in this Province, we have to put a fundamental economic climate back in place. I think by having to do this agreement the way we are doing it, or this contract the way we are doing it - I heard members opposite last week talking about car sales and how it was down. We have to put a calm in the Province, and I believe right now this is the way to do it. The economy did, no doubt, take a brief setback. Hopefully, this will get the ball rolling again and stimulate the economy.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to rise here tonight on this special occasion and speak in support of Bill 18. Mr. Speaker, I want to make it perfectly clear that this Administration has agonized over the decision to vote in favour of this legislation. I also want to make it clear that this government wanted to act responsible for all the people of this Province, to the young people, to our senior citizens, to the working and the non-working, to the unionized and the non-unionized, to everyone in this Province. That is why I felt obligated to vote in favour of this legislation tonight.

Mr. Speaker, governments of the past were willing to mortgage the future of this Province. They were willing to mortgage the future of our children just to ensure that they maintained their political position and the status quo.

Mr. Speaker, with each passing year, as our debt grew, the government continued to live beyond its means. During the last election the people of Newfoundland and Labrador spoke and said that the status quo was not good enough. They wanted a strong government. They wanted change. They wanted a government that was willing to make decisions for the right reasons and just not for political gain.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we are left with a tough decision. We are responsible for righting this ship that was taken off course by the previous Administrations. Tonight we find ourselves facing one of these decisions. Throughout this labour dispute the businesses in this Province have managed to survive and move forward slowly but under duress and tension.

Just like the overspending and the frivolousness of the last Administration, just as that had to come to an end, so too did the threat associated with continued labour disruptions in this Province. So, too, did that have to come to an end. The health and welfare of our society's most vulnerable should never be used as a bargaining chip. The message to the people of the Province is this: We can no longer afford to live beyond our means. Past governments have embraced the idea of spending and borrowing and then spending again. That is what got us in the problem that we are in today.

I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that everyone can remember the last general election when the former government was offering everything that you could think of to the people of this Province, even though the inevitable -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind members opposite and ask them if they would be kind enough to let the member speak and be heard here. I also remind people in the galleries that while you are welcome here and we realize that this a very important debate and it concerns you, but I ask you not to take part, to show either your pleasure or displeasure for anything that is being said here on the floor of the House of Assembly.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista North.

MR. HARDING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We are here tonight as a direct result of the ineffectiveness and the wasteful practices of the past Administration, and the Administrations before that. Especially since 1995, when one, Brian Tobin, came back to this Province and took control of the Province. From that Administration on this Province has been going backwards. So much so, Mr. Speaker, that Acting Premier Beaton Tulk, and the past Premier, Roger Grimes, could not get the government back on track.

Mr. Speaker, I will not be part of a government that continues to saddle the sons and daughters of Newfoundland and Labrador with an overwhelming debt. Without real change, Mr. Speaker, I can guarantee that the social economics, cultural problems that we now face, troubles created by years of indifference and mismanagement will get worse. Some may say that if the situation is as bad as that, then why did you have to go through the expense of what you are doing today? I say that the problem is that serious, that is why we have to take the stand we are taking tonight. I say that because in the end we will not be the ones who have to suffer. It will be our children and our children's children who will pay for our indifference. Mr. Speaker, that is unacceptable. That is not acceptable.

I have many friends who work in the public service. People who have worked on my campaign. People who I care about dearly. My daughter is a teacher; a new teacher in the education system in this Province. I say to the people opposite, I would never, never do anything that would knowingly, negatively impact on her future as a teacher in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, we can no longer risk the possibility that the health and well-being of those who have entrusted us to govern will be compromised now or in the future. As a united government, we have determined that this is the most prudent course of action at this time. As a unified Administration, we believe that our present should not come at the expense of our future. That is the type of short-sighted thinking that has prevailed in this Province for far too long.

Governments in the past, Mr. Speaker, have been afraid to govern. They have been afraid to make the really tough choices. The time for fear is over. The people gave us an overwhelming mandate to govern this great Province, and that is what we are about to do. We will not shirk our duty. We will not be afraid in making the tough decisions. We will build a Province in which all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians can prosper.

Mr. Speaker, those who follow us will be our ultimate judge. I want them to know that this Administration was willing to make the tough decisions in order to create a brighter future. This is not a time for ambivalence and inaction. Our predecessor's reckless borrowing and liberal spending practices left us with a fiscal situation that can only be defined as desperate.

Mr. Speaker, the time has come when we must begin the task of repairing the Province's economy and getting this Province back on the right track.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARDING: Mr. Speaker, in the first six months of our mandate, we have shown that we are willing to do what needs to be done to rebuild our finances. In the first six months of our administration, Mr. Speaker, this government has shown more fortitude than the government did right through its entire previous term.

As the government of this great Province, Mr. Speaker, we will do everything in our power to ensure that we improve the lives of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

It has been a long day. It has been a long month. It has been a long strike. I do not think anyone is taking any pleasure in the fact that this all has to be brought to an end, not with a negotiated settlement but the fact that we have to bring in this legislation, to impose an agreement, to bring this matter to an end.

This bill originates out of the financial position that this government found upon taking office. The Minister of Health, the former Auditor General of this Province, has laid it out already. She has indicated a debt of $13 billion, an accrual deficit of $840 million, a cash deficit of $362 million.

The PricewaterhouseCoopers report indicated that out of every dollar that the government had to spend, it was spending fifty-two cents on wages and benefits. It was spending twenty-five cents on debt servicing. It was spending twenty-three cents on everything else - every program, everything else that we have to do with government.

My grandfather said a long time ago - I think he summed up the situation, when saying - when your outgo is greater than your income, your upkeep is going to be your downfall. That was true in his day, and it is true today, and it is going to be true for our children and grandchildren. We cannot do anything with respect to the debt. The contracts are locked in. We did try, however, to deal with the 23 per cent by attempting to bring spending down within our means. We eliminated $240 million of spending. Since fifty-two cents of every dollar is on wages and benefits, obviously, if we are going to get our spending under control, that is something that had to be addressed.

One would hope, Mr. Speaker, or maybe I was naive enough to think, that when a new government was elected we would be able to do here what they accomplished in Ireland. In Ireland, I understand, they created an economic miracle and turned a depressed economy around through the co-operation of labour, business and the government, through lower taxes, through moderate wage demands.

One of the advantages that Ireland always had was free education. Of course, it also had help in the Economic Union, with a lot of money being pumped in. I always wondered if we could accomplish that here. I hope that is something that this government can possibly accomplish by going to labour and saying: Let's attempt to work together to bring a new approach to this Province.

This strike and the negotiations that took place come down to the words sick leave and sick leave relief. I have to admit that, before I came here, I did not know too much about that but I have heard a lot about it over the last month or so. There was an item in The Sunday Independent, that the Province spends $100 million in sick leave and sick leave relief. When I say the Province spends it, I mean the taxpayers of this Province pay for it because it is not a problem of the government. The government's revenue, what the government has to spend, comes from the people of this Province so it is the taxpayers who provide it.

The idea of sick leave and sick leave relief hit home to me in discussions with officials of the Western Health Care Corporation. The Auditor General's report referred to the deficit and the accumulated debt of that corporation. So, the Minister of Finance wrote the Minister of Health and told her to contact the Health Care Corporation to attempt to eliminate its deficit and attempt to eliminate, over a period of time, its accumulated deficit. The response of the Western Health Care Corporation was released in the press by the hon. Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair. She seemed to have it before anyone else. In that response, the Health Care Corporation mentioned a number of things, a number of options, to attempt to address its deficit. One of the things it mentioned was the sick leave and sick leave relief, and they indicated that it was costing the Western Health Care Board $9 million a year for those items, which represented 7 per cent of its budget. The point they made was that they could not do anything about it because it was something that the government had to address in the collective bargaining process. So, I looked at sick leave and sick leave address and, you know, there was a lot of talk of abuse. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, the public service of this Province would abuse the sick leave system. I am sure some do, but I am sure the great majority do not. It is like everything else, there are always some people who abuse certain programs and certain things, but I am sure that the bulk of them are not abusers of the system.

The problem from the point of view of the government now, and the financial position the government is in, is the fact that it is a rich program. It is a great program for its employees. It is a program that I understand no one else in the country has in terms of the amount of days. I understand that no one in the private sector comes even close to such a program, and it has just gotten to a point where we cannot afford it.

I thought, when this started, that if there was a strike, it would be over the issue of sick leave; but, during the negotiations, during the discussions, the union position came out. I spoke to members of the union who indicated to me that they were prepared to live with the government's salary offer, but that sick leave and the benefits were something that they had earned over time, that they had struck for and they had fought for, and that they should not be taken away from them. I heard Leo Puddister, the President of NAPE, say that the sick leave days that they had earned and accumulated, they had earned them over time by foregoing certain wage concessions and therefore this benefit should not be taken away from them. I am pleased that the Premier accepted that reasoning and withdrew the concession he looked for in sick leave from current employees.

He did ask for that concession. He did ask for a reduction in sick leave days from the new employees: people who had not struck, people who had not worked to accumulate these benefits. Unfortunately, this was not acceptable and the strike continued.

I would have expected our Premier and this government and the negotiating committee and the Minister of Finance to make creative solutions, to suggest innovative solutions, to attempt to strike a deal. We all wanted a deal. There was a lot of talk, a lot of talk in the press, that we did not want a deal. Well, we did want a deal, Mr. Speaker. I can say with assurance that every member on this side of the House wanted to see a negotiated settlement. I am pleased that the Premier did go out of his way and did make creative solutions and did offer innovative solutions to attempt to come up with that negotiated settlement.

I refer, in particular, to the plan that would provide twelve days of sick leave during the first ten years, eighteen from years ten to twenty-five, and twenty-four days for those employees after twenty-five years. I think that was a creative and innovative solution, that I feel should have been accepted, but the union could not accept it. They consider it a two-tier deal which they are not prepared under any circumstances to accept. So, accordingly, we were in a situation where there could not be a deal.

I am satisfied that the government tried and I am satisfied that the union tried their best to reach a negotiated settlement, which is something we all wanted; but, after a month, it could not be done. It cannot be done. That leaves us with introducing this legislation, or continuing with this legislation, to impose a settlement.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) settlement.

MR. T. MARSHALL: To impose terms and conditions of employment.

Mr. Speaker, binding arbitration does exist for certain public service workers in this Province. I know for the RNC, and I believe - I stand to be corrected, but I believe - for correction officers as well. In exchange for the binding arbitration, the RNC and the corrections officers have given up forever the right to strike, and that is not the case with the other unions. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, what this government will have to look at is determining whether or not, on a go-forward basis, for people in health care services, people in school services, maybe binding arbitration is something that we may have to look at or discuss with the unions, and do for them what we are doing for the RNC and the corrections officers. I think that is something that we have to look at.

Mr. Speaker, I have received e-mails, just like everyone else who has taken part in this debate. I received some e-mails which essentially say to me: Give us what we want or we will not vote for you. We will see you defeated.

I pay no attention to those, Mr. Speaker. This is not about individual Members of the House of Assembly here, and whether we are elected or not. It is about doing the correct job for the people of this Province. If I do what is right, and if I upset some people who defeat me politically, then so be it, but I am not going to do things that I think are wrong just to get re-elected. We are going to do what is right. Whatever the consequences of that are, we will accept.

On the other hand, those people who have sent me e-mails and letters and have encouraged me to see this referred to binding arbitration, those e-mails have given me a lot of - I spent a lot of time considering the recommendations made. In binding arbitration, Mr. Speaker, if we turn this decision over to an arbitrator, an arbitrator is going to deal with the dispute as a dispute between two parties. He will not take into consideration, or she will not take into consideration, something that has to be taken into consideration: the fact that, in spending the money, government has to be concerned not only for those who have economic strength in this Province but also for those who do not.

People on social services do not have the right to binding arbitration; widows do not; seniors do not; the sick do not; people on legal aid do not; students do not, students in school and students in university. So, we, the government, have to make decisions that involve or take care of them, as well as dealing with the public service workers. It is our responsibility to govern. We have the responsibility to allocate our scarce resources over all of those who make claims on them, and we have to do that to the best of our ability and we have to accept responsibility for that. I think that is why we have to support this legislation and that is why I support the legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was just thinking, I have been sitting here for eleven hours and I am wondering what I can say that has not already been said. I will start by echoing the sentiments and the comments that have been made by so many people here tonight, therefore I will not repeat them.

I stand here tonight to support Bill 18. I would like to inform every member of this House that I have pondered this decision quite extensively, and has been said by so many other members here today, and over the past days, that when you have family and friends who are members of the public service, this is not a decision that you take lightly.

In addition to all the comments as to why I stand here to support this legislation, all I have to do is think of one thing, and that relates to the health care. One example, some person who is ill, has been under any degree of uncertainty as to whether this labour issue has been resolved or not, to me this is reason enough that I have to stand and support this bill.

Secondly, when I think of the education system from which I came - and I realize there are so many students at this time who are preparing for public examinations and if these students are to be impacted upon, what we are doing is we are dabbling into their future. If, for any reason, we stand to jeopardize their future in these upcoming examinations, then again, it provides me with the rationale as to why I should stand and support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I have to say that during this debate I have learned several lessons. In the heat of the debate of this bill I have learned that uncomplimentary language is sometimes thrown across the floor. Secondly, and I do not mean to be lighthearted here, but if I could, just for a minute -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN: - someone referenced in the Opposition today that we have been sitting here quietly listening and agreeing with members opposite. I can tell you exactly why I have been sitting here quietly and not smiling. I fear for being misinterpreted if I smile or if I nod, because we have been referred to as: the members opposite are agreeing, they are nodding, or they find it funny because they are smiling. Well, I can assure everyone in this House, in this Province and in my district, that I do not smile when it comes to this legislation. I agree that this is an unfortunate day, but I also recognize that it is a necessary action.

Mr. Speaker, I have also learned from this debate that I am part of a team, part of this government. Someone asked me just recently if there was ruckus in the caucus.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you.

In that regard, Mr. Speaker, I think it speaks highly of our caucus meetings, because in that room the debate has been contentious. People have expressed their concerns, and in the end, we have come to an agreement as to the direction in which we should move. I have also learned -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. JACKMAN: Thank you.

I have also learned, Mr. Speaker, that I am part of a government that will make many difficult decisions, but, most importantly, they are the right decisions if we are to have a prosperous future in this Province. I now look to a resolution in regard to this legislation. As regrettably as I have to say this, I do believe that many people will appreciate that the decision will finally be made. For me, Mr. Speaker, it is the right decision. Even though it is a difficult decision, it is a necessary decision.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have been listening to the debate on Bill 18, and I have been - it is amazing how the members opposite think they have the corner on protecting the integrity of the collective bargaining process in this Province. I want to remind the members opposite, and the public listening to this debate tonight, that members on this side of the House, each and every one of us, have had some real soul-searching as we have talked about this particular bill. We have had to reconcile -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask if the people to my right would kindly refrain from shouting across the House and allow the Member for Trinity North to be allowed to speak in silence.

MR. WISEMAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank you for that protection. The point I was trying to make, and I think this is an important point, because members opposite have been treating it with some degree of flippancy, the comments around how cavalier we may have been in bringing in this legislation. Nothing could be further from the truth, Mr. Speaker. This piece of legislation was put together with a tremendous amount of thought, a lot of soul-searching - as I suggested earlier - because we, too, in our own minds, had to reconcile what was in the best interest of the entire people of this Province, recognizing that there is a collective bargaining process, recognizing that there is a public sector collective bargaining piece of legislation that we need to protect the integrity.

This decision was not made lightly, I say to you, Mr. Speaker. This decision was not made lightly as all. Unlike some of the suggestions that have been made during this debate, this is not an issue of power. This is an issue of leadership, I say to the Member for Quidi Vidi. Governments find themselves in difficult situations sometimes and they have to look at the best interest of the entire population. Members opposite - I say to the Leader of the Opposition waving his badge, I say to the member opposite, that he, himself, was a member of a government in 1999 who also found themselves in a very difficult situation, found themselves having to be challenged. I say to the members of this House: No, I was not a member of the caucus at the time, but I would say to them that it took some courage on their part at that time too. If the leader of that party at that time, and the members of that caucus at that time - obviously, they did the same thing we are doing now.

I say to the members opposite: you, too, showed some real leadership at that time finding yourselves as a government in a difficult situation, having to come to this Legislature to resolve a difficult situation with a particular group of employees who worked for the government at that time and provided a valuable service. We, ourselves, find ourselves in that same situation today representing the interest of over 500,000 people in this Province and having to balance what is in the best interest of the entire population, what is in the best interest of the stability of the Province, what is in the best interest of making sure that we have a financially sound, fiscal Province here, and balancing that against the rights of the individuals who found themselves on strike. So, I say to members opposite, what we are trying to do with this particular piece of legislation is recognize the rights of the members of the particular bargaining units who have gone on strike, balance that against the rights of the individuals who we all represent. The union leadership in this dispute have argued very vehemently and forcefully for the interest of their membership, and I respect that, Mr. Speaker. I think all of us in this hon. House respect the tremendous effort that the union leadership have shown in this negotiation process. They represent the interest of their members and we have to respect that. They have done a commendable job.

We, ourselves, as a member of a governing party, have to now look at the situation before us, to look at what is in the best interest of an entire population. Unfortunately, in this process we have to recognize that we are going to have to bring in some legislation to put in place a contract of employment which ensures that we have some stability for the next four years, spells out clearly what the terms and conditions of employment will be and make sure we do not find ourselves in a precarious situation in four, five or six months or a year from now where we find ourselves having to deal with this exact same situation where members of a bargaining unit will be in a position to withdraw their services again and we find ourselves back in the same situation with tremendous instability, life and safety issues being at question.

I say to the members opposite, Mr. Speaker, that inasmuch as in a few moments we will be voting on this particular bill, we do so having given it a tremendous amount of thought, do so having considered all of the implications and, particularly, implications for all of the residents of this Province, I say to you, and it is with that kind of thinking and with that interest at heart, why I stand here tonight and say to the members of this House, that after a tremendous amount of soul-searching and reconciling in my own mind, what is in the best interest of the people of this Province and, particularly, the people whom I represent in Trinity North, it is with that in mind, I say, that I will be supporting this bill when we vote on it in a few moments.

I say to the members of this House, that we all should reflect on the real benefit of this bill. Yes, it will - in fact, it has created some degree of controversy within the labour movement. I understand that and we respect that, but I think as a government we have a responsibility here, and that is the issue of leadership that I talked about. It is not an issue of power. It is an issue of leadership. When times get difficult some challenging decisions have to be made. It is the real leadership that shows and it is that leadership which the people of this Province saw in October, 2003, and it is that vote of confidence they gave us to provide that strong leadership when the times get tough, not to take the easy way out, not to make the decision that may not be as controversial -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

MR. WISEMAN: - but make the decisions, Mr. Speaker, that are in the best long-term interest of the Province, and that is what the members on this side of the House will do in a few moments, I say to you.

Thank you for the opportunity to make a few brief comments about this very important piece of legislation that we will be voting on very shortly.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Let me say to people present, that this has been a tough month. I can assure you, this has been a tough month. In fact, somebody said - I think it was the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation - that tonight is our eleventh anniversary, or today is our eleventh anniversary, of when we got elected back in 1993. I can say without a doubt that this is the toughest month that I have spent as an elected representative of the District of Bonavista South. There is no doubt about it. Mr. Speaker, while it was tough for me, I say to the hon. Member for Twillingate & Fogo, I am sure that it was tough for 20,000 other people out there as well, and probably a lot tougher than it was for me. At least I had an income.

Mr. Speaker, none of us were exempt from what happened this past month, nobody here in this Assembly. We all gotten our positive e-mails, and our positive telephone calls, and our negative ones. We can all bring them and read them out. I am certain of that as well.

Mr. Speaker, my daughter was on strike for the twenty-seven days that they were on the picket line. I can assure you that she was not a person who could afford to be on the picket line - a young lady, a house to pay for, a car to pay for, and all the other expenses of looking after a home, and looking after her personal expenses.

Mr. Speaker, it was tough in another way as well. It was tough when people went out and believed in you during election time, and knocked on doors for you, and drove you around, and came to your headquarters, to have to look them straight in the eye and say: We don't have much choice but to legislate you back to work.

Mr. Speaker, it was tough, I can assure you. That is not something that I have been a part of for the past eleven years. What made it worse, I guess, is because this member happens to be a union member as well. This member has been on strike many times, I can assure you. This member has been out in Come By Chance on the picket lines when - while I was never a part of it - they climbed the fences to get into the refinery. He was out there when they tipped over cars to try to get into the refinery because the contract was not given to a unionized contractor. He got up 3 o'clock in the morning and drove out and spent the whole day there, day after day after day, so strikes are not new to me.

Mr. Speaker, this particular strike was particularly difficult. It was difficult not only for the people I just referred to, that it was a job to look them straight in the eye because they expected so much of you, and expected different, but when you got the telephone call, when you got the telephone call from a close friend whose wife had just had an operation for cancer and had just finished her chemo treatments, and had gone back to the hospital and discovered that she had another spot discovered in another part of her body, and was told that she would have to wait until this strike was over in order to get treatment, in order to get further diagnosis of the problem. When you get a call from an individual, saying to you: Listen, Roger, I have had two brothers who died with cancer. I have a brother in the hospital today and he is being sent home this afternoon diagnosed with cancer. You fellows had better do something.

Those are not telephone calls -

MR. HARRIS: Section 30 (inaudible).

MR. FITZGERALD: I say to the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, he can shout at that all he wants. He probably does not feel for it unless it affects somebody close to him. Those are not telephone calls, I say to members opposite, that you can easily forget.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I do not deserve to be insulted by the Member for Bonavista South. I referred to Section 30 of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, which would have had this strike over the day the Premier and his ministers talked about problems in the health care service, and the member knows that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. There is a disagreement between two hon. members but there is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I say to the members opposite, members on this side, people in the gallery, and other people as well, those are not telephone calls that you can hang up from and forget about. Those were messages and similar messages that were brought by every member of this caucus as we went and had our caucus meetings. No, we did not get on Open Line talking about every phone call we got, or we did not get on the media talking about the things that we believed in, and what should happen or should not happen, but I can tell you that the voices were heard at caucus meetings, and I was not the only one who raised the concerns. They were raised by every member on this side of the House

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: That is the reason why, I say to members opposite, I can look at myself in the mirror knowing that I am a union member, but I have never in my life been faced with some of the difficulties that I have been confronted with, with this strike.

When I was on strike, it was no big deal. You held up the Come By Chance oil refinery for three or four days. It was a construction job. There was nobody denied access to a hospital. There was nobody waiting at home to get diagnosed, because of my actions and the actions of my union members at that particular time. That is the reason I will be supporting this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, because this strike has gone on far too long. There is a need -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FITZGERALD: I know they are back to work, I say to members opposite. I know all about it. I am living in reality as well. Mr. Speaker, there has to be some stability brought within the labour force. We cannot take a chance on tomorrow or the next day having this same thing happen again.

I say to members opposite, you fourteen members over there do not have a monopoly on compassion. You are not the only people who care. To listen to some of you fellows speaking and talking about this side, and giving us a tongue-banging - my grandmother used to call it - because of our actions, and what we have had to do.

Mr. Speaker, I will stand for those people who have made those calls to me, and I will be able to look my constituents straight in the eye and tell them the reason why I voted for this piece of legislation. It is something that I believe in. It is time that we have gotten this over with and gotten back to doing what we were elected to do.

Mr. Speaker, the other part of it, every time that I have gotten a job - and I am going to refer back to the sick leave and some of the other things that were talked about, that brought this strike on. I will just refer to the sick leave part of it, Mr. Speaker, because there is nothing being taken away from one person today who is working for the public service. There is nothing being taken away from a NAPE member. There is nothing being taken away from a CUPE member.

Mr. Speaker, when I came to work here, as the Member of the House of Assembly for Bonavista South, I knew what money I was going to be paid. I knew what my benefits were, and I ran knowing full well what I would expect to receive if I got elected. Nobody should come and take anything away from me, after I decided I was going to take that job.

If you go out and you apply for a job in the public sector, you know what money you are making, you know what your benefits are; do not change it in midstream. That should never be touched. That is the reason why you took the job. But, Mr. Speaker, if you go forward and people tell you what your benefits are, tell you what you are going to get paid when you take the job, and change it after, then shame on you.

You apply for a job. If you know what the benefits are, if you do not want to take it, then there are other places that you could go and look for a job because it is not something that you deem that you want at that particular time. That is the one thing that people should know about with this piece of legislation, that there is absolutely nothing taken from anybody who is working today.

Mr. Speaker, I will support this piece of legislation for some of those reasons. The night is late. There are other people who want to speak here, and I can assure you that I will be able to look at myself in the mirror and I will be able to face my constituents knowing full well that I supported the people who sent me here and responded in a way that was going to help those who needed to get on with their lives and get back and be dealt with, for people who work within the public service who are tending to them, whether it is in the hospitals or schools or some other office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to just take a few moments and make a few comments with respect to third reading of Bill 18, An Act To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation Of Public Services.

Really, Mr. Speaker, I think most of what can be said, perhaps, this evening has been said. We have a situation here, and if I could just repeat, perhaps, what my colleague the Member for Bonavista South just indicated a few moments ago, in the past few weeks all of us, certainly, as Members of the House of Assembly, have been confronted with what has been a very difficult period of weeks for us. It was a situation where it was difficult, on a daily basis, to deal with our colleagues at work who found themselves in a situation that I am sure they did not want to place themselves in. It was difficult for us, as colleagues, to obviously have to deal and interact in many ways with those persons who found themselves in that situation.

From that point of view it was obviously a difficult series of weeks; however, Mr. Speaker, I believe the Premier tonight, in his opening remarks, when he spoke a number of hours ago, was very appropriate in saying, at the very outset, making a point of congratulations to all those individuals who found themselves, in one form or another, as a participant in what took place in the labour strife that did take place throughout our Province over the past number of weeks. He congratulated participants on all sides.

Mr. Speaker, I think that was important to do because, clearly, each individual - each individual - found themselves in a most difficult situation., and the strikers in particular. I think it is important that we make reference to this. The strikers, in particular, conducted themselves in such a way that all members present, and in fact the public of this Province, indeed all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, can say that it was a most peaceful series of weeks. That is an important statement to make, because all we have to do is look at television from time to time and we see circumstances and incidents that are far from peaceful. We see situations that obviously develop into something that is uncomfortable, but that was not the case. That was not the case at all. It is a tribute, I think, to those individuals who participated in a variety of different ways throughout the past number of weeks.

Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Education, what was obviously difficult for me, personally, certainly in the last number of days before individuals returned to work, it was certainly difficult to witness what was happening from time to time and on a limited basis - I think is important to say that, Mr. Speaker - what was happening from time to time on a limited basis throughout our school system.

Mr. Speaker, obviously, by the very nature of the strike process, by the very nature of a strike process, there were some delays and inconveniences. There were some annoyances and difficulty at the picket line. There were difficulties with some of our students, who required student assistants. There were some busing delays. I know with respect to our post-secondary institutions, there were some delays as well. Obviously, as the minister responsible for that particular area, and as the strike progressed, those concerns increased.

Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps when we look at the educational system generally, and what it is that this government wishes to do and hopes to do as it carries out its mandate, it is precisely why it is certainly my intention to support Bill 18 and to vote with my colleagues in government in a matter of moments on this particular issue. It is because, Mr. Speaker, we want to see further investments in the educational system in this Province, whether it is at the K-12 level or at the post-secondary level, whether it means more resources, whether it means better facilities, whether it means more developments in curriculum, in curriculum development. The resources that we need in our educational system can only be done when a government sets out to carry out its mandate in the appropriate way -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: - and to manage its own fiscal resources so that it can provide the services and it can offer opportunity to the public of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, in a sense, it was what I witnessed, as minister in this particular area, that made me realize the situation that we found ourselves in, and it is also anticipating what we can do as a government to help shore up educational opportunity in this Province. When we combine that reality, I can, with some comfort, support the provisions of Bill 18.

As I have just indicated, Mr. Speaker, I will be joining with my colleagues when we vote on this particular piece of legislation in a matter of moments.

With those few words, Mr. Speaker, I will allow my colleague to continue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SHELLEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I want to rise to make a few comments. As the previous speakers have said, by the time you get down to the forty-seventh and forty-eighth member in the House of Assembly, everything has pretty well been said.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that people throughout the Province, after this last month or so, have felt that everything has been said. As a matter of fact, from the very first day, March 31, it has been a roller coaster for a lot of people in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify something, on the record, for standing tonight. As a matter of fact, I spoke to my hon. colleague, the Member for Bay of Islands, just last week, because I have heard so many different things since that time. I was absent from the House last week, and my colleague knows why I was absent, but certainly I heard that I was in Florida. I heard that I was watching a hockey game in Toronto, and so on. I can only tell you, the furthest south I have been is the Burin Peninsula, and the only game I watched was on TV.

Mr. Speaker, I could not be here last week but I am glad I could get back this week to take -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SHELLEY: I know. I understand that, and I thank the hon. member, but I wanted to clarify that for some people who have asked the question.

Mr. Speaker, I am here tonight and it is a very important piece of legislation. Certainly, as you hear different members in this House speak tonight, I understand. I have been in Opposition and sat there, and we could go back through history and we could all do our history lessons and you could pull out Hansard and you could talk about what members said when they were on government side and when the legislation for the nurses took place in this House.

I remember debates on Hydro, when we sat through the night. I remember debates all night long for two and three nights straight, when we talked about education reform. There have been some heated debates in this particular Chamber. I have seen a lot of it. As the Member for Bonavista South mentioned, for some of us tonight - I think there are five of us tonight in the House who were elected eleven years ago tonight - I can say with some of my colleagues here tonight in this entire House that this has been a difficult time for everybody. Nobody is immune to what happened in this Province in the last month. As a matter of fact, it strikes home with a lot of people here. The Member for Bonavista South talked about his daughter. I can tell you, I had two brothers on the front line: one who agrees with me and one who disagrees with me. When you go out to your district - and, yes, I have had the good e-mails and, yes, I have had the bad e-mails - nobody is immune to what happened in the last month in this Province. We all had it one way or the other. We have had our phone calls. We have had our discussions.

One point that has not been raised, Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify here for the record again tonight, because good friends of mine on the picket lines in my district - and nobody has mentioned, I don't think, this point. Maybe they did before I came here. It was unfortunate that, because the House of Assembly was called into session throughout the entire Easter break - for every single strike that I have been around, before politics and since politics, I have visited the picket lines and spoken to people one on one in my district. Unfortunately, for people in rural Newfoundland and Labrador, like my district, we did not have that opportunity this time. That is one thing that I do regret. I did speak through phone calls and e-mails and so on, and that is the best you can do, but I can assure the people in my district, in my eleven years, I have never shied away from any issue. Whether they thought I was right or wrong, I have had my say.

To my constituents on the front lines in Baie Verte, good friends of mine, relatives of mine, if I could have been there to stand up and speak with them - of course, as many members know, in rural parts of Newfoundland and Labrador, it did not go throughout the seven days; it was Monday to Friday they had the picket lines in place - that was one thing that I regretted we could not do this time, because I would certainly stop and talk, as I have done going through the line out here, with comments and so on, and you expect that. We have all been elected and that is what we have to appreciate, that as democracy unfolded we are the members of this Chamber and we expect people in the union, the union leadership and all members, to express their views to us in different ways.

On that note, Mr. Speaker, I think any member in this House today, when we look back through history, as TV was unfolding over the last month or so, there was a lot of history shown of previous disruptions in public service throughout this Province over the years, with violence and different things that happened. We can all say, though, to all members of the public service, the way that they conducted themselves throughout this entire event - and I have said this to my own people in my own district - they have done an admirable job under the circumstances, because there was a lot of pressure on everybody. There was nobody immune to this situation, as we went through it.

Mr. Speaker, I understand the back and forth of the House, and the Opposition, and the position and the role they have had to play. I have done it myself. They have to do their job. Also, as government, I guess, we have to do the same thing. You come back and forth, and this has been a roller coaster, Mr. Speaker. When I hear people say it was planned, and that the legislation was there all along, I can only state what I know. I know that is not true. I know that on March 31, myself, along with many of my colleagues, from the last minutes leading up to midnight of March 31, we were excited. We thought we were getting close to a deal. We really believed we were close to a deal.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to go back into the debate of why we did not get there, or speculation, because it really does not matter. The truth of the matter is, I can tell you, from standing here tonight, that I really believed we were very close and possibly having a deal on March 31. I really believed that.

Mr. Speaker, that was just the beginning of the roller coaster. After that, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, who was leading the negotiations, was optimistic at times and then pessimistic at times. It was up, it was down. We thought we were going to have a settlement. Just like anybody else in the general public, outside of us as politicians, outside of the 20,000 people who were on strike, the general populous of this Province had a roller coaster. They believed one day. They were optimistic that something could happen, the same as we all did.

We are all human, Mr. Speaker, but there comes a time - and the point that we can make instead of going through every single detail again, as they talk about relevance here tonight, I do not think we can say the points over any more. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, none of us in this House tonight would want to be standing here voting for this particular piece of legislation, but we know that time has taken its course, Mr. Speaker. That is the reality of it. We went back and forth. It is the members of the union; it is also the population of this Province in its entirety. That is what we have to consider as government. It is a tough one. It is a tough one for everybody to swallow, but I am hearing from people who agree with us and do not agree with us, that there is one thing that is for sure: We have to move on. Whether it is with a bad taste or whether people agree or disagree, there is one thing that I find out for sure, and that is, people are saying that we have to move on one way or the other.

One way or the other, this Province has to move on, as far as the services that we provide to our population especially, Mr. Speaker, and we know that this is the history of every disruption that has ever been in this Province. The truth of the matter is, it came down to health care. It is always the one it comes down to. If you go back through history, that is the one that puts the most pressure on. Of course, education also, but especially heath care, because there in nobody in this Chamber or anywhere in this Province, when it comes to health and safety, and when we talk about life and death situations - that is a problem, Mr. Speaker. That is when it hits the wall, and that is when decisions have to be made.

Mr. Speaker, whether you agree with it or not, on the different aspects of this particular situation that we ourselves face in this Province tonight, we have to move on so that we can get some normal procedures going on in this Province again, so we can make sure that the service is provided, especially in health care, that our people are safe and that we can move on.

Mr. Speaker, as every single member stands here, whether you are experienced or not - and I have heard people talk about whether you are reading from notes, not reading from notes, if you are allowed to speak, if you are not allowed to speak. Mr. Speaker, I have been here eleven years. I speak when I want to. As a matter of fact, our Premier and this minister have encouraged every single one of us to stand and express our views in this House of Assembly. I will always do that. Mr. Speaker, when we cannot do that, it is time to move on.

I can tell you that there have been some good heart-to-heart discussions, some disagreements, some things that we thought we could move on with, but at the end of the day decisions have to be made. They are tough decisions, but that is it. That is what we face when we stand every day, in every single House, in every single seat in this Legislature. When we stand, we are representing a group of people in our particular areas of the Province, and some people will agree - I do not know any polls in my district, Mr. Speaker - and some people disagree. I can tell you that it is a decision that I believe has run its course and the time has come to move on with it. That is why we stand here tonight with this piece of legislation, not with a good feeling, Mr. Speaker. Nobody wanted it. I know nobody on this side of the House wanted it. You can say as much as you want about: we had legislation ready. If we did, Mr. Speaker, we would have had it ready in nine days, like the previous Administration had it ready. We did not have it ready, because we were working towards a solution. Whether the Premier met at a gas station or on a wharf, or anywhere it was, even if it was up to the night before this was finally passed, I am sure we would still meet, because we would all want a deal at the end of the day.

I commend every single member in this House, on all sides of the House, for standing up and stating their positions. That is what you are supposed to do. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, at the end of the day, it is a decision that we have to move on with in the best interest of the Province as a whole. That is what we have to remember, because instead of going into the long discussion that we had earlier tonight - yes, it is about the future; yes, it is about down the road, five or ten years, but it is about making decisions that are tough now, so that you and all of us in our districts, when we go out, and we cannot get five kilometres of road, when we see the deterioration of infrastructure in our Province, and safe drinking water, those are all issues that fall into this whole debate, Mr. Speaker. It is not isolated by itself. It is the bigger issue of the Province as a whole, and that is what we have to content with.

Mr. Speaker, those are my remarks. I could go on for another hour, I guess, like all of us could, but I think we have said it all here tonight and I am ready to move on.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to have a few brief comments on Bill 18. I did not speak in second reading or in Committee, but I did during the Budget Debate last Thursday, I believe it was, and made a few comments. Some of my comments at that time were related to Bill 18. I am not going to go over the same old ground again tonight. As some members have already indicated, just about everything that could be said on Bill 18 has been said by one member or the other, on one side of the House or the other, and by many people outside the House, Mr. Speaker.

Of course, on such an important piece of legislation as this, you would expect that views would be wide, would be very differing and very diverse, as the Member for Twillingate & Fogo indicated. I thank him for helping me out in searching for words. He always tries to help me out when we are into a bit of a difficult situation, as people, I am sure, will have witnessed over the past little while, in the shrimp and crab rackets that have been on the go.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 18, as many members have indicated here, is not a bill that anybody on this side of the House takes any great pleasure in having to bring before the House of Assembly. It is certainly not -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not something that I envisaged three-and-a-half years ago, thereabouts, when I first indicated that I was going to run for office.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, I say to some people who are heckling on the other side, we all in this House, and all outside of this House, recognize how easy it is to sit in Opposition and criticize the government. I did it for two-and-a-half years, but as the former Premier and the Leader of the Opposition said, when you take that fifteen-foot walk across the hall, the water on the beans changes a little bit.

Mr. Speaker, when you are on this side of the House over here - the Opposition side of the House - the job is to hold the government to account for their actions and to put their feet to the fire and challenge them at every turn to make sure that the issues are thoroughly debated. When you come to this side of the House, you have - whether for good or bad, better or worse, richer or poorer, or whatever you mind to say - to burden the responsibility of governing here in this Province, and we all recognize -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: Mr. Speaker, do you want to protect me from the people in the Opposition so I can have my comments in peace?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask members to give the member their full attention.

The hon. the Minister of Fisheries and Aquaculture, and Labrador Affairs.

MR. TAYLOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think we must be reaching the witching hour. The funny hour is starting to break out - although it is not very funny.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 18 has many -

MR. JOYCE: (Inaudible).

MR. TAYLOR: Will the Member for the Bay of Islands just calm down for another few minutes and I will talk for about five minutes, I will conclude debate, we will get on with voting on Bill 18, and this deed - good or bad - will done.

Mr. Speaker, Bill 18 provides, as it says in the title, for the resumption and continuation of public services. Yes, as many people have said, the public sector have resumed their duties. The public sector have gone back to work, so that part of the bill is not needed right now; but there is, in our estimation anyway, whether people on that side of the House or people in the public sector agree with us or not, it is our belief, and my belief, that we need to provide for the continuation of services. These negotiations have gone on for some months now. They went on in earnest for about a month and there has been no satisfactory conclusion reached at the negotiating table, and it is our belief right now that we must bring it to a conclusion here in the House of Assembly.

Mr. Speaker, I, as did many people on this side of the House, had to grapple with this. As some other members here said: We have family members who are out on the picket line. I have family members who were out on the picket line over the past month and I can tell you, they were not family members who could afford to be out on a picket line for twenty-seven days. I have to deal with that. That is my problem. It is their problem but it is my problem also. I will deal with that in good time. Right now I have reconciled what has happened over the past month in my own mind. I have come to the point where I am prepared to support Bill 18 right now. I am prepared to support Bill 18 because, one, we have to provide for the continuation of services. We have - and while some people might make light of it - to provide for stability in this Province. We have to provide the public services to the people of this Province, and we will do that here tonight with the passing of Bill 18.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of the negotiations - we have to give the benefit of the doubt, all sides have to give the benefit of the doubt, that negotiations took place in good faith. I believe that our side negotiated in good faith, and I will assume that the people on the other side of the table put their best foot forward and negotiated in good faith. Maybe they could not bring themselves to bring some of what we were proposing back to their membership, and that is their right. I understand that and I respect that but people also have to respect what is our responsibility. Our responsibility for the next three-and-a-half years until the next election - and whatever happens then, happens. We have the responsibility for governing this Province and to do it in the best way that we see fit, and that, Mr. Speaker, is what we are going to do. We do not take the issue of legislating people back to work, legislating contracts very lightly, not very lightly at all. Mr. Speaker, we will be held to account for this. There are people holding us accountable for it right now. In the public sector, in government, we will be held to account every four years in the form of an election. This is not something that is open to the people in the private sector. People in the private sector have to negotiate contracts or deal with the consequence of a strike or a lockout.

Well, Mr. Speaker, when Sobey's goes on strike or people go on strike at Sobey's, you can move over - when Dominion goes on strike, people have the choice to go to Sobey's to shop. When the health care system in this Province is held up by a strike, people do not have the luxury of walking down the road. Yes, we could refer this to binding arbitration - absolutely! - as has been indicated by many people throughout the Province and in this Legislature over the past couple of weeks. Yes, we could do that, Mr. Speaker. Binding arbitration only works when both parties agree to live with the outcome of the arbitration. We have seen many instances -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TAYLOR: We have seen many instances in this Province, both in the public sector and the private sector, in the recent past and the distant past, where people have not been prepared to live with the arbitrated settlement at the end of the day. We seen it back in the 1990s, when a previous Administration, after a contract was arrived at, decided to tear up the contract and roll back wages. That, Mr. Speaker, is not somewhere where we want to go. We saw it as recently as a month ago in the fishing industry, when two parties agreed to binding arbitration. When the decision was rendered on four items, two came down on the processors side, two came down on the union side. The union refused to accept the two issues that came down on the processors side. I am not here judging whether that was right or that was wrong. The parties, at the time, decided that they could not live with it. That happened - as the previous Minister of Fisheries knows - many times over the past three or four years.

In some cases the processing sector in the fishing industry shut down their plants because they could not live with the settlement. We have seen instances where fishermen have tied up their boats because they could not live with the settlement. We, Mr. Speaker, rightly or wrongly, have made a decision. That is why we are here with Bill 18 now, that we are not prepared to take the chance on arbitration. Now, the public will have to determine whether that is right or wrong, whether it is the right approach or the wrong approach, and serve judgement on us in due course. That is why I am standing here for this bill today, not because I wanted it to end this way. I had hoped, all the way through, that this was going to end in a negotiated settlement, but it has not. Right now, with the fiscal state of this Province, I, for one, fully support the decision that we made to not refer this to binding arbitration.

Mr. Speaker, with those few comments, I have said a lot more about the fiscal state of this Province over the past couple weeks, and I am sure I will say lots more about it over the next couple of weeks, but right now, on Bill 18 - we have come through a very painful month in this Province. It is time for us to put this issue to bed once and for all. The people of the Province, the people in the public sector, will have to judge us in due course, Mr. Speaker. They will judge us based on four years of actions, not on four weeks of actions. Yes, there will be a bitter taste in some people's mouths as a result of this, and I fully understand that and fully respect that, but at the end of the day, Mr. Speaker, everybody in this Province has to realize that this Province is in a serious financial state, and that there comes a point when a whole bunch of very distasteful decisions have to be made if we are going to deal with a $12 billion to $14 billion debt and an $840-odd million deficit on current account. Mr. Speaker, we cannot continue going on down this road. We have to take decisive action, and decisive action is what we are taking right now. For that reason, I will be voting in favour of Bill 18.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

In accordance with Standing Order 43, there will be no further members eligible to speak and there is no opportunity for a reply. The Chair will now put the motions in the following order. We will put the motion that this question be now put, and then if that is affirmed we will then put the original question.

All those in favour of the previous question motion that this question be now put say ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called. Call in the members.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: Is the Opposition ready for the question?

Those in favour of the previous question motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Williams, Mr. Ottenheimer, Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Rideout, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Marshall, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Sullivan, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Fitzgerald, Ms Sheila Osborne, Mr. French, Ms Burke, Mr. Tom Osborne, Ms Whalen, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Denine, Mr. Manning, Mr. Harding, Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Jackman, Ms Johnson, Ms Goudie, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Oram, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Ridgley.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Grimes, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Langdon, Ms Thistle, Mr. Reid, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Sweeney, Ms Foote, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Harris, Mr. Collins.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

CLERK: Mr. Speaker, thirty-one ayes and thirteen nays.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

On motion, the previous question motion carried.

MR. SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion that Bill 18, entitled, An Act To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation Of Public Services be read a third time?

All those in favour, ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called. Call in the members.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: Are the Whips ready for the decision?

All those in favour of the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Williams, Mr. Ottenheimer, Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Rideout, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Sullivan, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Fitzgerald, Ms Sheila Osborne, Mr. French, Ms Burke, Mr. Tom Osborne, Ms Whalen, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Denine, Mr. Manning, Mr. Harding, Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Jackman, Ms Johnson, Ms Goudie, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Oram, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Ridgley.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Grimes, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Langdon, Ms Thistle, Mr. Reid, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Sweeney, Ms Foote, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Harris, Mr. Collins.

Mr. Speaker, thirty-one ayes and thirteen nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

This bill has now been read a third time and it is ordered that the bill do pass and its title be as on the Order Paper.

On motion, a bill, "An Act To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation Of Public Services," read a third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. ( Bill 18)

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Before I move an adjournment motion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to move, pursuant to Standing Order 11, that this House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. nor 10:00 p.m. on Monday, May 10, 2004.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I move that this House now adjourn until Monday, May 10, 2004.

When the House is ready, I will speak to the motion.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion has been made that this House do now adjourn until Monday, May 10, at 1:30 p.m.

Are the members ready for the question?

The hon. the Acting Government House Leader, first speaker to the motion.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly make a few remarks on the adjournment motion. My colleague, the Government House Leader, I think, informed the House some time ago, because of the public service strike and so on, that we would defer the normal Easter break that this House normally takes. We did not say, Mr. Speaker, that there would not be any break at all.

What the government is proposing here today in this motion, is that the House take a break for actually two government days: tomorrow, Tuesday - Wednesday is Private Members' Day - and the other government day, of course, is Thursday. So, we are proposing that the House take a very short break for a couple of days to allow government and members of this House to catch up on a number of things that have been falling behind over the last month. There is no great conspiracy here, Mr. Speaker. It is two government days. The House will come back again next Monday.

Mr. Speaker, I am having difficulty -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the House will come back again in three parliamentary days, Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, because Friday this House does not normally sit, as everybody knows,

MR. JOYCE: It is three (inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: It is two government days, I say to the Member for Bay of Islands, two government days, a Private Members' Day, so it is three parliamentary days.

Mr. Speaker, this House will then come back on Monday, May 10, and we will sit as long as necessary. We will sit into June or July, if we have to, to do the public's business.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is very much to ask, that there be a brief recess for three parliamentary days so that members can get around to catching up on some of the things that they have not be able to do. I am certainly not going anywhere, Mr. Speaker. If I get a chance to go to my district, that is about as far as I will be going. I think, from talking to members on this side, that is where most of us are coming from. We do plan to do that. In past years, Mr. Speaker, it has been normal that the House take a break around Easter time. Sometimes it has been sixteen to eighteen days, I understand.

We are proposing, therefore, that the House take a very brief recess, a brief recess of three parliamentary days, and then we will be back to work again next Monday.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. RIDEOUT: Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I move that this question be now put.

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

Any further speakers?

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to prolong this. The Acting House Leader may have panicked again, in putting the gag order on us, for no reason. I would like to, just in debating the motion to adjourn, which is a properly debatable motion, Mr. Speaker, so that again everyone understands what happened, the last motion given by the House Leader again restricts any of us, if we did want to debate it at some length -

AN HON. MEMBER: Or amend it.

MR. GRIMES: - or make any amendment that it not be Monday, that it might be the week after, or we might even suggest to the government that maybe we take a longer break, nobody can predict what any one of us would say without hearing us speak first.

Mr. Speaker, again, right off the bat, at the instruction of the Premier, make no doubt about it, the Acting House Leader puts in another gag order on the Opposition to limit the ability to debate the motion - again, within the limits, though, which I understand provide for me to have an hour to speak. So, at 2:30 or so, I will finish speaking and then others will decide whether they want to join in or not. Basically, we have gone through a couple of things that are odd and strange and different and remarkable. So, sit back and relax now, or go out and get yourself a cup of coffee, whatever you want to do, because you have your business done, but there is other business that other people feel is important in the Legislature as well.

Mr. Speaker, maybe a little bit of a history lesson with respect to this issue -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: We have had an unusual start to this first session, the first session here in the first sitting of the Forty-Fifth Assembly. For starters, we have supposedly an agreed-to calender in which I was one of the people, after the election - the agreed-to calender was that we should have had a legislative session before Christmas, and I was very accommodating and very understanding. As a matter of fact, I said to the people of the Province, and passed the message along to the government, that since they were new, since they had just gotten elected, I could understand if they were not going to be ready in November to bring a full agenda to the House of Assembly. I was not going to be out knocking on doors, insisting that we open the Legislature before Christmas, but I certainly expected them to be ready some time early in the new year, certainly at the time when we were normally supposed, by our Standing Orders, to meet.

Lo and behold, what do we then find but that the government says to the people of the Province: We are not ready - and they delayed the normal opening of the House for the spring, after having no session at all in the fall, to a later date. Then, of course, it was only a matter of days and we had the Throne Speech. A few days later we had a Budget, and a day or so after that we had a strike.

In the normal calendar which we already, with the new government, put aside twice - they had already put it aside twice. They put it aside in the fall and we did not object. They put it aside with the start here in the spring, which we did have some serious objection to, and then, because there was a strike, obviously it made sense that no government in its right mind was going to propose that ten days after coming into the Legislature, with 20,000 public employees on a proper, legal, authorized strike, that you would close down the Legislature, they made the right decision. They decided to forego what is normally referred to as an Easter break in the schedule.

We were late starting so we had hardly been here long enough to need a break anyway, but with a strike there was certainly going to be no break. Everybody here understood that. None of us - well, I cannot say none of us, because at least one of us decided to have his own break and took some time in Florida to make up the speech that he was going to make tonight about how concerned he was about the 20,000 strikers and back-to-work legislation and so on, but everybody else, to my knowledge, took their duties very seriously and responsibly and decided the priority was right here. Now we get a reminder that the Government House Leader did say, and it was done publicly, that we would not take the Easter break because there was a strike on - it made perfect sense to everybody - and unilaterally said: We will consider taking a break when the strike is over.

If you are going to break from the rules that are in our Standing Orders, our normal practice, you would think that there would be some consultation. Maybe it is the same kind of consultation that went on in the negotiations. The consultation was a notification, a unilateral notification: Here is what we plan to do, whether we agree or not.

Mr. Speaker, the deferral to now, which the Acting House Leader presents tonight, is to say: Okay, let's take the rest of this week off. It is not much to it. It is only a couple of days. It is no big deal.

Let's put it in the context of what he also presented. He said: We are going to take the rest of the week off - because they have no business that is urgent, important and necessary, nothing that they see they would like to do tomorrow. It must be quite an agenda they have here before us, not one thing they can see that is important enough that they can do tomorrow. We have everybody in town. People travelled in from out in their districts. They travelled from Labrador. They usually come in. Therefore, if you travel in, you are in for the whole week and then you go back home on the weekend. Now they are going to close the House and say: Oh, go on home tomorrow. Come in for one day. Come back the next weekend.

Guess the other motion. Let me remind people, Mr. Speaker, the other motion that was just made. It was that, when you come back next Monday, by the way, all of a sudden then, there is going to be something so urgent that we are going to stay all night again. We cannot do it tomorrow. We cannot have it in Question Period on Wednesday. We cannot do other things on Wednesday. We cannot do anything on Thursday; but, when you come back on Monday, the motions are already presented to say: We are not going to finish at 5:30 p.m., which is the normal time. We are not going to finish at 10:00 p.m., even if you stay in the night and Your Honour, as Speaker, adjourns, because if we do not finish the business at 5:30 p.m. there is a procedure for the Speaker to adjourn, start again at 7:00 p.m. and then adjourn at 10:00 p.m. So he did not even leave that procedure in place. He gives us notice today that after your rest - we are not asking for a rest. We are ready to do the business. We are ready to challenge the government on its agenda and the business it wants to get done, but - after the rest, when your rest is over and you come back here, you are going to sit day and night. Then, all of a sudden, something must be pretty urgent, but it is not even important enough - it must be like the strike we just went through. One day we are coping, the next day we are coping, the next day we are coping. That went on for twenty-one days. On the twenty-second day the elastic band was ready to snap, the balloon was ready to burst. So tomorrow there is nothing worth even talking about on the government's agenda. Wednesday, nothing worth talking about! Thursday, nothing worth talking about! But, next Monday when we come back, it is all going to build up and be so urgent that you are not going to finish 5:30 p.m., you are not going to finish 10:00 p.m. We are likely to be here paying people overtime again. Running up bills and spending money that we do not have. That is the circumstance, Mr. Speaker. That is what we have.

Now, let me make this other point so the members can relax. I was speaking in jest when I said I was going to speak for an hour. It is important I think, and worth making the point that I am making now - and I do not know if anybody else is going to speak to it or not, maybe not - because we know, just like you just did, you are going to get your own way anyway. It is only a matter of when we stop talking then you are going to stand up and vote to go home. Even though we do not understand it, by the way. We do not think the people of the Province are really going to understand it. You are going to vote to go home because you want a rest. The poor, tired government, with a majority of thirty-four members against fourteen poor little souls in Opposition, is beat out. The great, big, massive, majority government are exhausted! They cannot work another day. They cannot bring themselves to come back to the Legislature and work for another day at the items that are there.

What did we just finish doing tonight, though? We started a debate, Mr. Speaker. We started a debate almost twelve hours ago today. Straight through! At just before two-thirty the Acting Government House Leader again cut off the right of people to present petitions. They are not even allowed to present a petition about a school, a health clinic, a ferry service - which the people out in the district sign and want members to present to the Legislature. He cut off that debate because he did not want to hear any of that. He cut off the debate so we could spend the last twelve hours - eleven and a bit technically, but close enough, round it off to twelve hours - straight debating a totally, completely unnecessary piece of legislation in which we were not allowed to make any amendments.

A very serious piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker. Granted, twelve hours straight - let me put that in the context of days, the parliamentary days that the Acting Government House Leader talked about. Twelve hours straight - on a normal parliamentary day there are four hours. One hour which is usually business - like Question Period, Petitions, Notices of Motion - and three hours and a little bit of debate on whatever bill the government says, whatever legislation the government says is important. What we just finished doing - for context, what we just finished doing from 2 o'clock today until almost 2 o'clock in the morning is the same as being here for four government days. It is the same as if we have been here Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and the following Monday. As the Acting House Leader points out for the government, you cannot do government business in debate on a Wednesday, which is a Private Member's Day.

So, it is important enough for us to invest four days worth of time on a completely, totally, unnecessary bill to send people back to work who have been working for a week. It was so important that we were not even allowed to amend it; were not allowed to try to make improvements to it; were not allowed to make any sense to it. It just had to be done because the Premier wanted it done and told them it was time to do it. He got them all up to make their nice, prepared, little speeches. We heard it all. We just had twelve hours of it. We will not go through that again. That is four days worth, and now they have nothing that is important enough to do tomorrow or Thursday. When we come back Monday, what are we going to do, cram in four more days worth? Are we going to be here until 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock in the morning? It just makes no sense.

Let me put this in context, not to belabour it, Mr. Speaker, but on the Order Paper for tomorrow we could be debating, An Act To Amend The Fire Prevention Act, 1991. I am sure the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs would like to get that bill started in debate. It is not important enough for tomorrow though, Mr. Speaker, but next Monday we might do that and five or six other bills all in the one day; between the day and the night with overtime costs and all the rest. There is an act to amend the Municipal Affairs Act, I am sure he wants that done. He just said yes. So, let's do it tomorrow. It is not important enough, but next Monday, I suppose, it will be urgent. The band will break, the balloon will burst. We will have to stay day and night and try to ram it all through the Legislature. We will probably be limiting debate again. No amendments allowed; hobnail boot. That seems to be the style of anything in what we have seen in the first few days.

Then you have the Emergency Measures Act. I am sure the minister would love to have that done. There are ten of them there like that, Mr. Speaker. None of which are worth doing tomorrow. Then there are some finance bills, some motions. One, for example, the Minister of Finance to move that we resolve the House into a Committee of the Whole to consider certain resolutions respecting the imposition of taxes on tobacco. They have raised the price of tobacco in the Budget, and we are supposed to have a debate on the motion to make it legal and proper, to give effect to it. It is not important enough to start that tomorrow. We are here ready to do it. The government wants a rest and they are trying to say: But it is only a couple of days.

Then, of course, auto insurance. The question was asked: Could we expect to see the legislation before Easter? The minister was not allowed to answer. The Premier got up and said: Yes, I think so, because we have our plan. We have had it since last October. We have made a few refinements. There is no sign of that. Now Easter is long over. The bill is not even here, not yet introduced. We could stay tomorrow and they could give us the auto insurance reform bill so we could at least start studying it, but, no, that is not important. That is not urgent. There is no freeze of rates in place, but that has to wait until at least next Monday before we even see it. So you get those kinds of considerations.

Fundamentally then, Mr. Speaker, I will finish up by saying this: I think the adjournment is a mistake. I think the adjournment to next week - even though the Acting House Leader says it is only a couple of days, we just did four days' work today; considered important. It is very telling because I believe it shows a lack of respect for the Legislature. I think it shows that these items that are on this Order Paper then are not important or significant at all. They are not worth doing.

Mr. Speaker, there was one other telling comment that was made by the Acting House Leader and by the Premier. Some of it was said in the Legislature and some of it, again, as usual, was said just outside the doors for the media. In the Legislature, the language was: Well - I think I will get it close to right. He says: The government needs to catch up on some things that got delayed while we were dealing with the strike and this legislation. Now, the acknowledgment is this, they are saying that with a majority of thirty-four of forty-eight seats that they cannot find a way to run the affairs and business of the government. There has not been a strike to deal with, by the way, for a week.

There has been a totally unnecessary piece of legislation that, for some reason, we could not get it through their heads that they still wanted. They made speeches tonight saying we have to have it. I mean, the craziest speeches I have ever heard. The most inane, foolish speeches I have ever heard about needing to do something that was already finished. So, again, there is nothing like that to deal with. They are saying that they are incapable of doing the affairs of the government and providing for a debate in the Legislature at the same time. I wonder how governments have managed, Mr. Speaker, since 1949? Have they shut down government every time the Legislature opens? That is not what happens. Is every single member and minister expected to be here every single day? No. Many of the ministers might have some meetings. Sure, they can go on to their meetings and leave the rest in the Legislature.

The Government House Leader is doing the right thing today in his capacity as the Minister of Natural Resources. He is representing the Province at a function that is important to Newfoundland and Labrador, the Offshore Technology Conference, and that is why we have the Acting House Leader doing the job - because there are other people over there who can do the job. He has done a great job today on behalf of the government. It is totally unnecessary what he has done, as I see it, but he has done a very good job in terms of getting the right motions in place, following the right procedures, making sure that the government business got done.

So, the House does not have to shut down because the House Leader is not here. The House of Assembly does not have to shut down because the Premier might have a few meetings he wants to catch up on. The House of Assembly does not have to shut down because the Minister of Health and Community Services might like to meet with a few extra people. The House of Assembly does not have to shut down because the Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, who could not meet with some people last week during the strike - would not meet with them, I should say. The first part was, could not meet because they would not cross the picket line to come in. Then she would not go out to meet with them at a hotel because it was an inconvenience to her to have to leave her little perch, go out through a picket line and meet some people who were here from all over Newfoundland and Labrador to see her.

They are saying: We can't do the business of the government. We need to catch up on our business. We have been putting extra time in the Legislature. I tell you what, you did not need to use any of this time today. Not one bit of it, but you chose to do so. So, it is all about choices. Then, of course, the telling comments - and they will say: Oh, this is a personal attack again - of the Premier outside the door saying to the media: I should not be in here today. I should be in Houston. That is what he said to the media: I am the Premier. I should be in Houston promoting the Province. Well, if he had the confidence in all the people to stand up, he could have been in Houston. If he thought that was a priority to go and do his job as the Minister of Business, the Premier and the Minister Responsible for Intergovernmental Affairs, if he thought the priority today was that he should be in Houston at the Offshore Technology Conference - which is what he told the media. He has not said it in the Legislature - then there was nothing to stop the Premier from leaving; unless he did not trust the other thirty-three to do what he said unless he was sitting around like he did tonight looking up in their faces as they made their speeches, checking to see that they were following the script and doing a little evaluation to see if they looked good in Cabinet clothes at a later date

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GRIMES: So, Mr. Speaker, I see it as a big mistake. I think it is fraught with a whole pile of questions about the confidence of this government and their ability to walk and chew gum at the same time. Imagine, they cannot allow for a debate to proceed with - supposing only twenty-five of them showed up tomorrow; supposing it was down to twenty-five. What are they afraid they are going to lose the government to fourteen of us? Supposing it was down to fifteen. Sure, twenty of you can go home. You have no fear of losing the government. Just carry on with your business and allow for the debate. But, no, what do they need? They need a break so they can catch up on government business. They do not want any more questions this week. They did not like the questions for the last month and they are going to like them even less when they come back.

Mr. Speaker, I will just make those points and say there are a whole pile of questions. I am saddened by seeing a government, fresh off a great, new mandate, eager to do the business of the people of the Province, have a strike that has been over for a week and now they have nailed the coffin shut on it to make sure it never starts again; that this crowd never goes on strike again while they are the government, not for four years. They are not allowed to even think about the word strike again. It is not in their vocabulary. That is what the bill did tonight. That is what that said. So, you do not have to worry about a strike. Now, all of a sudden they have no energy to get on with growing the economy, bringing forward the legislation, dealing with the second prong. None of that is going to happen. None of it is important enough. Let's take a break.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, I have made my point. I think it shows a government that has no initiative, no energy, no drive, no ability to operate and function. The one-man show needs a couple of days off. He does not trust them to be in the House by themselves because they might not say what they are supposed to say. They might not do what their supposed to do if he is not there to look at them, and stare at them, and admire them when they make great speeches, like the Member for Windsor-Springdale did tonight. The transcript, of which Doug Letto already has and now all he wants is the picture to go with it, to show the Member for Windsor-Springdale one week, the brand new Member for Windsor-Springdale the next week.

Mr. Speaker, I will not prolong it any longer. I am not even sure if anybody else wants to engage in a debate, so the Acting House Leader wasted his time trying to gag us. We know you can get your way and we know that you are determined to get your way whenever you feel like it because that is how much respect you have for debate. Open debate, full debate, thorough debate, complete debate and a real democracy - you have none. This is just one more example of it that people will remember for a long time as this first impression that this new government is making continues to sink into people as to what it is that they have really elected to govern, rule, run, control Newfoundland and Labrador for the next three-and-a-half years, and then we will all put our futures in the hands of the electorate one more time, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the debate, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to say a few words about the adjournment motion. I speak in opposition to the adjournment motion, but in doing so, I just want to say that I noticed a very disturbing trend with this new government since the House was opened. During the election campaign and shortly thereafter, I have heard lots of talk of a new approach to everything, a new approach to the House of Assembly. We were going to have family-friendly hours. I remember that, family-friendly hours. I did not think that family-friendly hours were going to mean that every time we came into the House we were going to have a motion from the Government House Leader saying: We will not close at 5:30, we will not close at 10:00. I think there must have been at least four, five or six of those since we sat - at least four, five or six of those, starting the first week we started sitting.

AN HON. MEMBER: The first day.

MR. HARRIS: The first day.

We had the closure motion on this bill before there was one word of debate. Before a single speaker said a word, we had a closure motion. We had one day of debate on this bill for the second reading and the committee. The second reading operated under a form of closure, the same one just used by the Acting House Leader. Second reading operated under Standing Order 43 closure. Then we had the debate on Committee of the Whole, and not even members who wanted to speak were allowed to speak, only those who could manage to speak before 1:00. We did not start until 11:30. So only a certain number of members who were able to speak between 11:30 and 1:00 were allowed to speak. That was the first day of the debate. No amendments were allowed at second reading, and that was after the strike was over. The strike ended as we were speaking.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this week, all of a sudden it is urgent. We have to go until 1:30 in the morning, and every member opposite has to get up and speak; not in debate. The debate was over because there was no debate back and forth. It was almost like last week when we all spoke and they did not speak. So, no debate, but everybody - to a person - on the opposite side had to get up and say their piece, and they had to do that until 1:30 in the morning. Why, Mr. Speaker? Was there an urgency today that I do not know about? I did not hear any members opposite mention it. I do not know what it was. There is no reason why this debate, that took place today, could not take place today, tomorrow, Thursday, next week, the week after, whenever the family-friendly hours permitted it, because there is no urgency, no reason to have us here all night tonight and try and take two or three days off the rest of the week.

The Opposition Leader was talking about the conduct of government business while the House is open. Now, the Government of Canada seems to manage to get on from September until June. They do not shut down the government from September to June because the House of Commons is in session. I have not noticed that. Is there anyone opposite who noticed that? They have a whole country to run. Maybe they just run the government of the country and not the country because this crowd seems to run the Province. They do not want to just run the government, they want to run the Province. Maybe if they concentrated on running the government and stop trying to run the Province they might be a little bit better off and they would not have to worry about closing the House for three or four days.

Mr. Speaker, we have a very unusual circumstance here. We have a brand new government with a brand new mandate with an expectation that things are going to be a little different, that the House is supposed to be a bit more democratic perhaps. You know, that is what we expected. This is part of the expectations that this group created when they ran for public office last fall. What are we seeing? We are seeing a little bit more of what I read in the Maclean's article. Now, some people were disturbed by other things in the Maclean's article, but the thing that disturbed me the most about the Maclean's article was when the Premier was asked about the opening of the House. His response to that was very interesting, and it was a bit flip. Granted, it was supposed to be a joke. It was a bit flip, but what he said was: I don't think we are going to open it at all. Then when he made some comments: Well, it is not very productive. We are going to try and make it more productive.

Now, I do not know about productivity but I know a little bit about democracy. To me, the kind of democracy that I signed on for, when I ran for public office, involved the Legislature having an important role in a democracy. That does not mean coming in here under the closure motion every chance they get, or when the Acting House Leader gets up on an adjournment motion and brings in closure for fear it might be amended. Mr. Speaker, that is what motions are for. That is what legislation is for. If the people in this House are going to participate in the legislative process, then there has to be a role for members to amend legislation. The Committee of the Whole House, what is that for? That is to discuss clause by clause every section of the bill and offer amendments, and debate, ten minutes, ten minutes, ten minutes, ten minutes, so we could actually get into the meat of something and propose amendments, make changes and consider the rules.

I have been in this House every session in this Legislature, in this building, in this new House, since it moved down from upstairs. I have been here every session, and in all these sessions we have had legislation, contentious legislation. There have been six-month hoists. There have been amendments in committee. There have been filibusters, all sorts of things, and eventually sometimes people bring in closure.

They had a bit of an excuse last week as the strike had not quite ended when the debate started, but it was over before the debate was over. So they could have put it off. They had no excuse today. None. So now we have two motions. One is, we will have a Notice of Motion for next Monday. Now, I do not know what they have in mind for next Monday, folks. I do not know what crisis is going to be upon us by next Monday, what planned crisis there is. Obviously, they have a planned crisis of some sort because by next Monday: We shall not close at 5:30 and we shall not close at 10:00. We shall not have an amended motion. So it cannot be the eleventh, it has to be the tenth. We have to come back here on the tenth. We are not allowed to close at 5:30 and we are not allowed to close at 10:00, because of some manufactured crisis about to be visited upon us. The family-friendly hours will start again next week. Start again next week at 1:30 and go on until 1 o'clock in the morning or 2 o'clock or 3 o'clock or whatever. We are here at 2 o'clock now. I am sure all of our families are delighted to have us here. I am sure all of our families are delighted to have us here at 2 o'clock in the morning debating a motion under a form of closure by the Acting House Leader. Why? No one has told us why.

If the Premier wants to go to Houston, he can go to Houston. No one is stopping him from going to Houston. He could have gone to Houston today. He can go tomorrow. He could have gone yesterday. The negotiations that he is talking about with the public sector unions were not really going to go anywhere anyway. He knew that because he was insisting upon something he knew that they could never agree to. Members opposite all dutifully got up tonight, one after the other after the other, and gave their comments on this legislation, but no one told us why we were passing it tonight. No one has told us what bill we are going to be calling next Tuesday or next Monday the tenth, and what the urgency is. Whatever it is, it is be passed or we sit until 11 o'clock or 12 o'clock or 1 o'clock to pass it. What is going on, Mr. Speaker? Can someone over there enlighten us in this debate, or is the idea to keep everybody in the dark? It is going to be government by ambush here. Legislature by ambush.

You want the House closed for three or four days so we can go off and do something else, plan our strategy for next Monday, for the family-friendly hours, and we will all come back then.

Well, Mr. Speaker, the House is open. There is a lot of business to be discussed. There are a lot of questions to be asked. It has been a great diversion, in some ways, for the last month, with 20,000 people on the street. The Budget that they passed the day before the strike has not really had an opportunity to be properly debated.

While we are here, Mr. Speaker, we should start that process. We should get into the Question Period tomorrow and the next day and the next day. There are three days of Question Period. It may be two government business days, Mr. Speaker, but there are three Question Periods.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: That is an idea. Maybe somebody over there can comment on that, the polling period. This is the time when the Corporate Research Associates are doing the polling. They are going to be asking questions over the next four or five days, and they are hoping that if the House is closed people will not be paying attention to it. The news media might be covering something else. Well, I have news for them, Mr. Speaker. The poll that was taken last week about the back-to-work legislation was taken before people even knew what was in it. People did not know what was in that legislation. They did not know that the government was threatening to dismiss people if they did not go back to work immediately and with the most regressive legislation in Canadian history. Ninety-two percent of the people were opposed to the notion of legislation, Mr. Speaker. Now they do not want us to remind them tomorrow and the next day and the next day and make sure the public is aware of what this government is doing, because they are afraid that the polls will be even worse than they think they are going to be. Maybe that is the real reason.

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to say much more. I said what I had to say. I would like to have somebody over there explain why it is that we are adjourning until the tenth to have another full day, all-night session, on something or other that has yet to be announced, some yet to be notified crisis that we are going to have visited upon us next week.

AN HON. MEMBER: Some emergency.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Some emergency. Well, perhaps the other side can tell us what emergency is going to be put together between now and May 10.

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would just like to take a few moments, as well, to speak to the motion of adjournment and maybe a few facts that may or may not be known to the government members - but I am certain that the public are not aware of them, and I think the public ought to be aware of them - that concern the conversations that I had, as Opposition House Leader, this past Friday, with the Government House Leader, who is in Houston as we speak.

We operate under a calendar here. The calendar is well-known to everyone. You start, normally, on the second Tuesday in March. You take a break for Easter and you go to the Thursday before the May 24 weekend. That is the normal calendar. It is set out in the rules and our practices and, from time to time, with all parties' consent, you can change the practice rules. That is normally how it works.

Now, government decided not to have a legislative session back in the fall. That was understandable. The election was in October. They needed some time to get organized, form a Cabinet, get an agenda ready and come into the House. We were a bit late coming in, in March, but no big deal. We were pretty well on schedule with the calendar as it was. Everybody understands why we did not have the planned Easter break. It was for very obvious reasons. There was a strike in the Province. Twenty thousand public sector workers were gone. That is why we did not have the anticipated break.

It is funny. We have worked about twenty-four days so far this year. So far in this session, we have worked about twenty-four days, which happens to be the same number we have been talking about all day on the sick leave. I do not know if they made themselves sick talking about sick leave all day or what, but it is an attitudinal thing as well. It is an attitude. I spoke on this earlier, a couple of weeks ago, when I talked about the Budget and the attitude of some of the new members, particularly the ministers. I said: Be careful, because the people are watching and the public see the first impressions.

There may not be too many people in the public watching tonight, but you can be sure, if they are, they are seeing again another taste of what I alluded to a week or so ago. That is that little touch of arrogance. They say power is an aphrodisiac. There is no question -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the members on this side over here to keep the noise down a little so that the Opposition House Leader can continue his address to the House.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sorry I am interfering with the government's intended work break, but I think I am allowed a few moments to speak to this motion so I might continue here.

We did not get our planned break, as we had thought in Easter, for very obvious reasons. I spoke to the Government House Leader on Friday past. I was travelling across the Province. I left here early Friday morning, and when I got to about Springdale Junction I called him. I said: I hear different things on the Open Lines and on the newscast this morning about where we may or may not be going next Monday, but what is the score? - which is usual. Myself and him talk virtually every day that the House is in session, in terms of planning and what he wants to do and where we are going to go. I said: What is the score for Monday? Do not know where we are regarding Bill 18? Because the proposal was still in the hands of the unions and they were debating the parking lot agreement, we will call it, and the Premier had given them some time over the weekend to think about it and he had apparently said if they did not buy it, well, we are back on to Bill 18 come Monday. If they do buy the agreement, well, there will probably be no need for Bill 18 on Monday.

That was our discussion. I said: Fine, so that takes you to Monday. We will not know that until Monday. I made it quite clear to him and I said: I understand you want to go to Houston, as the Minister of Natural Resources. He had indicated to me a few days earlier that he would have liked to have gone to Houston, and the Premier would have liked to have gone to Houston. I said to him on Friday: Regardless of what happens on Monday with Bill 18, you have my undertaking.

Now, the lawyers over there would know that if a lawyer, a person, gives their undertaking, it is better if I give you my undertaking than if I write it down for you. Take my word on it. I said to the Government House Leader: You have my undertaking; we would like the House to stay open. We have only been in here twenty-four days. We see no reason why it should close. A lot of the members, about twenty-five out of the forty-eight of us, have a fair distance to travel. We have the Member for Lake Melville, who comes in from Labrador, the Member for Torngat Mountains, from Labrador. I come from across the Province. If we have to go back on Monday, anyway, to do Bill 18, and incur the cost - the Member for Stephenville East flew in this morning, the same as I did - if we have to come back on Monday, and we do not know right now if we are or we aren't, because of Bill 18, why can't we at least stay open until Thursday? We are in town. We have all incurred the cost of coming into town. You have my undertaking that if you do any legislation there will be no disruption whatsoever from the Opposition, but we can get through some of the eleven items that are on the Order Paper in terms of legislation. I said: If you have a concern even about any of the financial matters and non-confidence issues, don't even call them - because I knew, and he had said he wanted to go to Houston. I said: No problem. You wanted to go. We have no problem with that whatsoever, from our co-operation point of view, for you and the Premier.

That has to be known, that is not an issue here, that anyone could or could not go anywhere. That was understood and made quite clear by the Opposition House Leader to the Government House Leader last Friday. That is not a reason for having to take a break.

I notice as well - it is funny - you talk about the perceptions of people, and what you say one day and what you say the next. It will come back to haunt you. Seriously, it will. The Government House Leader said, on April 29, last Thursday, the last words he uttered, "I am going to move that the House sit beyond 5:30 p.m. and 10:00 p.m., and I will tell you why, because we plan to put a motion next week to adjourn the House up until Monday, May 10. His Opposition House Leader told me that they plan to debate it, and it is a debatable motion. He also told me that everyone of them are going to debate it." - and this was a very telling comment from the Government House Leader last Thursday here in this House - "So, in order to do that and facilitate that and give them all the time they want, I am going to move, according to Standing Order 11, that the House not adjourn at 5:30 p.m. on Monday nor at 10:00 p.m. on Monday."

That is the stated reason from the Government House Leader in this House to the people of this House and this Province last Thursday, to allow us as much time as we would want to debate this debatable motion of adjournment.

What did we get tonight from the Acting Government House Leader? Right away, that is out the window, his Government House Leader's comments of Thursday scrapped absolutely. I certainly, as a courtesy, never got any calls from the Government House Leader saying there was any change from what I was told on Thursday, and what we discussed on Friday.

The Acting Government House Leader stood up tonight and, in making this motion, invoked Standing Order 43 in direct contravention of what the Government House Leader had said in the printed word of Hansard last Thursday, that we would have all the time we wanted.

I also explained to the Acting Government House Leader today, when we had a chat earlier this evening, I said I am not sure, at this point, how many people are going to speak to the adjournment motion on this side - but you notice the attitude, and that is the disturbing piece about it. No one came back, since our conversation, and even said to me, as a courtesy: Are we having one? Are we having two? Do I need to invoke Standing Order 43? Where are we going with this? No, that is not how it was done. The Acting Government House Leader stood up and, without the courtesy of even asking how many people were going to speak to it, invoked Standing Order 43.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) did not know.

MR. PARSONS: Absolutely. Absolutely. I told the Acting Government House Leader I did not know, when he asked me, whether we were going to have one speaker or two speakers. That was what I told him, but he certainly never came back to me at any time and said: Do you have a more definitive idea on where we are going with this? Do I need to do Standing Order 43?

It shows, again, the attitude. It is: Take nobody at their word, trust no one, impose our will as we want. That is exactly what we have seen here again tonight, as we have seen from the Leader of the NDP talking about closure being invoked and Section 43 here all this past week.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: That is exactly what we see here in terms of attitude. I have not heard a reason. Has it been a tough month? Has it been a tough week? Have your speeches worn all of you out? Are you trying to avoid a Question Period? What is the real reason that this government wants to take a break? Again, you talk about inconsistencies. We get one thing on Thursday from the Government House Leader, we get the actions of the Acting House Leader tonight vis-B-vis Section 43, and at the same time that we need this urgent, urgent, break because we have worked for twenty-four days so far this year, we are telling you that when you come back next Monday be prepared to stay up all night because we do not know what it is - we cannot tell you what it is - but we are going to have something mighty important come next Monday, so we are going to work the night shift again next Monday, all of which, again, is in contradiction of what they said, themselves, in their Blue Book about family-friendly House of Assembly. I am just at a loss. I am at a loss to figure out where this crowd want to go.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if there is some misunderstanding that we may have conveyed to the government, that we do not want to be here or that we do not want to work or that we will not allow them to do their work. They need only ask. We fully understand that this is a numbers game and a rules game - a numbers game and a rules game - and it is very straightforward. You people have thirty-four in number; we only have fourteen. There is nothing but nothing that you want or might want to do in this House that your numbers cannot control; but, like any game, like any job, it works a lot smoother if someone at least converses with you and communicates where we would like to go and what we would like to do.

We have seen zero co-operation here, and that attitude, that pervasive attitude of arrogance and power, we have seen another example of it right here tonight, and the people out there, the Joe Chesterfields, I say, the Joe Chesterfields, the people who are all-knowing but sit out there and have a lot of common sense, those are the people who get the message. It does not matter about us fourteen people over here getting the message, because that attitude on whether you open a House or close a House, and even having the courtesy to talk to someone about it, Joe Chesterfield notices that arrogance.

So, I guess, if you are intent on having a bunch who do not want to work, who, without explanation want to go home, who cannot tell anybody, particularly the public, why they want to go home but simply say, as the Leader of the Opposition said earlier tonight, we own the ball, we own the stick, we own the net and we are going home.

Well, all we can say to the public of Newfoundland is: Let it be understood, Mr. Speaker, that it was not anyone over here in the Opposition who wanted to take Tuesday off, Wednesday off and Thursday off. The fourteen members over here are quite willing and prepared to stay here, to go to work. There is work to be done, and it is quite clear that the people who are tired, the people who have no sense of wanting to go to work, the people who want a break, are all on the other side of this House.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Are we ready for the question?

The question is that this question be now put.

All those in favour of the motion, signify by saying ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has asked, all those in favour of the motion, the question now be put, say ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded, ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: Division, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Division has been called.

Bring in the members.

Division

MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Williams, Mr. Ottenheimer, Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Rideout, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Jack Byrne, Mr. Sullivan, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Mr. Shelley, Mr. French, Ms Burke, Mr. Tom Osborne, Ms Whalen, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Wiseman, Mr. Denine, Mr. Manning, Mr. Harding, Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Jackman, Ms Johnson, Ms Goudie, Mr. Skinner, Mr. Oram, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Ridgley.

MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Grimes, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Langdon, Ms Thistle, Mr. Reid, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Sweeney, Ms Foote, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Harris, Mr. Collins.

Mr. Speaker, twenty-nine ayes and thirteen nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.

[The remainder of tonight's sitting is unavailable due to technical difficulties.]

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Monday, May 10, at 1:30 p.m.