The House met at 2:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
Statements by Ministers
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Fifty years ago, at 11:59 on March 31, 1949, Newfoundland and Labrador became Canada's tenth Province.
The destinies of Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador had long been linked before our official joining through Confederation. Aboriginal people had left their footprints across the great expanses of the Northern half of the continent. Migrants had braved ferocious seas to cross the Atlantic and wrest a living from the wilderness. Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador fought together, as comrades, on the battlefields of Europe, and forged even stronger ties through the defense of the North Atlantic in World War II.
In short, In 1949, we - Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador - were not strangers. Newfoundland and Labrador and Canada were friends and allies. Through the exercise of democratic rights and negotiations of two equal nations, both Canada and Newfoundland and Labrador agreed that, together, we could build a better country and a better future for all our people.
Fifty years ago, on March 31, 1949, Newfoundland and Labrador entered Confederation as a full and equal partner with the other provinces. In the words of novelist Margaret Duley: Everywhere it was change, startling change. Newfoundland and Labrador would never be the same again.
Confederation with Canada indeed brought massive and positive change. It was this promise of change which so caught the heart, mind and imagination of Joseph R. Smallwood, the leader of the Confederate side. Smallwood believed passionately that Confederation with Canada would make an immediate, material and lasting difference in the quality of the lives of his fellow citizens.
Too many of us remember Smallwood for the sometimes controversial decisions he made, without an appreciation of the times in which he lived, and his lasting, positive contribution to all our lives. Everyone, of course, has an opinion of Joseph R. Smallwood because, at the end of the day, Smallwood mattered. Smallwood made a difference. He changed out lives. His actions have, in large part, shaped who we are today.
It is to this legacy of Smallwood, as a nation builder, that we celebrate today on the 50th Anniversary of Confederation. What we have built together, in Canada, is something of which we can all be proud. We are part of a country which values tolerance and generosity, a society whose first priority is to fulfil the potential of all our citizens. Canada invests in the welfare of all of its citizens and works hard to ensure basic levels of care and opportunity for everyone. Our country has always been able, through changing times, to adapt to meet the hopes and dreams of our citizens.
Union with Canada has not been perfect. Like any family, we have had differences. But like the best of families, we find solutions based on mutual respect and compromise. Before Confederation, Newfoundland and Labrador stood alone. Now we stand with the combined strengths and support of our sister provinces and territories, including the new territory of Nunavut.
As we witness, in the last days, the conflict in Kosovo, as we witness the attempts by the NATO allies to discipline the excesses of the Milosovich regime, let us remind ourselves that there is no doubt that Newfoundland and Labrador in 1999 is a part of the best country in the world in which to live. It is a place of peace and security; a place where Newfoundland and Labrador stands poised to give as much back to Canada as we have gained from Canada. Canada remains a land of tremendous opportunity. This is what we have built together; it is our treasured heritage.
In 1949, Newfoundland and Labrador became "one of ten." On this the 50th Anniversary of Confederation, I invite all Canadians to visit us during Soiree '99, our year-long celebration of the unique traditions, rich culture, vast land and unstoppable spirit of this special place.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to salute the cultural community of this Province. Tonight their voices, their songs and their stories will speak for all of us at the 50th Anniversary Gala Celebration. They, on our behalf, will tell the world and tell our fellow Canadians that it is possible to be culturally unique, to be different, and at the same time to be a Canadian. There is no contradiction between a great love and a great passion for one's province and a great love and a great passion for one's country. No Canadian anywhere in this great country should be asked to choose between the two. In 1949, we chose both. We chose Newfoundland and Labrador and we have retained all that is unique and special about it, and we chose Canada as well. Today, fifty years later, we are celebrating with joy that decision.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am reminded today of the rich part of Newfoundland's history and our heritage. I am also reminded of the words of Sir Robert Bond, one of the great prime ministers of Newfoundland and Labrador, prior to it becoming a province in Confederation, when we gave up the right to self-govern, and his famous quote is: If only I had the strength, the feathers would fly.
The Premier is right in acknowledging today that in 1949 Newfoundlanders and Labradorians chose collectively another option. They chose an option that for some time had been denied by ourselves, that being the right to govern ourselves within a larger federation, the federation known as Canada.
As we reflect upon these fifty years we also have to reflect upon the impact of Joseph R. Smallwood, no question. I want to be associated with the remarks made today that certainly the mistakes of the past - no doubt fifty years from now people will sit in this Chamber, or another like it possibly, and judge ourselves and look at the mistakes of the past we all have made. However, it is true, and there is no question about the impact that he had on the way of life, the fundamental changes that came with his drive and energy and initiative to bring us into Confederation, along with all of those who worked so closely with him. I was reading an article yesterday about one of the unforgotten fathers of Confederation.
Fifty years later it is also time to reflect not only on what Confederation bought to us, but it is time to reflect on what we have brought to Confederation. That is what I think is the opportunity today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Because we have brought to the country something that was missing, something that the country did not have before. We extended its continental shelf certainly from a geographical point of view, but we brought with it the richest cultural identity and history within the federation. That is my opinion as a proud Newfoundlander and Labradorian.
I will also say that because we are part of Confederation and a province in it that it should not stop us from continuing to debate the merits and the demerits of what face us today as a country: the things that bind us, the things that have bound us, and the things we would like to shape forever and a day.
I join with the Premier today in acknowledging the statement on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of Newfoundland and Labrador's entrance into Confederation. I would like to ask all people in the Province to take the time to reflect on what it has meant for them personally, for the children that they will have, and for people who come after us. More importantly, I would ask people, upon reflection, to take the time to act to ensure that the country we now enjoy, and the things that make us unique and different as a country, we do not at some point in time lose those very cultural, historic things that have made Canada so unique within the global context.
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 like to join with the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition in marking the 50th anniversary of the entry of Newfoundland and Labrador into the Canadian Confederation to join with the other nine provinces as part of the great country of Canada. It was a momentous decision and a difficult one, as is evidenced by the historical debate that still continues about the nature of the decision made in 1949.
On balance, I think we all have to agree that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are far better off today as a part of the great nation of Canada than we were fifty years ago. We gave up our sovereignty to be part of this great country. It was through the leadership of Joseph Smallwood, who has to be acknowledged as an astounding and forward thinking individual with great energy and vigour, who led the force of Confederation and skilfully convinced a majority to join with him in seeking Confederation.
We also have to acknowledge that this country we are now a part of is not without its flaws, that there are still, fifty years later, concerns in this Province about the relationship between Newfoundland and Canada, particulary as some individuals and opinion leaders in the country treat us a poor cousin, as opposed to an equal sister province. There are fundamental issue with respect to regional disparity and the relationships between this Province and Ottawa that need to be addressed, and these we will continue to struggle with.
I attended a historical symposium a week or so ago called Encounters with the Wolf. There are many who had a lot of passionate things to say about the state of being a Newfoundlander and Labradorian and our nationhood. Perhaps we can take a page out of the -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. HARRIS: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!
MR. SPEAKER: By leave.
MR. HARRIS: Perhaps we can consider the concept recently discussed about the province of Catalonia in Spain which regards itself as a non-sovereign nation within Spain. It is perhaps something that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, particularly in our passion and our patriotism for this Province, see ourselves, as a nation still, although within the Canadian Confederation. Our cultural and artistic communities proudly show us that heritage, that passion, that patriotism that we share within the Canadian Confederation.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I was able to give notice to the Leader of the Opposition; I regret I could not give notice to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, but I think it has since been given.
I think there is one other duty that members would want us to discharge today. When Newfoundland and Labrador became part of this great country fifty years ago we were welcomed by our fellow Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It gives me great pleasure today, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, perhaps the voice of the Leader of the NDP being added to that, to extend to the people of Nunavut today who, on tomorrow, will become Canada's newest territory, our sincere congratulations.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Hear, hear!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the people of Nunavut, of the north, who are overwhelmingly of Inuit descent, have struggled for a long time for the creation of the new territory. They have now put in place, through an election, their first government, elected their first leader and premier. Tomorrow will be a day of great celebration.
We forget on occasion that our nearest neighbours are two. First of all the Province of Quebec, with whom we share a boundary, and with whom we share some history, and with whom we will hopefully share some future prosperities through some new opportunities, but also we share a boundary through the great land, the big land, Labrador, with the people of Nunavut. We share an ocean, we share the Davis Strait, we share the turbot resource which has occupied, on occasion, the time and attention of this place and of our people.
They are our neighbours, they are our fellow Canadians, and I extend to the people of Nunavut congratulations and best wishes from all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Speaker, if I could I would like to move a resolution, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, which would read the following:
WHEREAS on April 1, 1999, the territory of Nunavut will officially come into existence; and
WHEREAS fifty years ago, on March 31, 1949, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador were warmly welcomed into the Canadian family as a Province of Canada;
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the hon. House of Assembly, on its own behalf and that of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, warmly and wholeheartedly welcome the people of Nunavut as a new territory within the Canadian Federation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I join with the Leader of the Government, the Premier, in welcoming Nunavut to the Canadian Confederation.
He has indicated about the things that we share in terms of common boundary, common ocean, common resource. We also share a very common human resource. One of the ministers, actually, in the first Cabinet in Nunavut, is none other than a gentleman from Portugal Cove, Mr. Ed Picco.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: I am reminded of the statement earlier about our celebrating Confederation. This is one of the other things that we have brought to this country, significant human resource potential that has travelled all over Canada, and people from this Province playing significant roles in business, universities and now certainly in Nunavut as a minister.
It is also common practice, I believe, and this is more for the people in the gallery, that much of the furniture in the House, the Table, the Speaker's Chair, there is something from every province. When we joined Confederation, every Province of Canada, as a physical sign of welcoming us to the Canadian Federation, sent something that would be physically here as a visible sign of their connection with us and our connection with them.
I would hope, and I think it would be appropriate, that government, on behalf of all members of the Legislature, and indeed on behalf of all people in the Province, that we at least take the time to see what is necessary so that we can have a physical presence in the Legislature in Nunavut; to send to them, on behalf of the people, a small token of our gratitude and a small token of the partnership that we will be entering into with them.
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.
If it were possible to have two seconders to a motion, I would be the second seconder.
I want to just give my own heartfelt welcome on behalf of our caucus, and to join with them in celebrating the creation of a new territory within Canada which is, as the Premier has noted, primarily a territory of Inuit people who are engaged in the self-government process through a territory of Canada.
We want to wish them every success in the development of their democratic institutions. I would also wish to acknowledge, as the Leader of the Opposition has, that they will have the assistance of a Newfoundlander from Portugal Cove who has been living in the Territories for some many years.
It is indeed a great step for them, and I would also join with the Leader of the Opposition - and I noted the nod of the Premier as well - in asking that we, as a Legislature, send a gift of this Legislature, of the Government of Newfoundland, to the new territory of Nunavut for use in their House of Assembly, or Legislative Assembly, whatever name they have given to it.
It is a very positive day and a hopeful day for the future of the Inuit people in Nunavut.
MR. SPEAKER: You have all heard the resolution.
All those in favour of the resolution, `aye`.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: Against?
I declare the resolution unanimously carried.
Oral Questions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are for the Premier. In the last few days, Premier, you said that the biggest reason that you are against abiding by existing provisions of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act on emergencies by sending a dispute to binding arbitration is because that is what governments did in the early 1990s and that led to, a year later, wage rollbacks in Bill 16 and Bill 17.
Premier, that argument does not hold water because the reality is that binding arbitration was never used in the early 1990s. On March 15, 1990, many ministers in the Cabinet today were also ministers in that Cabinet. Mr. Baker, the former President of Treasury Board, stood in the House and announced a tentative collective agreement with nurses in the Province, and it was never sent to binding arbitration.
The question is: Will you not admit that wage restraints legislation, Bill 16 and Bill 17, obviously had nothing to do with the arguments being put forward?
I would like to ask the Premier this: Doesn't that take away some credibility and enhance and strengthen the hand of those, including those in this Legislature, possibly on both sides of the House, that the appropriate, the right thing to do to solve this dispute this afternoon would be to abide by the current law and send this dispute to binding arbitration?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the Leader of the Opposition. The point is that settlements were reached and arrived at in the early 1990s - I do not have the specific dates in front of me; I will undertake to have the specific dates in front of me and convey the exact information to the Leader of the Opposition later this day - which were more than the government of the day could afford to sustain. By providing for those kinds of settlements, the government of the day found itself in a position where it would have to do one of two things: either proceed down a course of action that would result in massive and increasing deficits for the government of the day, or to roll back those settlements.
It is my view that when a government enters into a process that results in wage settlements that are not sustainable, unless the government either raises taxes quite dramatically or borrows quite dramatically, that government is being irresponsible.
As for arbitration, the most recent arbitration process in this Province was the arbitration process, non-binding, with the RNC. That process resulted in a recommendation for a wage settlement which was double all of the wage settlements negotiated in the thirty-odd negotiations that have been successfully completed on behalf of 30,000 public servants.
Every 1 per cent more applied across the system costs $16 million. It is not hard to figure out that if you applied that arbitrated settlement across the system, you would have a wage bill in excess of $100 million more annually for the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
I can tell the House today that whether you are dealing with 14 per cent at about $112 million, or dealing at 17 per cent at $160 million annually, in either circumstance the fiscal capacity simply does not exist to pay the bill. It is not a question of lack of will; it is a question of lack of money. What we are trying to do is to be fair to everybody and at the same time to live within our means.
Government has considered all of these issues and regrets that we have not been able to come to a negotiated settlement. Nobody wants to be here dealing with back-to-work legislation, but we have considered the question carefully and we are committed to the course that we have announced.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: The Premier's words were here two days ago. I said clearly yesterday that this is a process that was followed in the Province in 1990. The government of the day found out that the settlements which were imposed were settlements that could not be afforded. The reality was that there were no settlements imposed by binding arbitration; that settlements were negotiated settlements. The government of the day negotiated a collective agreement.
Mr. Speaker, the other thing that is very clear is that today the ability to end this strike so that everybody not only saves space, but that everybody - nurses, the system - is back up and running. The ability lies clearly in your hands. You can agree and abide by the current Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. The law of the land is clear: invoke those sections.
There is no sense in predetermining what will happen at the arbitration process because you do not know. That is what binding arbitration is all about. You do not know what will take place before you go into it. It is a leap of faith for both parties. It could either play foul or fair equally for both, but the process in independent. It was put in place to end - the law of the Province with respect to this was put there to address the exact situation we find ourselves in today.
The right thing to do, the only thing to do, to end this for everybody sake, is to pass a resolution today in this House that would send it to binding arbitration and let the process and people get back to work, and get the system back up and running.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition makes a suggestion, one which government has considered very seriously, and that is the question of going to binding arbitration.
We have considered that, not as something to be looked at quickly, and not as something to be dismissed quickly. We have come to the conclusion on this side of the House, and we have taken our responsibility, and we have given a straight answer on this question over the last number of days, that a process that results in a wage settlement being imposed in the current circumstance that will give rise to increased demands right across the system, demands that cannot be met and that cannot be afforded, is no solution at all.
The point about the early 1990s is that settlements were entered into which could not be sustained. We need to remind ourselves. It is only a few years ago that in this Legislature collective agreements right across the system were rolled back and then frozen for year after year. That is what happened.
Mr. Speaker, the Opposition House Leader pointed out yesterday how much the debt of the Province had increased in the previous decades, and he went through how much it increased under each and every successive administration, but the Opposition House Leader did not say to the House yesterday - but I sought to remind him - is that since 1996 the debt of Newfoundland and Labrador has not gone up one dollar.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, that is because we laid out a three-year fiscal plan. It is because we sat down and negotiated with all of the major unions. We have attempted to negotiate with all, save one. We have come to a framework of 7 per cent over thirty-nine months, which has been agreed by the Newfoundland Association of Public Employees, agreed by CUPE, agreed by the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association, an agreement which applies to tens of thousands of other taxpaying citizens who happen to be public servants.
Mr. Speaker, if is the position of the Leader of the Opposition that in the case of, let's take the RNC, we should settle at 14 per cent, and in the case of nurses, the last position they put, we should settle at 17 per cent, I want to ask the Leader of the Opposition this. Should those 30,000-plus other public servants remain settled at 7 per cent, yes or no?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the question is clear and so is the answer. It has been for days. If you want to continue to ask it, I will continue to answer it, I say to the Premier.
It is the position of the Leader of the Opposition that when you enter into collective bargaining you do so not with threats or predetermined ideas of what you are going to bargain with. That at the end of the day in collective bargaining it is not my way or the highway, which has been the approach of government.
It is the position of the Leader of the Opposition and the Progressive Conservative caucus that at this point, where a consensus cannot be reached, where a tentative agreement cannot be reached, that we do not arbitrarily impose settlements on people, arbitrarily use high-pressure tactics throughout negotiations, but that we respect the law of the land. It is our position that if we were in your position today we would be announcing we would be sending it to binding arbitration. How is that for an answer, Premier?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, while I have not spoken to the nurses' union today I was given their press release. They made it quite clear, very clear I think, that they are prepared to sit down to work out a solution.
I will quote it for him: Today we wish to tell government that it is not to late to choose the right path. We will end this legal strike if government will agree to submit all monetary matters to binding arbitration. Although present law gives us the right to binding arbitration on all outstanding issues, we are willing to entertain the establishment of studies, a mediation panel to deal with issues related to workload and casualization.
Premier, wouldn't you agree that this is a significant compromise, that it is an olive branch, and that maybe it is one that you should seriously consider?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have seen the press release which the Leader of the Opposition refers to. It is interesting that the nurses' union has offered to discuss other than through binding arbitration all other issues. Because the truth is that the announcement by the Minister of Health of new positions, both the conversion of casuals to permanent, and new permanent positions, was never what caused the inability to reach an agreement.
The simple truth is - and I know when I say this it makes some people uncomfortable - we are still in a strike today, and we refuse to come to an agreement today. We are still in the position we are in for one reason and one reason only. That reason is money. Yes, it is. I have been privy to these negotiations and I know of what I speak. The blunt reality is that on matters of workload these proposals which have been on the table have been the basis for agreement. The only outstanding matter is money.
The position put to the government, the last position, was that the nurses' union negotiating team wanted, according to their own public comments, a 17 per cent wage settlement. In the absence of a yes answer from the government we were told that they would ask to be released from conciliation. We never left the table.
We never asked to be released from conciliation. The nurses' union did. I do not know why what was on the table, which also included additional compensation over and above that - and the nurses need to hear this, and citizens of Newfoundland and Labrador need to hear this - what was on the table was worth another $8 million to nurses over the life of this contract. I do not know what nurses have been told. That is the truth.
Mr. Speaker, we made a real effort, a genuine effort, beyond the last offer and beyond what has been offered to other public servants to recognize and respect nurses. The answer we were given was: Not enough. A request was made for a release from conciliation and the nurses' union left the table, walked away.
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Premier, yesterday you and the President of Treasury Board stated there was a imminent crisis in the system. I have no doubt that as each day goes by the system becomes more stressed. Nobody questions that. I was surprised to pick up this morning a statement by the St. John's health care board. The St. John's Health Care Corporation is moving to distance itself from the government's move to legislate nurses back to work.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)?
MR. E. BYRNE: A press release. The St. John's health board says a crisis has not arrived yet. The government's action was prompted by a letter from the Province's health care association saying some boards are facing imminent crisis. The St. John's board has now issued a news release stressing there is no immediate danger. The Corporation says it is managing to care for patients, thanks to the cooperation from striking nurses and essential nurses -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: - and its remaining staff. The Corporation also makes it clear it that it supports the right of nurses to strike.
The reason I raise it, Premier, is that yesterday, because of the goings-on in the House, if we did not commit to an immediate debate to be taken care of in a number of hours the place was going to fall apart. The question is -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: No, that is not what I am saying at all.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question.
MR. E. BYRNE: The question is: What does it say about the statement made yesterday? These are the very corporations that were supposedly part of the writing of the letter yesterday, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have been very puzzled by the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition. I have been in politics for nineteen years, in parliament for sixteen years, and in the House of Assembly for three years. I have often seen, and I have myself, as an Opposition member, raised questions to hold governments accountable, but I have never seen a Leader of the Opposition act as a cheerleader for a public service union on strike. That is the behaviour that is being undertaken today by somebody who says he wants to be the arbiter of the public purse.
We have seen something else which is totally irresponsible. I sat in yesterday on a meeting with the health critic and with the Leader of the Opposition where they met personally with the Chair of the St. John's health care board, with the Executive Director of the Newfoundland and Labrador Health and Community Services Association, and with the Executive Director of the community services group as well. They were told directly in my presence - the Minister of Health was also present - that a crisis was pending; a request was made to end this labour dispute for the sake of the health care system and those that depend upon it. Questions were asked, it was a short time frame, and an offer was made to the Opposition party that if they wanted more information a more detailed briefing could be provided.
We have just seen the Leader of the Opposition deliberately take out of context words spoken by the St. John's Health Care Corporation to say the crisis has not yet arrived, to say that there is no problem and no issue. Mr. Speaker, I have a release which has gone out in the last hour by Mr. Peddle, the Executive Director -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer quickly, please.
PREMIER TOBIN: - of the Newfoundland and Labrador Health and Community Services Association. Let me quote Mr. Peddle: The health system has concerns over the length of time that may be required to pass this legislation. Delays will further compromise the system's ability to continue to provide a safe level of care to the public.
Let me quote one other line, from Eileen Young, the Chair of the Association's labour relations committee. Let me quote this line, it is about an hour old: The issue is not over politics but over the health safety of the public. All parties need to come together to end this work stoppage.
Leader of the Opposition, take your responsibility!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I completely concur with the Premier. If he would like to end the strike I will ask him one more time: If you are so convinced of that statement, send it to binding arbitration.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the government has taken its responsibility. We have a bill which is proposed and will come before the House, we hope, this afternoon.
The Leader of the Opposition last night said that while his party could not accommodate debate of this bill yesterday, and could not accommodate debate of the bill last night, could not accommodate debate of the bill this morning, that he would be ready to debate the bill if: the Premier would give up his gala.
Every member on this side of the House will be in this Legislature tonight, not at any gala, ready to debate this bill and to respond to the call of the Chair of the St. John's health care board, Eileen Young, to ensure that all parties come together to end the work stoppage. We have taken our responsibility, I say to the Leader of the Opposition. I understand that the Leader of the Opposition sees some political opportunity here but, Mr. Speaker, I say to the Leader of the Opposition -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER TOBIN: - it is time to take your responsibility seriously and to facilitate this debate and to respond to the request to end this urgent and emerging situation, to prevent a crisis before a crisis occurs and lives are lost, I say to the Leader of the Opposition!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I can say this for certain, that I will not stand in this Legislature and let you, sir, hijack the democratic process on behalf of the people in this Province. That is for sure!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: The Premier should know - if he does not know then he has not been communicating with his House Leader - that we are prepared to facilitate debate. I have said it publicly and I will say it for the record here again today. We are not going to obstruct for the sake of being obstructionist, but we are not going to facilitate to the point where the proper and due process of this Assembly, which belongs to everybody, Premier, not you, is hijacked. That is not going to happen.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: I would like to ask the Premier this question. For someone who relies so heavily on public opinion polls when designing and proceeding with policies and legislation, which we have seen in the past, obviously I think government must have been polling over the last three or four days, maybe longer. The poll released today shows that 88 per cent of the people of the Province support nurses in their request that the law on binding arbitration be upheld as it now exists.
The question is again - and the Premier fails to answer it, fails to understand it, because he is predetermining what is about to take place in binding arbitration if he refers it to that. There is no predetermination.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. member to get to his question.
MR. E. BYRNE: Just submit it to a binding arbitration. The question is again, Premier: Why won't you end the strike, do what is appropriate and proper, abide by the law of the land, and send this outstanding dispute to binding arbitration?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is asking the same question over and over. I can only assume that in giving him the answer four or five times the Leader of the Opposition is playing to the captive audience in the galleries. That is all that the Leader of the Opposition is doing.
I would go further. I would say that what the Leader of the Opposition is doing is becoming very transparent to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. Yes, I do not think there was a high degree of maturity last evening in standing and saying: That providing we can put aside the gala - and only on that basis - will we sit and legislate this matter in the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, that is not a very mature approach to a very serious public policy question, I say to the Leader of the Opposition.
Let me say this. I have not seen any polls because government has not done any polls -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, if I could finish.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Premier to conclude his answer quickly.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: I can say this, Mr. Speaker. I have not seen any poll that says that the people of Newfoundland and Labrador believe that a settlement two and one-half times larger than that given to any other public servant should be given to one union. If such a question was asked it was not released. I have not seen a statement or a poll saying that 17 per cent is fair for nurses and 7 per cent is fair for every other public servant. If that is the question I did not see that one either. I have not seen a poll that says that Newfoundlanders and Labradorians want to see their wage bill increased by $160 million a year or their taxes increased to pay for them.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. the Premier to conclude his answer quickly.
PREMIER TOBIN: Those questions are not in the poll, Mr. Speaker, by design.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
My questions today are to the Minister of Health and Community Services. Minister, as a former practising nurse and a former head of the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union, you should know that nurses over the last several years have taken on greater responsibilities and more duties as they deal with an ever increasing higher level of acuity among their patients. Don't you agree that nurses deserve to be judged and paid accordingly on the skills and the demands of their job and not on a comparison with other public servants?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
During the whole process of negotiations a number of proposals were put on the table by the nurses' union and responded to by the government which I believe would have begun to address those very same issues. They are over and above the classification and review process which is available to anybody in the system at any point in time based on workload.
We all recognize, and we value, the work of nurses and other health care workers in our system. We did try to find ways to address those in a very special way, for nurses only. We did that with all sincerity at the table. We also know that we have a limited ability to pay and we are only able to do what we are able to do.
If you ask me personally what I would like to do, if you ask personally what every one of us would like to do, we would like to quadruple what is on the table, but right now we cannot do that because we cannot afford it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister refused to answer my question, if she thinks they should be judged on the demands of the job, the skills. She refused to answer that.
Nurses in this Province, I say to the minister, are paid significantly less than in every other Canadian province. Starting nurses are paid anywhere from $5,000 to $15,000 less per year, I would say. Nova Scotia pays its starting nurses 29 per cent more, and small Prince Edward Island pays them 17 per cent more. Other provinces treat their nurses better, I say to the minister. Why, Minister, do you place a much lower value on the work that nurses do in our Province?
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Health and Communities Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
No, I will not let the former Leader of the Opposition put words in my mouth. I do not undervalue the work of nurses. In fact, I have the greatest respect for nurses and I know how hard they work.
[There was a commotion in the gallery.]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but I do.
[There was a commotion in the gallery.]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS J.M. AYLWARD: I also know, Mr. Speaker, that it is important to recognize -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to take her seat, please.
I want to inform visitors to the gallery that interruptions of this nature will not be tolerated. If it continues then the Chair will have no choice but to clear the gallery.
The hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services.
MS J.M. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I think it is also important to note that our wage package is comparable with other wage packages right across the country. If you are going to compare the base salary, you have to be fair and look at the base salary of every worker. If you were to look at the base salary of the people that work in our hospitals, the base salary of those who work in the public sector in this building, the base salary of physicians, the base salary of anyone, it is lower in this Province. There is no doubt about it. In terms of the percentage, I think it is important to note that we have done a lot in this round of negotiations to try to begin to address those needs, including identifying the extra staff to put in the hospitals, 125 new nursing positions, 225 conversions all together.
I think it is important to note that while I know there are people who are not happy and not pleased - and I know I am not undervaluing what they are saying - that we are doing the best that we can with the financial situation we have. We have also put in place workload measurement systems so that we can actually look at that, so we were able to measure the workload and identify the staff, particulary the staff mix. Also, we are one of the only provinces in Canada that has the highest skill mix ratio, particularly in our long-term care sector, of nursing assistants, or more recently called LPNs with RNs.
We know there is challenges, and we know it is not easy, but we will continue, Mr. Speaker, to try to address the issue as we can.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
A supplementary, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On March 20, 1990 the President of Treasury Board stood in this House and announced government had reached a tentative agreement with nurses. It cannot be considered precedent setting, the President of Treasury Board said. He said: We have to recognize nurses are a special case. Our objective is to provide a settlement to nurses which recognizes that they have fallen behind other sectors and other provinces in Atlantic Canada.
He went on to say, "With this offer we hope to slow down or stop the loss of nurses to other jurisdictions and to other professions within this Province." He said, "Other bargaining groups are not in the same situation. Each group will be dealt with based on their own particular needs and the Province's ability to meet those needs."
I ask the minister this. With the very same Liberal government in in 1990, why, with many of the same Cabinet ministers sitting in the very same Cabinet, are nurses any different today when the wage disparity is different?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, this question put by the Opposition House Leader and the health critic gives me an opportunity to correct the record -
MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).
PREMIER TOBIN: I want to respond to your question. It gives me the opportunity to correct the record as set out by the Leader of the Opposition and now by the Opposition House Leader. Because the Leader of the Opposition has just gotten up and suggested there were no disputes settled by binding arbitration, therefore no binding arbitration settlements rolled back, and why was the Premier misleading the House yesterday?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, for the record, NAPE contracts, hospital support - Waterford Hospital, central laundry, correctional officers, lab and X-ray - in 1991 these five contracts were finalized through binding arbitration under the Public Service Collective Service Bargaining Act and the act representing restraint -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SULLIVAN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am delighted to hear the answer. The Premier rose in his place to correct what he considered a misstatement by the Leader of the Opposition. In no way was he attempting to answer a question. It is not in order. I have indicated that if he wants to answer the question it is his prerogative.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
Will the hon. Premier conclude his answer quickly, please?
PREMIER TOBIN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will.
Not only were these rolled back, but so too was the agreement referred to, in 1990, with nurses also rolled back. The point is that every one of these agreements, because they were not affordable, were rolled back. That is why it is important to be careful, to be honest about what we can afford to pay, and to make agreements we can keep, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Question Period has ended.
Petitions
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is my pleasure today to present - I do not know how many names, in the thousands I would assume, I received this just before coming into the House here - petitions from people all over this Province.
I will read the prayer of the petition:
To the hon. House of Assembly of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador in parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the district - Mr. Speaker, in this specific one it is Labrador South; I have ones from Bonavista South, and all over the Province - in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, humbly submit:
WHEREAS the nurses of our Province are the heart of health care; and
WHEREAS the nurses of our Province deserve to be respected for the work that they perform; and
WHEREAS there is a need for more nurses; and
WHEREAS this Province is facing severe nursing shortages in the future; and
WHEREAS nurses have a right to binding arbitration as a final dispute settling mechanism;
WHEREFORE we request that the hon. House of Assembly respect the work of nurses, providing a more permanent and stable workforce, and permit nurses to have the right to binding arbitration as provided by the laws of the Province.
Mr. Speaker, there are petitions here, just to make reference to some of the areas, from Labrador South, I have seen them from Forteau, L'Anse au Clair, L'Anse-au-Loup, Southern Labrador, Elliston, Bonavista, Little Catalina, all over that area of Bonavista South. They have petitions here from Lake Melville, Burgeo, Exploits, Grand Falls-Windsor, the town. You name it, these are from all over this Province. Thousands of people are calling on this government to be fair.
I made reference today to the Liberal government of the former premier, Clyde Wells, whose President of Treasury Board stood in the House of Assembly and said: This tentative settlement reached with nurses cannot be considered to be precedent setting for all bargaining unions to come to the table. We cannot treat all bargaining unions alike. He said, "Mr. Speaker, this settlement recognizes that nurses are a special case." He said, "Newfoundland is not the first province to recognize this."
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: I might add, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, we are rolling the clock back. I am not sure but you were in Cabinet. If you were not, you were parliamentary assistant.
MR. GRIMES: I (inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: You were in Cabinet at the time. Your President of Treasury Board said: Our objective is to provide a settlement to nurses that recognizes they have fallen behind other sectors of the public service, and they have fallen behind other provinces that have special problems that need to be addressed. I might add that we are 50 per cent with starting nurses behind one particular province in Canada. They are 50 per cent more. With this offer we hope to slow down or stop the loss of nurses.
I might add too, I say to the Member for Terra Nova, who rose the last day on something that was completely inaccurate - and I will give him a copy of that from Hansard. He was trying to distract away from the intent of this petition, to give more nurses to the Province.
Mike Harris in Ontario said he will give 12,000 nurses. There are 6,456 hired already. If we were going to give that same ratio that Ontario was adding to theirs, we would need 600 more nurses in this Province today to deliver and care for the people in our Province. We have different demographics than Ontario, we do not get the economies of population like Ontario does.
Minister, in comparison, we would need 600 more nurses, not the 125 that you claimed is costing us $60,000 a nurse. That is what you stated in your statement. That is on the public record of this House and in the public of this Province. The minister stated it, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo. The minister stated it in her statement, and I responded to that particular statement. They are trying to twist and make political this particular issue. It is not political, I tell you.
We are very sincere about this issue. We have been sincere about issues of health care since I came into this House of Assembly and have been raising those issues, not just during a nurses' strike. It has been raised in almost 90 per cent of the days in this House. I have stood and raised important issues in this House, and presented petitions from people all over this Province.
The public is not buying the manipulations and so on going on, when over 90 per cent of the Province feel they are wrong in the process they are going; 90 per cent in the particular poll that was done. The Premier is pretty apt at telling us what polls are, and governing by poles.
If the Premier would govern by polls, he will do what is right and do what 90 per cent of the people in the Province are telling us: put this to binding arbitration. Still, he would stand here in the House and tell us that the precedent of binding arbitration, we did it before and we had to roll it back. That is wrong, Premier. I will not advocate -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I just wanted to speak to some of the issues raised in the petition and some of the comments made by the hon. member in presenting the petition.
Let us recollect accurately and correctly what happened in 1990. The government of the day, of which I was a part, did absolutely buy and believe the argument that nurses were a special case, and we were advised - because we were asking in the Cabinet, if we give this level of increase to the nurses, will the rest of the hospital support workers and others who have not yet negotiate understand and agree that nurses should get a raise at this level when we know we can only pay them at a lower level?
The answer given was yes, that would be understood in the system because of the special and unique role of nurses. We settled with nurses and, following with that, when the rest of the groups that the Premier mentioned in terms of binding arbitration came to the table, there was a strike because not one of the groups, not a single one of them, agreed that they should take a lower level of pay than the government had just agreed weeks before with the nurses. As a result, there was a general health care strike in the whole Province. We had management people working at places like the Hoyles-Escasoni and others, after less than a week. The same people who are here today came to the government and said: You must stop this strike because people's lives are at risk.
We stopped the strike and did what the Opposition is suggesting; we triggered the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. We went to binding arbitration. They gave the same settlement to the rest of the public service as they gave to the nurses. The arbitrator did not buy the case of a special status for nurses, gave the same settlement, and seven years later - which we now finally (inaudible) - after seven consecutive years of a wage freeze, because of the fact that the government could not afford the increases that were arbitrated, we thought we could afford a raise just for nurses, which is the proposition being put here -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: Do not worry about anybody else, says the president of the nurses, just for nurses. We tried that, nobody else bought the argument, and seven years later we are finally getting to the point where after seven consecutive years of zero we can finally offer a 7 per cent increase.
It is unfortunate that people do not understand that if we go through the same cycle again we will here in seven or eight years time, no matter who is the government, doing exactly the same thing, saying: We went through a process. We did not stand firm enough; we did not convince people of the economic arguments.
This particular government has thought about this long and hard. We do not want anybody, nurses or anybody else in the Province, to go down that road again. That is why we will gladly debate the motion before the House today, if we get permission.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
It is now 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, and we go to the private member's resolution.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, in discussion with the Opposition House Leader earlier, he suggested they had some other petitions they wanted to put through and we are quite prepared - because you had some stacking up, you were saying - by leave to allow a few more petitions. Then I would like to address the House with respect to Bill 3.
MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We certainly do not mind passing today on Petitions. We will get an opportunity tomorrow, I am sure, to get some petitions in that some members have. They certainly want to do it before Easter recess. They have been waiting, but I guess tomorrow is as good as today so we will pass on that.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I seek leave of the House to revert to government business, and in particular to give first reading of Bill 3, and to move to second reading.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Official Opposition will certainly consent today to doing first and second reading of the bill but we do not consent to move beyond second reading today. We will certainly agree to forego Private Members' Day to do that.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
By leave.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, if that is the case then the rules will permit us then to begin first reading, and second reading then will take us to nine full hours of debate, with one speaker from this side and, under the rules, the required sixty minutes for the Leader -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. FUREY: - sixty minutes for the Leader of the Opposition, of course, and sixty minutes for the critic, and then thirty minutes for each other speaker under second reading.
I will ask the Table to begin first reading.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair would like to just make sure that he understands what is happening here. The members have now agreed to forego the Private Members' Day. We will now get into the first reading and second reading debate. What happens at 5:00 p.m.? The Chair would like to know that because ordinarily on Wednesday -
MR. FUREY: Well, Mr. Speaker, what I just said is, by leave of the House, if we move into second reading it will require nine hours of debate. So we will debate beyond 5:00 p.m. as though it were a normal parliamentary day -
AN HON. MEMBER: And beyond 10:00 p.m.
MR. FUREY: - and beyond 10:00 p.m.
MR. SPEAKER: Okay, the Chair just wanted to clarify that.
MR. FUREY: Yes, I understand.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
We certainly agree to that. I want to make sure again, in case it was not clear, that leave is given on condition that we complete second reading today and not move beyond that stage.
Motion, the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture and Recreation to introduce a bill, "An Act To Provide For The Resumption and Continuation Of Health And Community Services," carried. (Bill 3)
On motion, Bill 3 read a first time, ordered read a second time presently, by leave.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I move second reading of Bill 3.
Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation Of Health And Community Services". (Bill 3)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on a bill of utmost importance to the health and wellbeing of the people of this Province. I must say to this hon. House today, it is not my intention to take the prescribed time that is allotted to me, as I understand the urgency of this bill and will be keeping my comments brief.
I want hon. members to know that this is the first bill that I am bringing forward to the House of Assembly in my new portfolio. It is a bill that -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS THISTLE: It is a serious bill and is not entered into lightly. Officials in my department worked with the aid of a conciliator for nearly two weeks to try to reach a deal with the nurses' union. For government, this was the preferred method of dispute resolution. In fact, at one point we thought we had reached a deal.
Just a week ago I stood in this House after thirty-one hours of being part of a special committee of Cabinet, with the Premier and the Minister of Health. During those thirty-one hours we had telephone calls back and forth, back and forth, new proposals on the table, and I think we were the most disappointed people in the world to learn this time last Wednesday that we did not have a deal. In fact, we were not even officially notified that we did not have a deal. We had to assume, when we heard on the radio that talks had broken off and nurses went on strike. Then talks began again, even though the strikers were at the picket lines. Right from Wednesday until Sunday, all weekend, we were on standby here in the Confederation Building - the same committee of Cabinet, including the Minister of Environment and Labour and many officials - waiting, waiting for an agreement to be reached.
In fact, it was during that time that I had a call from one of my constituents in the District of Grand Falls-Buchans; a nurse who, herself, was on the picket line. She said to me: Are you at the bargaining table? I said to her: No, I am not at the bargaining table; that is not usually the process. However, not even my negotiator is at the bargaining table. Everything is being done through a conciliator, from the nurses' union to the conciliator to us, and back again. We did not have any face-to-face encounters with the nurses from Wednesday until Sunday. We asked for them but we were denied.
Sunday evening we were really disappointed, sorely disappointed, to hear that the final offer from nurses was 7 per cent in compensation and 7 per cent in benefits, 14 per cent. That was their final offer that they had put on the table. Yet, when the president of the nurses' union went to the media, we then learned that it was 17 per cent. When the demands could not be met, they left the bargaining table, not us, by asking a conciliator to release them.
Consider this, if you will: a 17 per cent increase for all public servants would cost $160 million annually. This government cannot afford extra expenditures of $800 million over the next five years.
I cannot speak for former governments - I can only speak for this one - but I know that when this government took power in 1996 we had some harsh decisions to make. We had a $300 million deficit to face, and tough decisions had to be made. If you speak to any of our public servants, they will tell you that this is the first time in a long time that they have felt any stability.
For the past two years they have not been having to look at and hear of the shock of mid-season adjustments prior to Budget time. If you look at the mid-year release that was put out last week by Nesbitt Burns - just one of them - indicating that our economy is solid as a rock, that speaks volumes for us being able to put our fiscal house in order so now we can finally, after many years, offer our public servants a raise.
The hard part is over, with fiscal restraint, but why would we want to undo what we have found necessary to put in order for the past three years? That would happen, you know, if we were to give raises that we could not afford.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, we could not give to nurses nearly two-and-a-half times what thirty other bargaining units have accepted. Quite simply, it would not be fair to other public employees; nor would it be fair to taxpayers.
I cannot imagine looking at a health care worker, a teacher, or any other government worker, and saying: You deserve a 7 per cent increase but nurses deserve 17 per cent.
On Friday of last week, I stood in this House and announced that two tentative agreements with the NLTA and NAPE for 7 per cent over thirty-nine months had been reached. The nurses, to date, are the only group that has not reached an agreement.
AN HON. MEMBER: No, the Allied Health Professionals have not reached an agreement.
MS THISTLE: I want to tell you what is happening in other parts of the country.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS THISTLE: Seven per cent is a good offer.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS THISTLE: In British Columbia, the NDP government has agreed -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS THISTLE: - to an agreement of zero per cent in 1998, zero per cent in 1999, and 2 per cent in the year 2000.
In Quebec, there is an offer for 1 per cent in 1998, 1 per cent in 1999, 2 per cent in the year 2000, and 2 per cent in the year 2001, for a total of 6 per cent.
Our Premier stated several of these examples on Friday when he tabled in this House a chart for all of us to see, but I do not want to look and dwell on numbers. What I am trying to say is that -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS THISTLE: - the offer of 7 per cent over 39 months is comparable nationally. Wages is not the only issue.
First when we entered into these talks with nurses, we learned about workloads, casuals and wages. Just yesterday, the Minister of Health stood in this House and announced that 125 permanent nursing positions would be added to the system, along with a further 75 conversions of casual positions, along with the 125 that was previously announced last fall. I think this is a very important measure.
Never before in our Province's history have 325 new permanent nursing positions been added at any one time. I am sure that all of us must know there is a price tag with adding new positions, and that is $8.8 million annually or $44 million over the next five years.
We have also heard, going through a recent election, that nurses are concerned about their workloads and the hours they are working. Now a lot of the general public out there seem to attribute that maybe the stresses are connected to twelve-hour shifts. That is what we are hearing out there in the public, that maybe the cause of all this stress is twelve-hour shifts.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS THISTLE: The Minister of Health stood in her place yesterday and said that she will work with nurses and try to reduce that time to eight hours, if they are committed to making that change.
MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to -
PREMIER TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the former Leader of the Opposition, the Opposition House Leader, has asked for, on occasion, civility in this House and allowing people to speak. I ask him to allow the minister who is speaking now... We said we would have one speaker, in the interest of responding to the request of the health care associations for an urgent and quick response to their request for an end to this circumstance. The Opposition House Leader is persistently interrupting from the floor. I would ask him, in that we have one speaker, that speaker be heard.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: To the point of order, at times certainly all members of the House get carried away when they hear things that are not accurate. I certainly apologize if I interrupted, but I find it hard to sit here and take things that are not accurate.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
To the point of order, I just want to refer members to Standing Order 11.(3), which says, "When a Member is speaking, no Member shall pass between him or her and the Chair, nor interrupt him or her, except to raise a point of order."
I ask hon. members to pay attention to our own Standing Orders here.
The hon. the President of Treasury Board.
MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a look at Bill 3 and let this hon. House know what is contained in this bill. The bill is entitled "An Act To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation Of Health And Community Services".
Clause 1 indicates the title, which I just mentioned. Clause 2 makes it clear that it applies to nurses and their employers. Clause 3 clarifies that it applies to nurses due to the pending crises in the health care system. Clause 4 refers to the union's responsibility to notify their membership to return to work. Clause 5 refers to an old agreement that has been changed to help accommodate the health care board restructuring. There are three parts to that agreement: The old agreement; the next one was the change to accommodate the health board restructuring; and the tentative agreement that was nearly reached last fall. I will be tabling those together.
Clause 6 gives Cabinet the right to determine the wages and other conditions of the new collective agreement. Clause 7 outlines the penalties for failure to comply.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS THISTLE: Sure, I can outline them.
"7.(1) Where the union fails to comply with section 4 or subsection 5(2), it is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of $100,000, and in the case of a continuing offence, to a fine of $100,000 each day or part of a day during which the offence continues.
"(2) Every official or representative of the union who fails to comply with section 4 is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of $10,000 and, in the case of a continuing offence, to a fine of $10,000 for each day or part of a day during which the offence continues.
"(3) Every employee who fails to comply with section 5 is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of $1,000, and in the case of a continuing offence, to a fine of $1,000 for each day or part of a day during which the offence continues."
Clause 8, the last clause, indicates that this bill takes priority over the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act.
This is strong legislation; however, it is necessary. We have tried every way possible to reach a deal, an agreement, with nurses, and the nurses have not been willing to recognize the financial situation of this government. I have outlined the situation earlier and I am not going to waste any further time by going through that again.
I would like to conclude my remarks today by reminding people why we are here today. We are here today for a very serious reason, and I think all members of this House should realize how serious it is.
Last night I had on the Open Line show and I heard a caller whose wife had been to her physician and had determined that there was a lump in her breast, and the scheduled mammograph could not occur because of this situation. That is only one example. Anyone who watched TV last night during the news saw another one, and more will come forward every day. We have a responsibility, as a government, to act on this important situation.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS THISTLE: We have received clear indication from the Newfoundland and Labrador Health Care Association, both yesterday with a formal correspondence, a briefing both to ourselves and the Opposition, and today a news release saying we have about twenty-four hours to put our health care system back where it should be. It is a very serious situation and it should not be taken lightly. Would I be standing in this place if this were not a serious situation?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS THISTLE: No, I would not.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS THISTLE: Mr. Speaker, I am confident that all members appreciate the extreme gravity of this situation. We are in a position where government has to act.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the question be now put.
Thank you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the President of Treasury Board has moved the previous question. Honourable members understand that the previous question precludes all amendments to the main question, and that once all members have spoken on this question the question will be put and, if carried, a vote will then be taken on the second reading without any further debate.
The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. FUREY: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Just briefly, Mr. Speaker. I had said earlier in the session that it would be limited to nine hours and that is accurate, but when you moved the previous question it reduces the debating time for the Leader of the Opposition and the critic. We by leave will revert to make sure that they have the proper time to debate this bill and give the hour each to them.
MR. SPEAKER: Agreed?
The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This is not a happy day for collective bargaining in Newfoundland and Labrador. It is not a happy day for nurses in particular in our Province. In fact, this piece of legislation that we are debating that is entitled An Act To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation Of Health And Community Services is a piece of legislation we should not have before the House at all.
The laws of this Province are clear. This piece of legislation is not necessary. It circumvents the laws of this Province. It says that when we do not have laws that we like or which we feel do not address our particular political purpose, then we will create new laws. The implications for that in a democracy are obvious. They certainly say to everybody that the law of this Province can be changed at any time to suit the political agenda of the government in power.
A few days ago an article appeared in the local paper and it was from Nancy Healey Dove of Gander. In the Letters to the Editor of The Telegram - she did not write the headline, but it says it all; it says, "Nurses want a little respect" - Nancy Healey Dove tells of her trauma on the last night when she was leaving the hospital in Gander knowing that the next day she might not return to her place of work. It tells about her trauma last Tuesday evening. She says:
"I can't describe the emotions I felt as I stepped through the hospital doors, not knowing when I would return. I am sure I was not the only nurse who was torn. We are in the business of caring. It was not an easy decision for us as professionals to go on strike. This was, indeed, a desperate measure in response to the desperate working conditions we face daily."
She also writes:
"Every day, we are instrumental in the life and death situations facing our patients. We are patient advocates. To say that we are not worth extra money is an indirect reflection on how the government sees the patient as well."
She says: "I do not want to be on strike. Frankly, it goes against the very core of who I am." She says that she feels that Cabinet was counting on her work ethic and the work ethic of nurses in believing that they would not take strike action. This nurse says that what she wants more than anything else is respect for who she is, what she does, and what her mandate is in the community.
Nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador today are saying that they do not feel that this government respects them in the way that the government should. Day after day we have seen in the last week here petitions arriving to this House. What is the prayer of these petitions? What do these petitions all have in common? They have one theme in common. They are saying, clearly: We, the nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador, want to be respected, we want to be bargained with in good faith, we want government to be fair to nurses, we want government to be focused on patient care, we want government to provide a working atmosphere where the nurses themselves feel valued, and where they feel they can give more than is dictated in any collective agreement.
Because you can never write into a collective agreement the kind of work ethic that nurses bring. Words are words on paper. Professionalism cannot be put down in all cases to words on the printed page. What nurses want is to be treated as professionals, to be respected for who they are. They want the government not to lose sight of what it is doing here today, not to lose sight of the impact it will have when nurses are asked to go back, or forced to go back, to their workplaces. Because if we are going to have good health care we have to have well paid, well respected, caring professionals in our hospitals and in our nursing homes.
The nurses want the government to be more focused on the care of the patient. They want the issues of casualization addressed. I am told that up to 25 per cent of all nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador - up until some modifications made and announced by the minister in the last day or so - are casuals.
I know what it is like to be in the administrative position, to know what it is like to have to call in - in the teaching profession - teachers who do not have permanent jobs but who sit by their phones day after day and morning after morning, wondering: Will I get a call? I also know what it is like to have on my staff a teacher who waited eleven years before that teacher was told: You have a permanent contract.
Casualization can never, ever be totally eliminated. We on this side recognize that. It is necessary in the management of health care to have some nurses who are going to be casuals, but 25 per cent of a profession is far too high. Even with the changes that have been announced by the minister and the government the last few days, it will still put the ratio of casuals to full-time far higher than it is in most other places.
Nurses want a fair and equitable wage and benefits package. They want government to live up to the commitments that have been made to them. Sometimes when you are told you are special, or when you are told you are important, or when you are told you are necessary, and when you are told you are valued, and then when it comes time to deliver on that, when you go to your government who has told you all of these things and you are asked the question: Would you please put some monetary value on that?, Mr. Speaker, that is what nurses are asking for in Newfoundland and Labrador today.
I want to address Bill 3. The bill's intent is obvious. We all know it, it has been stated many times. It is a bill to circumvent the normal collective bargaining processes. The Act is rather self-explanatory in its purpose. It directs the union, when this act is passed, to put into action a process that will ensure that all nurses who are on strike return immediately to their work stations. It causes the union to cease and desist its collective bargaining rights that it is now engaged in.
It also imposes on nurses a new collective agreement. It says that all of the weeks of bargaining, all of the time that led up from the last summer and since 1995, all of the presentations that have been made to Treasury Board and to the health care boards, they have all come down to what we are doing here this day. They have all come down to what is going to happen in this House partially today. Unless the Premier decides that the current law of this Province is to be employed, then the law will be changed. We on this side can only debate this legislation for limited numbers of minutes and hours.
We recognize the parliamentary democracy here. We disagree with it, with the actions taken. That is our right. We have offered alternatives to the government. They have chosen not to accept them and for that they will be judged and judgement will, I am sure, be swift in some cases, more long term in others, and severe as well. What really bothers me with this piece of legislation, other than it is going directly against the current law of the Province and circumventing the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, is section 7.
Section 7 talks about offences and penalties. The minister started to read it, she got to the end of the first clause, and she must have been rather embarrassed because she stopped. She quit because she only got to the first part of it where it says in 7(1): "Where the union fails to comply with section 4 or subsection 5(2), it is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of $100,000, and in the case of a continuing offence, to a fine of $100,000 each day or part of a day during which the offence continues." That is rather severe. It certainly puts into place a severe set of penalties.
Clause 7(2) reads: "Every official or representative of the union who fails to comply with section 4 is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of $10,000 and, in the case of a continuing offence, to a fine of $10,000 for each day or part of a day during which the offence continues." In other words, every single member of the executive, and I guess all the locals and their executives, all of these people are officials or representatives of the union, can be fined up to $10,000 per person per day or part of a day.
Clause 7(3) reads: "Every employee who fails to comply with section 5 is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of $1,000, and in the case of a continuing offence, to a fine of $1,000 for each day or part of a day during which the offence continues." Every nurse in Newfoundland and Labrador who fails to comply with this legislation can be found guilty on summary conviction to a fine of a maximum amount of $1,000 per day.
My colleague the Opposition House Leader said, when the minister was reading section 1 and part of section 2, this was draconian.
Mr. Speaker, it is stronger than that really. I cannot think of all the words I might use, but it is certainly rather absurd. It paints a picture that nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador are all potential, I suppose, offenders at the court. They certainly must have great fears. That is not the kind of people I know in health care. These are not the kind of people who need this kind of strong, intimidating, absurd, illogical, preposterous, outrageous and wild kind of penalties imposed.
Mr. Speaker, nurses are not like that. Nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador do not need that kind of measure put into legislation to tell them that when this House passes this legislation - which it will do by a vote of a majority of the people elected, not with the will or support of the Official Opposition - nurses do not need that kind of thing. That is the kind of thing that was occurring at the bargaining table.
I have never heard of it before - and I have it directly from people involved in the negotiations - when you go into negotiate, you do not go in and say: You had better agree with what we are doing or else, if you do not, here is what is going to happen to you.
This kind of information came back to me some days ago with these very same, identical fines and penalties put in place. I had to say to myself: That is not what bargaining is about. What is going on here? Why would a reasonable, sensible, caring, employer going into bargaining and say immediately: I want to tell you, folks, if you do not agree with what we want, this is what is going to happen to you.
Mr. Speaker, that certainly is not the process that is implicit in the word "collective" when we talk about collective bargaining. The word "collective" means coming together.
When you go into bargaining, and when you start off with the premise that we are going to threaten you, we are going to be high and mighty, we have written the conclusions - it is like the wild West; we will give you a fair trail before we hang you. When you go into a collective bargaining process and you start from the beginning and say: We want to tell you, this is what we are going to do, we will win...
That is what was said at the bargaining table. At the bargaining table it started off -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. H. HODDER: I say to the hon. minister, it started off - the phrase was used and was said repeatedly: Don't forget, we will win.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, this particular bill reflects that kind of single-mindedness, that kind of pointed direction, that kind of absurd and illogical approach to collective bargaining.
The truth is, collective bargaining with the nurses failed before the first session. It would not have mattered if there had been face-to-face bargaining.
The minister, when she rose a few minutes ago, made a great deal out of the fact that there was not face-to-face bargaining from last Wednesday until conciliation broke off a few days ago. It is no wonder.
In my time I have sat across the bargaining table, most often as a employer, and I have been associated with a union for a long, long time. I can only imagine the atmosphere that is created when your bargaining team is confronted with these kinds of statements; when it is known, long before the legislation is printed and circulated, what the penalties are.
I have known for days and days what these penalties would be. In other words, the action that was taken at the bargaining table predisposed what the result would be, there was a predetermination of the end, and it was also ready and known to the bargainers what the penalties would be for noncompliance. It is no wonder that we in this Province today have difficulties.
Madam Minister, when she rose a few moments ago, seemed to have cast the blame on nurses. She talked about 7 per cent being a good offer. In fact, she said that the government have bargained in good faith; it was all the nurses' fault. They are the ones who did not come back to the bargaining table. She spent a great deal of her time, in her rather short presentation - a good deal of it was giving a rationalization of why the government is doing what it is doing. A good bit of it was, in a backhanded way, bashing nurses.
We know there is stress in the system. We know that there has to be a resolution. We on this side have said, and said again today by the Leader of the Opposition, we believe that this matter is exactly what the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act was designed to address.
The government's heavy-handed approach to collective bargaining is an affront not just to nurses; it is an affront to everything that we believed in this Province about collective bargaining. It is an affront to every member of every bargaining unit in Newfoundland and Labrador, and it is an affront to the citizens of this Province, because what the government seeks to do today is to railroad its will. It is seeking to say that we will get our way, regardless. It is going to railroad into legislation its will. It is suspending the legislation contained in the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. It is circumventing the laws of our Province. Not only that, but its approach is unprecedented. It is reckless, it is wrong, it intimidates the nurses, and it is an insult to Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. It is an affront to the law, and it makes a mockery out of good will and the very term of collective bargaining.
We on this side today, and we did so yesterday as well, say to the government: It is still not too late to change your mind, come to your senses, and to say that this senseless and absurd action that we are doing, this road we have taken, is wrong. This pathway we are on is leading us astray. It is leading us to a direction and a destination that we do not want to be in. It is time - and there is still time - for this government to say that they will change their mind and let the laws of this Province be used as they are supposed to be used.
We on this side believe that binding arbitration as contained in sections 30 to 37 of the Public Services Collective Bargaining Act is an approach that should have been considered. We on this side as well have given the commitment that if that approach were used, we would give our word and we would rapidly pass the necessary resolution to give effect to that particular section of the act.
It would take us about twenty minutes to do it. In twenty minutes from now we could have this particular strike on the pathway to binding arbitration. It takes about twenty minutes for the process to be put in place, and that means all of the procedural things that would occur in the House.
We say to the government we will facilitate that resolution. We will give our word that we believe that is the best pathway to go. We would compliment the government, we would give them credit for realizing that what nurses really want is respect. They believe so sincerely in their cause that they are prepared, and I note the President of the nurses' union, Debbie Forward, has said publicly that she would be prepared to go today and accept binding arbitration as a resolution.
I will get to it a little later on in the afternoon, as my time goes on, to the press release that was released today in which there is an olive branch out to government, that says: We want to be cooperative, and when she says what she and her union would be prepared to do.
In the hard-nosed world of Liberal politics in Newfoundland and Labrador today, when people have their minds made up - and they have been made up for weeks and months in advance - we do not expect the government to be standing in the next hour or so and saying to nurses: We are sorry, we were wrong. They should do it, but they will not.
We on this side say to government again now: Look at the options, consider the options, consider closing this particular debate that we are into now, and reverting to a procedure which would invoke the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. We could have the nurse back on the job in twenty-four hours.
I made reference a few moments ago to the statement made at 11:00 this morning by Debbie Forward. She is the provincial President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union. I will read from that article. She says: We will end this legal strike if government will agree to submit all monitory matters to binding arbitration. Although present law gives us the right to binding arbitration on all outstanding issues, we are willing to entertain the establishment of studies and a mediation panel to deal with the issues relating to workload and casualization. This is an offer we believe to be fair to all parties. It is a compromise. Although we have no guarantees we would win a binding arbitration, we are legally entitled to this process. It is a process that would provide nurses, who have sacrificed so much this past eight days, their right to submit at least a portion of our dispute to an independent third party for resolution.
Be it noted for the record, that 11:00 this morning, three or fours before this debate was to take place, the President of the nurses' union, Debbie Forward, put forward a compromise proposal. Let the record also show that when the Leader of the Opposition stood in his place today and raised this very question with the Premier it was rejected outright.
Debbie Forward and the nurses want to resolve this dispute. They want to resolve it in a manner provided for in legislation. They do not want to see their rights taken away by an arbitrary piece of legislation imposed by this government. She also says, and I will read from the article: Since the beginning of this process government has threatened nurses. That is strong language. They have made statements like: You cannot win. They told us that we had the right to strike but that if we did they would legislate nurses back to work and impose a 7 per cent settlement.
Today we see government living up to those threats. We see what happens when you bargain in bad faith. We see what happens when you do not live up to your promises. We see what happens when you say one thing on the eve of an election and you say something else some weeks later.
Nurses have won in Newfoundland and Labrador today. Nurses are winning in this Province today. Nurses have won one thing that government cannot take from them, and that is they have won the hearts of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians from coast to coast, from Cape Chidley to Cape Race. They have won the hearts successfully because the people of Newfoundland and Labrador believe that nurses have a just cause. The moral high ground in all of this belongs not to the government; the moral high ground belongs to the nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador.
As Debbie Forward says in her statement, this is not a happy day for them. It is perhaps a dark day for collective bargaining in all Newfoundland and Labrador. It is probably the darkest day in the last twenty-five or thirty years. It probably goes back to the time when collective bargaining did not exist, and when employees - and I was one of them. When I started teaching I had to come into the Province with our association - we essentially came in with our hand out. We said: What have you got for us this year? What can you give us?
I thought we had gone beyond that. I thought we had gone beyond the time when collective bargaining amounted to employees going into government with their cap and saying: Would you put a few pennies in our collection plate because we need to live too?
Throughout the time when I was a teacher in Newfoundland and Labrador - I began teaching in September 1961 -
MR. SULLIVAN: How old are you?
MR. H. HODDER: How old am I? The Opposition House Leader knows. Mr. Speaker, I was a very young teacher in 1961.
AN HON. MEMBER: You're still young, Harvey.
MR. H. HODDER: Still young. Mr. Speaker, I digress only to say that we in the employee groups connected to government over the last forty years have won the right to bargain collectively. We have moved on from the days when we would come to government and say: What do you have to offer us? We finally got to the stage where we wrote down some of the things we wanted. We did not go in and say: What do you have for us? We even had the nerve, had the audacity, to sit down and say: Employer, here are some of the things we would like to have. (Inaudible) to them we said: We do not know whether you want to have this or not but we would like for you to consider this and so on and so forth. Then finally we got collective bargaining. It was a great day for employees in Newfoundland and Labrador when they were given the right to have collective bargaining.
Today nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador have had that right taken away. They have been told: We do not mean what we say. They have been told: You can come to bargain with government but we are going to predetermine the outcome. That tells us a great deal about bad faith. It makes a mockery of collective bargaining processes. For nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador today this is a sad day. For the whole entire union movement in Newfoundland and Labrador this is a black day. It is a day of regret. It is a day of shame on government. It is a day when government should be embarrassed to be bringing this affront to the process in this Province. This action will have long-lasting and negative implications to collective bargaining in Newfoundland and Labrador; not only for the nurses, but for all of us.
I know some members on the opposite side of the House, they struggled with this because they too are advocates for rights. It is sad when they could not convince their colleagues and their caucus to do something different. What we see on the other side of the House today are the people who have traditionally stood up for individual rights - some of them are in Cabinet -, people who have a history of standing up for union personnel in this Province. Some of them have long histories, not in the union movement, for standing up for the rights of individuals. They have been trampled, they have been pushed aside, or they have been convinced that what they are doing here is right. I just hope it is not the latter. There has to be a human consciousness in that group on the other side of this House.
I cannot believe that people can vary so far from the pathways they have walked in such recent times. Some members on the other side of the House have walked the pathways of the union movement. They have stood shoulder to shoulder with me when I stood in the galleries of this House in 1983 when teachers were on strike. I spent day after day here for three weeks. I know what it is like to be in the galleries. I have been there.
I say to members opposite, examine your consciousness, remember the pathways that you helped the union movement make in this Province, look again at where you have been, and ask yourself the basic question: are you happy where you are going? That is what it is all about. It is all about having the will to stand and say: I believe in what I have done. I believe in the pathways that I have walked. I will not abandon my principles just because it is convenient, or because some political stripe tells me that should be the way.
I call upon members opposite, some of whom I have known for thirty or thirty-five years. I know what they are about, or I know what they were about - because they have varied so far from where they walked in previous times.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I want to address for a few moments a telephone survey, a public opinion poll that was done by the nurses to let the members opposite know what the public is saying. I am going to read some of the questions, and I am going to read some of the responses. I want to enter them into the public record.
This telephone poll was done over the last few days. There were 400 fully completed interviews with heads of households in Newfoundland and Labrador. Numbers were generated randomly from the directory of all phone numbers in the Newfoundland and Labrador telephone directories, so every person in this Province had an equal chance of being selected. The telephone survey was done on March 29 and March 30, Monday and Tuesday of this week, so it is very much up-to-date.
We know that the government opposite is always interested in surveys. Traditionally in the past we have had a survey-conscious government. They have done surveys over and over again.
Last year, I forget now how much money was spent on public opinion polls but it amounted to tens of thousands of dollars - $60,000?
MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) more than that.
MR. H. HODDER: More than that, all tolled. These results are accurate within a plus or minus 4.78 per cent. Simply put, the results can be generalized. I want to say that these results have a high degree of validity, a high degree of reliability; therefore, we want to read into the record what ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are saying. What is the opinion of the rank and file? What is the opinion of the people in the Port au Port Peninsula? What is the opinion of the people in the Great Northern Peninsula? What is the opinion of people in Pouch Cove, or the opinion of the people in Grand Bank?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER (Smith): Order, please!
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, the first question that was asked was one of what was called forced choice. The question was: Overall, if you were forced to chose, which side would you support the most, nurses or government?
Mr. Speaker, before I give the results, I want to make it clear that all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians are very versed in this situation. It has been in all the media. It has been in the public press. It has been in - I suppose with all the advertising that has been done by government, I am sure the results will show that they have had a tremendous impact on public opinion, because they have been advertising with the idea that they want to turn the public of Newfoundland and Labrador to the government's side, making sure they do not listen to president of the nurses' union.
The question was: Overall, if you were forced to choose, which side would you support the most, nurses or government? Nurses, 80 per cent; government, 8 per cent; don't know, 11 per cent. That says that support for nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador today is ten times higher for the nurses than it is for the government; 80 per cent to 8 per cent. That tells the government: You are on the wrong track, folks.
That says that if the people of this Province were forced to choose today, 80 percent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians all over this Province would say that the nurses would have their support and the government would not.
The second question talks about the incidence of thinking that nurses should be able to negotiate their own salary increase over 7 per cent, knowing that arrangements have been made for other unions who have a wage increase of over 7 per cent. I will read the question. It said: Eighty-five per cent of the public service have settled for a 7 per cent wage increase; however, other arrangements were made for the Province's physicians, water bomber pilots, judges, and Marine Institute employees. In fact, physicians received a 22 per cent settlement. Knowing this, should nurses be allowed to negotiate their own settlement over 7 per cent?
Four-hundred and twenty people surveyed, in answer to the question, 80 per cent of the people surveyed said yes. Yes, nurses should be able to negotiate a settlement; no, 15 per cent; don't know, 5 per cent.
The people of Newfoundland and Labrador, all over this Province, are saying that nurses should be able to negotiate a collective agreement in good faith with good, hard-nosed bargaining; and if it went over 7 per cent, the people are saying that they would be willing to support that. That is what this survey says.
MR. LUSH: (Inaudible). The question does not say that at all.
MR. H. HODDER: I am sure the hon. Member for Terra Nova will avail of the opportunity to stand in his place and render his decision. He has not spoken in the House - other than to make a point of order a few days ago - for so long that we on this side would enjoy a presentation on this matter from him. I am sure that we on this side would even give some of our time, if that were necessary, because we have not heard from him in so long now; but I digress a little bit.
The next question was on the incidence of thinking that nurses should keep their right to binding arbitration if government forces them back to work.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I will read the question. It reads: If government decides to end the strike, the law today requires both sides to go to binding arbitration whereby an independent third party would settle the dispute in a fair and unbiased manner, and both side would have to accept the decision. If nurses are forced to return to work, do you think nurses should be allowed to keep their right to binding arbitration where an independent third party would settle the dispute in a fair and unbiased matter and both sides would have to accept the decision?
Everybody will know it is a lengthy question. I will repeat it because it is a lengthy question and it is the core of what we are talking about here today. It said: If government - and we know now that is what is going to happen - decides to end the strike, the law today - and that is referring to the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act - requires both sides to go to binding arbitration whereby an independent third party would settle the dispute in a fair and unbiased manner, and both sides would have to accept the decision. If nurses are forced to return to work, do you think that nurses should be allowed to keep their right to binding arbitration where an independent third party would settle the dispute in a fair and unbiased manner and both sides would have to accept the decision? A very clear question.
Yes, the people of Newfoundland replied in the affirmative. Eighty-eight per cent of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians believe that nurses should be able to have binding arbitration. Six per cent said no; do not know was 6 per cent as well.
What we have happening here today is government sidling up to the 6 per cent that said no. Eighty-eight per cent of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, in a survey done just yesterday and the day before, are saying: Government you are wrong, you are doing the wrong thing.
You cannot have it more clear than that. If you can get 88 per cent in this kind of a survey, 88 per cent of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador believe that nurses should have binding arbitration.
Moving on to the next question, the next question deals with the perception of fairness of government in passing a law that forces nurses back to work and denies them their right to binding arbitration. How fair is that process? In other words, it follows from the previous question. It also tests the issue of internal consistency in a survey poll. Let me read the question. It reads: As you know nurses are now on a legal strike. In Newfoundland today, the government could pass a law ordering nurses to return to work. If nurses are ordered to return to work, the current law says that nurses have the right to binding arbitration to settle the dispute with an independent third party making the decision. However, government could make a new law that ends the strike by forcing nurses to return to work with a forced settlement and thus no right to binding arbitration. The question was: Do you think that it would be fair for government to make this law whereby nurses would lose their right to binding arbitration?
There were five categories: Very fair, 1 per cent; fair, 6 per cent; unfair, 34 per cent; very unfair, 56 per cent; do not know, 3 per cent. In unfair and very unfair, the total the two of them together, that is 34 per cent, and that is 56 per cent. That makes a total of 90 per cent of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who are saying that it would be unfair of government to make the very law that we are passing here today.
AN HON. MEMBER: Not we, they.
MR. H. HODDER: I said they. I did not say we. Did I say we? That had to be a Freudian slip, because it is "they" who are going to pass this particular piece of legislation.
MR. SULLIVAN: It will not be us.
MR. H. HODDER: It will not be us on this side of the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. H. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, 90 per cent of the people surveyed in this survey said that what we are doing here today is unfair, it is unjust. Therefore, it is no wonder we on this side are so adamant in saying that we will not support this piece of legislation.
This piece of legislation we are talking about here today sends a very clear message to all people in Newfoundland and Labrador. It sends a message that says that bullying by government is still alive and well in Newfoundland and Labrador. It says that intimidation by government is still alive and well in Newfoundland and Labrador. It says that double-meaning promise-making at election time is still alive and well in Newfoundland and Labrador today, because what nurses were told at election time is not what is happening here. Nobody stood up at election time and said: Oh, by the way, if you do not go the way we want you to go then we will impose binding arbitration. There has to be some truth in political life. You cannot live forever on double-meaning promise-making and intimidation, and that kind of thing.
PREMIER TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the member opposite has distinguished himself by a capacity to stand and speak what is not the truth, with a straight face, with apparently no effort whatsoever.
Mr. Speaker, what the member is saying is absolutely untrue. I went through the election campaign and met nurses every day, at every location, and told nurses every day, at every location, that we would negotiate fairly on workload issues but that we could not promise a settlement on salaries beyond that given to every other public service worker.
[There is a disturbance in the galleries.]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Clear the galleries, please. We will recess for a couple of minutes while the galleries are cleared.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Premier is on a point of order.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I think I have concluded the point of order.
MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Waterford Valley.
AN HON. MEMBER: His time is up, isn't it?
MR. SPEAKER: No, he still has four minutes.
MR. H. HODDER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
In concluding my comments, I want to refer to the fact that the hon. the Premier, on February 8, in a report by Doug Greer - that is from CBC TV - is quoted as saying that the Premier says that - I am quoting from the article here - he tells the nurses they can trust him to handle their concerns over cutbacks to health care.
Mr. Speaker, what that told the nurses is that they would be treated fairly, they would be treated honestly, they would be treated with respect, they would be told that their concerns would be brought to the bargaining table.
What we see and what we hear from nurses is that they have been told in bargaining that there was no hope of their ever winning at the bargaining table. They were told that they -
AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.
MR. H. HODDER: I am quoting the president, who was there. When the president of the nurses' union puts in print what she has told me privately, then I feel free to say that here in the public Chamber. When the nurses' union puts it in print and she says that we were told at the bargaining table that we will win, that certainly goes against everything that the Premier said on the eve of the election.
The Premier said that he would be bargaining in good faith. He said: I will see you at the bargaining table. Then he said: The nurses can trust me to handle their concerns over cutbacks in health care.
Mr. Speaker, when I say double-meaning promise-making, that is exactly what I mean. I mean to say that you have to read the words and you have to take the actions that follow from them. So when we say to the Premier that he engaged in double-meaning promise-making, you only have to ask the nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador whether or not the commitments that they heard are consistent with the actions of government at the bargaining table. We on this side say, no.
The President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union, Debbie Forward, says no. You do not go into bargaining and say we will win; here are the penalties.
When I was told four to five days ago, long before this legislation was ever tabled, I was told exactly what the penalties would be for non-compliance. That is not bargaining in good faith.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. H. HODDER: While the Member for Humber East may call across the House and disagree with that, let the record show that the Member for Humber East is saying, that is the right thing to do. That is what I am hearing on this side. If that is not correct, he should exercise his right to stand and correct it.
Mr. Speaker, we on this side believe that government engaged in bad faith bargaining. They have shown no respect for nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. H. HODDER: They should go back to the law of this Province, go back and look at the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, and give the nurses binding arbitration. It is the right thing to do, the honourable thing to do, and the only thing to bring success and peace in the union movement.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, may I have leave to move the striking committee?
I move, pursuant to Standing Order 84, the appointment of the striking committee to consist of the following: the Member for Bonavista North, the Member for Topsail, the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, the Member for Ferryland, and the Member for Lewisporte.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave to introduce the motion?
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, we give leave to put the Committee in place.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to give leave, but I would want to put on the record the interest of my caucus to participate in committees of the House. I would ask that the Committee, in its deliberations, take this into consideration. Perhaps we could have a meeting with them to discuss this issue.
MR. SPEAKER: All those in favour of the motion, `aye.'
AN HON. MEMBER: Aye!
MR. SPEAKER: Against?
Carried.
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FRENCH: I asked my House Leader to let me up next because I am waiting with baited breath to hear the Minister of Mines and Energy, who ensures me that after I'm finished he will be on his feet telling us exactly how he is going to vote when this things comes to a vote, where he stands on the nurses' issue, and (inaudible) he got his marching orders this morning. I look forward to such a speech. I have been here since 1996 and I do not know if I should congratulate him or not. It is probably the quietest time he has ever been in the House of Assembly. I do not know if he has me amazed or exactly what he has done. Anyway, maybe it is good to see him quiet once in a while.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take some time this afternoon to speak on this bill that I think is probably, certainly since I have been a member of this House, one of the worst pieces of legislation I have ever seen.
I spoke the other day on a petition in support of the nurses' union where we talking about collective bargaining, what had transpired. I sat on a negotiating committee several times to negotiate contracts and I do not ever believe that I sat on any committee under fear or under any pressure of a threat of being legislated back to work, or anything else. I will say that it was a federal Crown corporation and I was vice-president of a union, part of the PSAC, and we negotiated. Sometimes negotiations, as we all know, are certainly not very nice and sometimes they can be very difficult, very hard. I would never want to sit on any committee where the fear of back-to-work legislation was always hanging over your head.
I believe my colleague for Waterford Valley when he says that the President of the Nurses' Union told him that that was a threat that was always over the head of the nurses' union in Newfoundland and Labrador. If that be so, then that is not right, that is criminal, that is dictatorship in my opinion, pure and utter dictatorship. I really do not know what word I would use to describe it, other than dictatorship, to try and negotiate a collective bargaining agreement. I say that in all sincerity, and I mean it.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FRENCH: I have not been told anything. Nobody has been up on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, I say that in all sincerity. This is the worst piece of legislation I have seen since I have been in this House, since 1996.
We have all heard what transpired during the recent election: We will do our utmost to help you out. Legislating nurses back to work when we do not have to do it, when there is already legislation in place which could put the nurses back to work in twenty-four hours with binding arbitration. I do not buy the Premier's comments on binding arbitration, because at the end of the day neither he nor us knows what will come out of binding arbitration. After all, we cannot set ourselves up as judge and jury. We may want to, but we cannot do that.
I find it very strange to be in this House today. The constable who normally sits in this House is not here. Today we are graced with a lieutenant.
AN HON. MEMBER: Why?
MR. FRENCH: I do not know. I would like to know why, Mr. Speaker. Every member of the RNC, they tell me today, is back on call, time-and-a-half, double time.
AN HON. MEMBER: Why?
MR. FRENCH: I do not know, but I would like to know why. I would like to know why we have done that. The constable is not sitting here today, but we have a lieutenant here today. Very strange, very interesting. I would really like to know why we have come to that in this House and in this Province. I do not like the way their dispute was settled.
I have never had as many phone calls on any particular issue - and that goes back even to the education reform issue - in this House as I had from the nurses' union. I would like to relay some of the stories I have had told me. Last night several of them called me and talked about how this procedure works. Every single one of them mentioned to me the senior Cabinet minister who thought so much about the nurses who sat in the gallery, that yesterday afternoon he spent his time reading a magazine. They wondered if that was the care and concern this minister had for them, for their plight, and for the position they find themselves in. If it is, then I say to that minister, shame on him. Not shame on him, disgrace on him.
The least we can do is sit in this place and respect the people who are on the picket line, but I see a trend over the last several days, and I do not like where we are going. I hear comments from the general public, and from people whom I never expected to hear them from, of how upset these people really are. I do not buy the argument that every health care board in this Province is in crisis. They have a letter here today which certainly says one of the largest ones in the Province is not in crisis.
Again, I have to wonder what we are doing. Why do we have to bring in back-to-work legislation without binding arbitration? The Leader of the Opposition has been asking for several days for an answer to that question. None, in my opinion, has been forthcoming. I do not know why we have to legislate these people back to work.
My colleague from Waterford Valley a few minutes ago talked about a press release that was issued today on behalf of the nurses' union. My colleague went to great length to read out some polls: a government as well that lives on polls, glorifies itself on polls. This poll, of course, is all nonsense because it is probably a poll they did not commission. The facts are there, the figures are there, the percentage of right or wrong is there. They do not accept it because it is not their polling. They did not use their firm to do this. Such nonsense. Is it really nonsense? Is it really nonsense when these things were put forward, not to government, not to Opposition, but to the people of this Province? These are the results that have come back. Most of those figures are over the 80 per cent mark.
We wonder, or we really do not need to wonder, exactly where we are, or where we sit, or where we stand with the public of this Province. I think it is quite clear how the people of this Province feel about the nurses' union. When I spoke here several days ago on a petition, I said that I would not support back-to-work legislation, and my mind has not changed. I will sit here for however long it takes to debate this issue, to debate it fully. I have no intention of supporting this legislation and would ask all of my colleagues, on both sides of the House, to look at it, to look at the calls that I am sure they are receiving as well as we are. As I said, last night at home, I never got as many phone calls on education reform as I did concerning the nurses' union strike; and in my office this morning the same thing was occurring.
The nurses' strike; there is already a mechanism on the books to settle this. It is called the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. Section 30 says: The House can resolve that there is a state of emergency and to send the dispute to binding arbitration, thereby bringing an end to the job action.
So the mechanism is there. The mechanism no more supports nurses than it does government, but it supports a principle, it supports a law and, as far as I am concerned, if that mechanism is there, that mechanism should be used. We could settle this dispute.
I don't care if I am here until 12:00 tonight or 2:00 tomorrow morning, it does not really matter to me, but we could be out of here at 5:00 p.m. today.
Now the gala that is on tonight - the Premier is not going to the gala. That is his choice. He makes up his own mind whether he goes to the gala or whether he stays here. The people in his Cabinet, the people in his government, make up their own minds whether they are going to the gala, whether they are going to stay here, or whether they are going to go somewhere else.
AN HON. MEMBER: They were told by the Premier (inaudible).
MR. FRENCH: I don't know who told them what, but that is their decision. That is not my decision, that is their decision, and I guess they are free to make their own decisions to do exactly what they wish to do. If the Premier wishes to go to the gala tonight, I have no problem with him going to the gala. That is up to himself.
AN HON. MEMBER: Are you going, Bob?
MR. FRENCH: Am I going? No, I am not going. Are you going?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FRENCH: Oh, very good. Well, that is up to you.
PREMIER TOBIN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Premier, on a point of order.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, to give clear information to the member opposite so there is no confusion, in my mind, all members of the House should be here tonight. The Leader of the Opposition has made a suggestion that we be here tonight to deal with this bill. It is an emergency. The Leader of the Opposition was briefed just before Question Period, I have since learned, after Question Period, by Mr. John Peddle, who informed him that they wanted the bill passed without delay and gave him a copy of the press release which I referred to in Question Period.
Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition has made clear yesterday that - I think I am quoting almost directly - if the Premier will give up his gala we can debate the bill.
Mr. Speaker, every member of this government is prepared, if that is what it takes, to be here tonight to get this bill passed -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: - and I would ask other members to do the same so this matter can be dealt with. We can have strong disagreements on the bill but let's not delay it unduly. Let's deal with the request from the associations and let's meet tonight until 10:00, until midnight, until the wee hours of the morning, whatever it takes to do the right thing now that it is time to act.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
MR. E. BYRNE: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: A new point of order, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Peddle did speak with me prior to the House opening. Unfortunately, I did not get a copy of the release they had sent out. He referred to it. I did not get a copy prior to the House but I am not calling into question Mr. Peddle's motives. He certainly did indicate that at the earliest possible time, no question about it. That is why we are here to debate it tonight.
With respect to the suggestion by myself with respect to tonight, it was clear yesterday - I had indicated that I saw the Premier on television saying that we were being obstructive yesterday, that we could not debate this until Friday. Reference was made, no question about it, with respect, the Government House Leader had not even consulted with the Opposition House Leader. There was no knowledge if we were in a state of mind to facilitate or begin discussion on this bill. We were, today. I indicated that yesterday, and indicated again publicly today, and that is what we are here for.
I think, in terms of dealing with the issue, let's stick with the issue - that is Bill 3, back-to-work legislation - and let's move on; already communicated, let's move on.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
PREMIER TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier, on a new point of order.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, for greater clarity - and I think this is maybe a useful exercise between the Leader of the Opposition and myself - nothing in this Province takes precedence -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: Nothing in this Province, that is occurring in this Province, takes precedence over the need for the Legislature to deal with an urgent request from the fourteen CEO's of the health care boards. If that means we have to sit this evening, or sit overnight if that is necessary, that is what we ought to do. I do not think - and I would ask members not to make a decision now but to reflect during the evening - we should make an arbitrary decision. We are going to have a report at 5:00 p.m., another report at 8:00 p.m., and at 10:00 tonight, on the state of the health care system. If it is deteriorating, I think we have to respond.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
PREMIER TOBIN: If it is not, that is fine. We have to respond -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, people should not laugh about this. Opposition members, I know, do not mean to laugh about this. I would hope they don't.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
PREMIER TOBIN: There are people in the system who need -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER TOBIN: I thank the members opposite for their appreciation for my comments.
There are people in system who need care, and while we disagree about how this strike should end - and it is fine to disagree - we should cooperate, even if we disagree on the means, at least to bring the question before the House. I would ask members opposite, if we are going to be here this evening to facilitate, given the changing circumstances hour by hour, full consideration of this bill; and I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to give consideration to that request.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Conception Bay South.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I figured there was no point of order. Again the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island was chiming in there a few minutes ago. I want to say to him that he has the same opportunity as me, thirty minutes. When I am finished mine, if he so wishes, he can stand in his place and tell me why. If he feels different than me, he can do it.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FRENCH: Well, I hope you do it in here because I certainly do not intend to listen to you outside anywhere. We will hold you to that.
Mr. Speaker, the mechanism is supported by the nurses, and I am talking about the binding arbitration here. The mechanism is supported by Opposition. More importantly than that, the general public in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, in a public opinion poll done, the poll in 88 per cent in favour of what the nurses' union have proposed in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not know why we cannot send this particular piece of legislation to binding arbitration.
There has been nothing said in this House to convince me any differently. If there was, maybe I could see something differently. I have heard nothing in this House to indicate to me why we cannot send this particular bill to binding arbitration - absolutely nothing. Are we afraid of what the outcome might be? I do not know.
We look and see what happened to the police. I have to say, I certainly do not agree with that either. Hopefully over the next several days I will get the opportunity to find out why we are so fortunate today to be graced by a lieutenant and not by the constable who has been sitting in this House since some time last year. It is really strange.
Mr. Speaker, I feel that the government did not bargain in good faith. Anybody who has been connected with a union realizes that because one union goes in and negotiates one rate of pay does not necessarily mean that every group in the Province has to settle for such wages. If it is 7 per cent, 10 per cent, 12 per cent, 2 per cent, 3 per cent, or 1 per cent, I guess it should show the negotiating skills, or the negotiating process, of unions in this Province.
In the last session of the House, I was the critic for labour, and I had the opportunity to talk to many unions. Some of them I got to know quite, and some them I knew quite well. Some of these people have, I am sure, some very good negotiating skills and some of them I would put up against probably anybody.
There comes a time when one part of government - and this Austin Deir stuff. I heard Mr. Deir this morning on one of the radio stations saying how good he feels that he is such a powerful man in this Province that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador are afraid of him. That we are actually afraid of one man who speaks for NAPE. Who knows, in a few weeks' time maybe he will not speak for NAPE, maybe it will be somebody else, but he was amazed that he had such power to put the fear into the Government of this Province as he has into them. I am more amazed than he is to hear people stand in this House and say: We cannot do this because Austin Deir said that. Who is he? What is he? I certainly do not buy that argument either.
I listened to the minister read this. We look at the sections if the union fails to comply. They are, in clause 7(1), "liable on summary conviction to a fine of $100,000, and in the case of a continuing offence, to a fine of $100,000 each day or part of a day during which the offence continues."
Just imagine. Where are we living? Are we living in Canada, in Newfoundland and Labrador, or are we some place else? One hundred thousand dollars a day. I mean, there is something wrong here. Whoever drew this up, I would suggest there is something wrong with them.
Clause 7(2) reads: "Every official or representative of the union who fails to comply with section 4 is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of $10,000 and, in the case of a continuing offence, to a fine of $10,000 for each day or part of a day during which the offence continues." Just imagine, $10,000 a day.
Then we go on down to (3), which states: "Every employee who fails to comply with section 5 is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of $1,000..." a day.
AN HON. MEMBER: That is more than poaching moose.
MR. FRENCH: I do not know. I believe it is, yes. It goes on: "and in the case of a continuing offence, to a fine of $1,000 for each day or part of a day during which the offence continues."
How sickening is this, Mr Speaker, I have to ask, because it is sickening to me. I do not care how the minister feels and I do not care how the government feels, but to me this is sickening. This to me is a disgrace. There is no other way to describe this: $100,000 a day, $10,000 a day, and $1,000 a day for each day or part thereof. Just imagine. Where are we? One really has to wonder where we are going in this Province when we see legislation such as this. I refer to it as garbage, because to me that is exactly what that section is, absolute garbage, and I would not retract that for anybody.
Browbeating the union with a costly PR campaign, such as one-page, two-page ads in The Telegram - I do not know but yesterday afternoon there were three pages in there -, what are we trying to do? Are we trying to browbeat the union down? Because according to the polling they have done I can clearly say it is not working. We are not beating this union down, we are not breaking this union down. This union has become more united than ever, and I say more power to them for standing up for their rights in this Province. If the Premier accomplished one thing he certainly united the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union. If there was anything that he accomplished, and the public behind him, he accomplished that. He did a great job of doing that, I say to the Premier.
Those things are not going to work. We see a union that is stronger than ever, a union that is determined, and a union that has offered as late as today: Put in the words binding arbitration and we are back to work in twenty-four hours. It has not happened. According to the Premier it is not going to happen. That to me is very sad, that we have people walking the streets.
The claim by the Premier, the minister and some others on the government side that they were surprised that the nurses' union went on strike is a lark. We all knew if there was no agreement reached, I believe it was on Sunday night, by a certain hour, that the nurses would go on strike.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FRENCH: Whatever day. I am sure the minister knew, I am sure the government knew, and for sure the nurses' union knew. They also knew - maybe it was a good ploy on the part of government - that if they did not go that night it was thirty more days they would have to wait before legally, I believe, they could go.
Mr. Speaker, if ever there was a union in the past little while which has done one thing right it has to be the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union. Every nurse who called me last night, and every nurse who has called me today, told me without exception that if there was any crisis in the health care system all somebody had to do was ask and they would be in to work with a moment's notice. They would be back to work in a moment's notice. Not one who called told me anything different. I did not ask; they volunteered the information to me.
I had calls last night from nurses who have already been back to work, nurses who are specialists in their particular field. They have already been back to work because there was an emergency, they were asked to go back, and back they went. They did not have to get anyone to browbeat them or drag them by the bootstraps. They were asked to go in and they went in of their own abilities and their own beliefs. They went in without any more than that to it.
Now I will turn to the number of new positions. Are there really any new positions? Are we now just taking casuals and making them permanent? Is that a new position? If you are casual today and you become permanent tomorrow morning, have we created a new position? I do not think so.
MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) casuals are working full hours anyway.
MR. FRENCH: Most of them are. The reason they are casual, I guess, is so that there do not have to be any benefits paid.
Mr. Speaker, all of these things have me wondering why we cannot do the proper thing, why we cannot put in binding arbitration. As my colleague for Waterford Valley said a few minutes ago, in twenty minutes this whole issue could be settled. But so be it. If you want to sit here until midnight or 1:00 or 2:00 tomorrow morning, so be it.
The government with its numbers, of course, as they did a year or so ago, can send half of you home. Good night, good luck to you, have a nice night. We will be here, and when you come back in the morning we will still be here waiting for you.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!
MR. SPEAKER: No leave.
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. FRENCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Labrador West.
MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to begin by talking about the collective bargaining system in this Province. It is something that, as I indicated earlier this week, I have had occasion to deal with numerous times, but never before had I gone into bargaining with most of the terms and conditions already prescribed. That is negotiating with your hands tied behind your back, and it is unfair bargaining at the very best.
The President of Treasury Board talked earlier today about percentages. When you are talking percentages, it is very easy to use them to mislead and contort the real facts. If you look at 1 per cent of $100,000 it is a pretty good increase, but if you look at 1 per cent of $30,000 it does not exactly translate into the same thing.
She talked about other provinces, and how our percentage was higher, but she failed to provide us with the salaries of nurses in other provinces. I think that was deliberate because it probably would have been embarrassing for them, as a government.
This is a dark day for labour relations in this Province not only for nurses but for anyone who is entering into collective bargaining, and not only with this government. This has ramifications for the private sector as well, because there are lots of employers who are out there today in the private sector who are looking at this 7 per cent and their first argument when they go into bargaining with their bargaining units is going to be quite simple. They are going to be using government 7 per cent as a guideline for their bargaining as well. So, it does not just affect the nurses. It affects every worker in this Province who has to enter collective bargaining over the next couple of years.
I think that under the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act - quote, unquote - what has happened here this week should call for a name change. Instead of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, maybe now it can be called the government's handbook on the terms and conditions under which our employees will work; because there is nothing in this nurses' strike and in this legislation that even suggests collective bargaining ever occurred or ever will take place.
As a government, they have the numbers. As a governing government, they have the numbers to introduce and pass whatever legislation they may wish. We cannot stop it. We can slow it down. We can debate it and we can do other things, but we do not, unfortunately, have the power to stop them in what they want to do.
They can legislate laws and pass laws when they want. There are many things they can do, but the one thing they cannot legislate, that is going to be a problem, is what happens when they legislate the nurses back to work and they, in fact, return to their workplaces. They cannot legislate goodwill, and they cannot legislate honesty and integrity.
I can tell you, when the nurses do return to work under these conditions and under those circumstances, it is not going to be a happy day to walk through the doors of the hospitals that they were not happy about leaving in the first place.
What this government has done for the supervisors, for the management in the hospitals and the workers, is effectively driven a wedge between them in the workplace that will probably not be the best work environment to return to.
We have heard a lot this past week about collective agreements, different collective agreements, and why there are. Obviously, the reason we have different bargaining units, the reason we have different collective agreements, is because each and every group of employees by profession, by trade or whatever, have different needs and different objectives, and therefore have different collective agreements to provide them with that. The nurses' union in this Province today is faced with a set of circumstances that should have never happened in a democratic society.
As I have said earlier, government spent a lot of money to throw at the doctors in order to attract new ones to the Province and to retain the ones that are currently here. I think we have all heard, during the past week in particular, something that the nurses have heard all along but we probably were not as familiar with it as they are. That is that the nurses are leaving this Province in droves as well, our hospitals are short-staffed, and there is a need to put more money towards the nurses in order to correct that situation.
This government, earlier this week, talked about the money that they were spending on the hospital boards which, by the way, are made up of people who are appointed by the people over here. So, obviously, whatever answers they want from hospital boards they are going to try and use their influence to receive. The boards should be elected, and we have been advocating that, but it has not happened to date.
All the money that they are spending towards boards, towards new buildings - as the Premier promised in Stephenville during the election - all of these things - the technology and the equipment -are all great things and they are all things that are needed in a hospital; however, there is one basic concept that they are forgetting. The most fundamental part of health care is workers. In this particular case, they are nurses.
As we look at the situation in the hospitals today, the way that the nurses are being treated, and the lack of respect that this government has shown towards them in their fight for justice and a fair and equitable living -
We have talked about people who have gone down in history. I told this House the other day when I was speaking, all of these infrastructure programs are probably needed, but first and foremost the workers have to be considered. Florence Nightingale has gone down in history as alleviating a lot of suffering and pain from patients that she worked with and to whom she provided comfort. She did not exactly have a web page on the Internet when she was doing that. I think that is a reminder this government should remember: first and foremost and fundamental to any sound health care institution are the workers themselves.
Mr. Speaker, what is happening in this Province today is almost reminiscent of what happened to the IWA in 1959. It is regressive, it is anti-union, it is union-busting and it is union badgering. There is not much difference, and I don't withdraw that, from what happened to the IWA. The principle is the same, the circumstances are different.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. COLLINS: Premier, this government had three options, Mr. Speaker, to deal with this dispute. The first option that this government had was to negotiate an agreement that was acceptable to the nurses' union. Obviously that did not happen, and with that not happening there are provisions for that when it occurs. The next option, the honourable option, was binding arbitration. Binding arbitration is exactly what it says, but this government has chosen not to go that route either. The third option that they had was to go to final offer arbitration and there both sides would put their final position forward and an arbitrator would select one. So neither side can be outlandish in what they are proposing.
Because I would say to everyone in this House that any person who is an arbitrator in this Province is an educated individual who is quite capable of being reasonable and fair, and can understand the problems of both sides. That person could have come up with a settlement that I am sure both sides probably would have agreed to.
I would like to repeat something that Bob White, the President of the Canadian Labour Congress, said on the steps of Confederation Building yesterday. I will say it for the benefit of the other side of the House, as I doubt very much if anyone from there was listening. His point was that the people of this Province on February 9 elected this government by way of a majority vote in a democratic process. They elected this government in a democratic way. They elected them to govern with democracy, not rule in an autocratic and abusive way. They expect this government to do the right thing by the nurses. That is evident in the polling that was done and the results that are published. The people of this Province expect this government to govern, not rule, and govern in a democratic way, not in an autocratic way.
Over the course of the past week I think I have heard the name Austin Dier probably more times than I heard the name Brian Tobin, although he was the person using the name most of the times. The last time I saw Austin Dier he was only a small guy about my size. It is a good thing I knew him, because if I had not met him before I would have thought he was probably Paul Bunyan or Andre the Giant. This government is using Mr. Dier and the agreement they negotiated in good faith with the Newfoundland Association of Public Employees. They are using that to justify their decision now in what they are doing to the nurses of this Province. That is not fair to the nurses who work in our hospitals.
In the back-to-work legislation I notice that the fines that are provided even for the members - each individual nurse who does not comply with this legislation is subject upon summary conviction to a fine of $1,000 for each day that they do not report to work as indicated or dictated by this legislation. The fine for the union, as we heard earlier, in this legislation is about $100,000 per day. That is a lot of money. That is more money than the fines that are levied against employers in this Province who commit or have unsafe workplaces that even lead to fatalities. That in my opinion is a gross misuse of power.
There is no question that the tactics of this Government has been, over the past few weeks, to divide and conquer, to separate the members of the nurses' union from their elected leadership and their negotiators. That was a plan, that was a tactic, but that tactic did not work because the more they tried to do it the more the support built. The more they tried to do that the reverse happened, support grew, and nurses were out on strike. They stood solidly behind Debbie Forward and their negotiating committee. This government did not expect that.
This government also did not expect the support that the nurses of this Province would receive from the public. They tried to turn them around and that is a manipulation the Premier of this Province is really effective at doing. He has done it many times prior to the election, during the election, and since, but it did not work in this case. Because as soon by the demonstrations, the picket lines, and the people out here in the Confederation Building, the support is total, it is unanimous.
The nurses of this Province have been very cooperative and very professional. There has not been anything, to my knowledge, that has occurred in a hospital that required a nurse to be present where there wasn't one. If there are more required, as the hospital boards are talking about, I am sure that the nurses' union would be very willing to sit down and discuss that matter further. Because let's not forget one thing. People in this House are talking about how we feel about people, what our thoughts are, and what our responsibilities are. The nurses of this Province, and other care givers, their first and foremost concern is patients, sick people. That is why they have chosen the profession they are working in, because that is their first and major concern.
I do not people that the nurses of this Province have done anything except live within the intent of the law, to the letter of the law, and provided cooperation at every opportunity and every time that they were called upon to do so.
We talk about the workload of the nurses' union. There are some people who sat on the other side - I have heard a couple of people say it now -, say: Maybe twelve-hour shifts are the problem with all the stress in the workplace. It is as if nurses are causing their own problems by working a twelve-hour shift. Nothing can be further from the truth. The reason that there is a lot of stress in the workplace is because there are more demands. Not the fact that you are working twelve hours versus eight hours, but that there are more demands on you. There are more and higher expectations. There is a shortage of staff people so that the work can be distributed in such a manner that nobody is overburdened but can work at a relaxed pace, the way that people should have to work with the technology we have available to us today.
Nobody should have to work the way that people did in the lumber woods years ago. No, we should be past that stage. People should not be run off their feet. They should not have high patient caseloads to look after and take care of. That is what is causing the stress in the workplace, not the type of shift that the nurses are working.
The number of nurses that has been announced to be increased still falls far short of what is required. To my knowledge there are over sixty institutions in this Province that require nurses. If you divide that into the number of nurses that were announced - because every single institution in this Province is short on nursing staff - if you put that and divide it in and spread it around, it is not going to make a big difference in the numbers you are going to see delivering health care on the front lines.
This government has an obligation to the people of this Province to do what is right for the nurses so they will stay in this Province and work and take care of the people who need they. It is not their mandate to make life so unbearable, to make the economic payback to nurses so unattractive that they have to go elsewhere to either look for employment or make enough money so they can pay back the student loans that most of them incurred, and to live a style of life they should be able to live with the training they have taken.
Mr. Speaker, we can talk a lot about the things that are happening in this Province in our health care system. As I said earlier, the problems with the health care system are quite simple: There are not enough nurses, and the nurses are not being paid enough. They recognized that with the doctors. They recognized that and did something about it.
It is our position that right now they should have gotten the message at this stage that there is something wrong with the nursing situation in this Province. They should do the same as they did for the doctors and address that problem as well, rather than hide behind the fact that other people in this Province have settled for 7 per cent and therefore the nurses have no choice. They are hiding behind that, and I would suggest that was the plan way back when they negotiated the first agreement of 7 per cent. That was their plan for the upcoming year in whatever negotiations they were going to take part in.
They went to binding arbitration with the Newfoundland Constabulary. They did not honour what the arbitrator awarded in that case, and instead relied back again on the 7 per cent rule.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. COLLINS: It was binding on the Newfoundland Constabulary.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. COLLINS: It was not binding on the Newfoundland Constabulary?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) binding arbitration.
MR. COLLINS: That is what it is called.
AN HON. MEMBER: It is binding on them.
MR. COLLINS: It is binding on one side. It was binding for the Newfoundland Constabulary.
The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, if you want to talk about binding, that is the law for public service bargaining in the Province. That is the legislation of the government, but it is not binding obviously on the government of this Province because when it does not suit their needs they do whatever it takes, whatever is necessary to circumvent the legislation, and introduce something new, notwithstanding the current legislation in effect.
Mr. Speaker, I think that we have a situation here that needs attention, not band-aid attention but real attention in a real and positive way. I would ask that the Premier and this government - each member, because the Premier is only one person - consider doing what is right, what is proper, what is just, and sit down and negotiate with the nurses and arrive at a collective agreement that is acceptable to both of them, and particularly acceptable to the nurses given the fact that they are the ones who have the problems in this Province, they are the ones who have to provide the health care in this Province, and they are the ones right now who are under the gun. For this government to totally ignore their plight and their concerns, and to just say we are going to introduce legislation and this is what it is going to be and this is what it is going to mean...
I believe the Premier should take full advantage of an opportunity that he has been presented with. There are three options, as we have talked about earlier. Each one of these options is a viable solution to the problem that exists at the present time.
I think it is also clear - crystal clear - from the people of this Province that is what they want this Premier and this government to do on their behalf.
I have talked to the people. I have been down to their picket lines and I have talked to the nurses there. I have been talking to the nurses who are on strike at the hospital in Labrador City. The support that the nurses on the picket lines across this Province are receiving, I do not think it has ever been seen for any other striking group of workers in this Province to date. I think the support that this public is showing should be a loud and clear message to this government that what the nurses want they deserve, and the people of the Province are in favour - contrary to what this government might say - the people of this Province are in favour of them receiving it.
This government should take a message from that because in two years and eleven months, or in three years and one day there probably will be another election where a day of reckoning is coming.
I think it is important to this House, it is important to the people of the Province, and more important to the nurses of this Province, that they get what they deserve. What they deserve is certainly not what this government is offering. They deserve better than that and the people of this Province, I think, are very clear in their message in communicating to the nurses and to us that what they are entitled to they should receive, and what they are being offered is certainly not substantial in any way.
I would ask that the government and the Premier reconsider their stand on this ever important issue. Let the nurses do what they want to do, go back nursing. That is where they want to be. They do not want to be out here in the lobby. They do not want to be on the picket lines. They want to back working in their professions. That can be attained, it can be done almost immediately, with the right attitude of this government.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Cape St. Francis.
MR. J. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Normally I will say, when I stand to speak on a piece of legislation coming to the House, that I am pleased to stand in my place and speak to the piece of legislation. I cannot say that today, with this piece of legislation.
The President of Treasury Board stood in her place today and presented this Bill 3, the most regressive, backward piece of legislation that I have seen put to this House of Assembly since I have been here, six years.
The nurses in this Province today - no wonder they are wearing black ribbons and black arm bands. The reason we are debating this piece of legislation today is because the Premier and this Administration made a major mistake. They made a major mistake two to three weeks ago when they were in negotiations. I will tell you what it was, from my perspective: They looked at the nurses - a usually very quiet, peaceful group - and they thought, twenty years since nurses have done anything.
They underestimated them. They thought that the nurses would not have the nerve to go on strike in this Province today; but I contend that the nurses went on strike not only for their own motives - as the Premier would have you believe that it was the 7 per cent - but because of the health care in this Province today, the patient care in this Province today that is being given in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That was where the real reason was.
They have seen so many situations arise, and we have heard of horror stories in the health care system over the past number of years. The Member for Ferryland is continuously asking questions in this House of Assembly with respect to health care in this Province, and we have heard that health care in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador is improving!
I have had occasion to be a patient many times in the health care system in this Province over the past few years, and let me tell you from personal experience I see what is happening in the hospitals in this Province.
AN HON. MEMBER: Recently.
MR. J. BYRNE: - and recently. As a matter of fact, as recently as two weeks ago, I went in for out-patient minor surgery and the doctor and the nurses who were there that day were using a piece of equipment that you had to take and pitch it aside and go and get another piece of equipment because it was outdated, twenty years old.
Recently, I have been in a hospital to visit patients and I have seen the nurses - and I am not up on the equipment, I can tell you. I am no nurse, but I have a sister who is a nurse, I have a sister-in-law who is a nurse, I have a niece who is a nurse, and I can tell you that I hear the stories of what is going on.
I was visiting a patient recently up on one of the wards, and the nurses had to go all over the floor trying to get a thermometer, one of those little green and white boxes that they have, that they take the temperature with.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: An electronic thermometer, or whatever you want to call it. They had to go all over the floor to get one, and the one that they had was not working properly. Talk about stresses and strains on people, talk about the twelve-hour shifts, trying to do their job and this is what they are getting.
We are talking about nurses out on strike and the Premier trying to put the twist in the ads - large, full sheets, black and white, by the way, no grey area here at all - that the nurses are out for themselves. It is disgusting what is going on here in this House of Assembly today. I am ashamed to be here to be speaking on it. On this side of the House it will get no support, I can guarantee you that.
We had the Premier talk about bargaining in good faith. The very first day that the nurses went on strike, I saw the Premier of this Province - and I knew his plan at the time - on the evening news trying to divide and conquer the nurses with the statements that he was making. The very first day he said: Shocked, shocked, that they were on strike.
Now any reasonable individual in this Province who had any clue at all, who could read or write or watch television and listen, knew what was going to happen. He was shocked, saying that he had made an offer; they had a tentative agreement. Shameful - because he thought that he could divide the people and get the public support on government side. It has not happened to date.
He took the ads out, and I am sick of seeing these ads in the paper - big black and white ads, as I mention earlier - trying to convert people to his way of thinking. It is not working, thank God, at this point in time.
We now know that in the poll that was put out today - quite logical, legitimate, reasonable questions - 90 per cent of the people are supporting the nurses in this strike.
AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the people of the Province, as I said, are supporting the nurses in this situation.
We had the Minister of Finance stand in his place last Monday - just over a week ago - saying the best Budget, the best fiscal situation for the Province since 1949, fifty years, and we have now the situation here that was predicted, government was told about, and it was not addressed in the Budget.
Another point that strikes me rather passing strange is that the Premier stood in his place and questioned the Member for Ferryland, the critic for health, and talked about staffing - permanent versus casualization - of the nurses in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. That situation is being abused, by the way, because of the situation where you will not have to pay the benefits.
The Premier stood in his place and said that is something for the bargaining table. Quite clear, day after day he said it, and he talked about the hiring of more of nurses and what have you. What did we see? A few days afterwards, the Minister of Health stood in her place and announced 125 new positions that we find out today, or immediately after, that they are not new positions.
Now we have the Minister of Health doing one thing and the Premier saying another thing, which is not unusual. We have seen this many times: Say one thing one day and do another thing another day and everything is fine.
We saw the Premier come back during the election with $40 million in his back pocket - $40 million; health care is going to be good; no problems to worry about - three days before the election. Two or three days after the election we had the Premier - the Minister of Finance federally come down and say, in the budget, no money. We got $9 million, I think it was.
The Premier got all upset in the media: We've been hoodwinked! We've been tricked! We did not know anything about the change in the formula to the transfer policy. The Minister of Health and the Minister of Finance were all upset. Then what? Then a day or two after he meets with the Prime Minister and everything is fine. He is trying to get the people of this Province to believe that, and we are supposed to believe what is going on here?
I don't want to get into discussing, I don't want to be questioning people's motivates, but Monday night I was in a meeting about the school reorganization in the district. I had a nurse come to me and she said: Jack, what is going on? How come there is no legislation brought to the House yet? What is going on? Because many nurses thought they would go out, they would strike, but the government would then force them back by legislation but allow the binding arbitration. They thought they would be back to work in a few days. I think most people were expecting it on Friday. Many believed it would come on Monday. We did not know what was going to be in the legislation.
When I see this happening, that this was going on, the nurse came to me and asked: What is going on? I said: In my opinion this is what I see. It is not here today, which was Monday, so I would say within twenty-four hours I would expect there is going to be a crisis in the health care system, there is going to be legislation brought in, and we are going to have the gun to our heads and put it through in twenty-four hours.
What did we see yesterday in this House of Assembly? The House Leader stand in his place and say that we had to get first reading to give us a copy of the legislation. Now, we have had copies of legislation many times before we had first reading. They are trying to put the gun to our heads - the galleries were full -, trying to say to the public and to the nurses, then put the pressure on us, and try and give the impression that we were being obstructive.
MR. SULLIVAN: Jack, and we got it yesterday even without first reading after.
MR. J. BYRNE: That is the point I am making. So what happened? When we broke for an hour and they came back we still stuck to our guns on behalf of the people of this Province - not just the nurses, but the people of this Province - and we had the legislation given to us anyway. What they were saying was not accurate or correct. There are certain words I cannot use in this Assembly, I will try not to use them, but we all know what went on, Mr. Speaker.
Now we are here today debating this legislation. I am getting so intense here. I know I can get intense when I am speaking in this House of Assembly. Again, we had the Minister of Finance say that this Province is in the best fiscal condition it has been in in years, and now we cannot afford to give the nurses what is due to these people?
The other thing that boils my blood I will say to you is the fact that they are using this 7 per cent to say that everybody has to settle for 7 per cent, and they are trying to go back to 1983 and 1984, and this time and that time, and back to 1990 and what have you, when the former premier cancelled out the settlements and what have you. I don't think that when they settled with the first group, whichever they may have been, they were told: When you sign this you are settling for every other group in the Province. I do not think they were told that. I do not think they would have signed it if they were told that, so to me that is bogus, it is not accurate. It is not the way to go. Collective bargaining in the Province is finished, over, caput, done, I say to you, and it is upsetting people. It is upsetting me, it is upsetting other unions, it is upsetting members on this side of the House, it is upsetting nurses for sure. Collective bargaining in the Province is gone.
MR. SULLIVAN: Ninety per cent of the public is upset.
MR. J. BYRNE: Ninety per cent of the public is upset. There is no doubt about that, Mr. Speaker. Again, if we look at collective bargaining in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, I thought - and maybe I am wrong but I don't think so - that if a group comes in to negotiate with government you negotiate with that group. We had the previous premier of this Province say that. We had the former President of Treasury Board say that. They spoke specifically of the nurses, the special circumstances. We must look at them separately and not in -
MR. SULLIVAN: Jack, do you want to read it?
MR. J. BYRNE: I don't need to read it. I can interpret it. The government of the day said that we had to negotiate in agreements with each individual group. Why? The question that has to be asked is: Why would they say that? Because each individual group is different. Each individual group has different responsibilities. Each individual group has different working conditions. Each individual group has different working hours, Mr. Speaker.
The nurses of this Province are the lowest paid. I know they are overworked and they are understaffed. As a matter of fact, something just popped in my mind. I remember, back in the spring of 1994, I had major surgery in the Health Sciences Centre. I came back in the House of Assembly that spring, and that was the time of the Hydro debates. I got up and spoke with respect to the Health Care Corporation and what was going on in the health care of this Province. I spoke on it. I think I was probably one of the first to use the term that the nurses were overworked, understaffed, and underpaid. I remember being in hospital at that time - that was my second trip around, by the way - and I could see a distinct difference in what was happening then - that was four years ago; God help us today - from 1994 to 1990. Walk through the hospitals and have a look and open your eyes, I say to you. Look at the carpets. They do not look like the carpet that is on the floor of this House of Assembly, I can guarantee you that.
It is not only the nurses that are being treated unfairly in the system these days, and overworked. Go in - I have been in there - and see the condition of the hospital, the general cleanliness of the hospital. I do not want to be criticizing the people because they do not have the staff to do it. They are doing the best they can with what they have, I say to you. I had the previous Minister of Health stand in his place and the present Minister of Health and say that health care in this Province is fine and well. It is not fine and well, I say to you.
There is so many things to speak on on this. I had a note sent down to me today from a nurse in the gallery. I am going to read a part of it because it deals with the 7 per cent. It says: Jack, remember that all the other unions, with the exception of the Association of Allied Health Professionals, have signed collective agreements. They have no legal recourse at present. If they were to take any action it would be illegal. Under the process they would legally have to wait until the next round of bargaining in order to attempt to rectify any disparity. That is what has happened in the past, I say to you.
There is no `me too' clause in any of their collective agreements. Any strike by other unions would be illegal. Nurses have followed - and this is very important - the letter of the law and the process, and so they have.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. J. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, what is legally right, sometimes, and what is morally right are two different things. The government may have it within their power to be legally right, but are they morally right? That is questioned oftentimes. To me, on this issue, I do not think they are morally right. I think that the final judgement I suppose should come to the people. We have that poll that shows that 90 per cent of the people say they would settle, accept, agree, and believe that binding arbitration is right and proper in this situation.
I do not know what it takes to sink that into the Premier's head, I say to you. I know there are members sitting on the government's side of the House who are going to find it hard to stand in their place and when the vote comes, and we say division, and we stand in our place and vote. I expect them all to be there. I suppose they will all be there. We will find them one way or the other because we will have division on every section, so they are going to have to vote against it somewhere along the way.
Including the penalties. That is another point I wanted to address, the penalties in this legislation. I have the penalties here somewhere, but I can do it from memory anyway. One hundred thousand dollars a day for the union for disobeying this legislation. Where are we going in this Province? The Member for Conception Bay South was up speaking a few minutes ago on this issue and he said: Where do we live? I said under my breath to him: Cuba. We know what is going on in Cuba down there. In the meantime, $100,000 a day is a bit outrageous, it really is. It is the heavy-hand of the law I can guarantee you that, the hobnailed boots, I will say to you. Then to come to the executive of the union, $10,000 a day. I mean, really, sink that into your skulls over there, $10,000 a day. Then come down to the individuals and nurses up there who are not getting paid enough now, or near enough, the lowest paid in the Province, who are not getting paid anything now because they are on strike. Now you are going to fine them $1,000 a day.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: I do not know of anybody else. The Member for Labrador West was up speaking and he talked about the IWA strike back in the 1950s when Constable Moss - we all know what happened there. We have a softball tournament every year put off by the RNC - my son played in it many times - in honour of Constable Moss and what happened out there. I doubt if the fines at that point in time that were put in place were anything compared to this. I do not know - I have not seen all the back-to-work legislation across this country with respect to strikes - if anything within this country has ever been like that. Maybe there has been. Two wrongs do not make a right, I say to you, Mr. Speaker. It is outrageous.
It is so predictable. I saw the Premier today again make a statement, up on a point of order. He says: We are getting reports from the health care system. Yesterday we had the letters from the fourteen groups talking about being on the eve of a crises, trying to put the gun to our head to debate legislation that we have not even seen. Then, today, we get a notice saying that the St. John's health board says: Crisis has not arrived.
AN HON. MEMBER: When was that?
MR. J. BYRNE: That came out. I mean, here you referred to it today. It has not arrived. Yesterday we were in a big panic, and now today the crisis has not arrived, and we here now discussing legislation to order nurses back to work. Again, I have spoken to many nurses, I will tell you that, and the first thing I hear out of their mouth is: We really do not want to be on strike, we hated to go on strike, but there comes a time when you have to do certain things. They did what they had to do.
I honestly believe, and I might be wrong on this, that if a situation arose today in this Province in any given area, in any health organization, that the numbers of nurses would be put in place to handle any given situation. If we had an emergency tomorrow with some kind of, God forbid, a major accident or something like that where a lot of people were injured, I do not think there would be a problem. I really do not think so. Here we are now using the heavy hand of the law, basically abusing the power of the people's House of Assembly, to do what the government wants or what the Premier wants.
I still have to go back to it. Looking on that side of the House, I know many of these individuals, I have been here with them for six years. They have to, in their own gut, in their own heart and soul, know this is not right. They have to know. Yet, what are they going to do? Because they are being told and dictated to.
I hope that when we form the government after the next election that when I am on that side of the House I am never put in that situation. I may very well be put in that situation, but I hope I am not. I hope that our leader would not put me in that situation. That is what I hope. I know they have had major discussions on this in their caucus. They have had to have it. We have had them.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: So are you saying (inaudible) that there were no concerns over there, that they had no discussions on this?
MR. SULLIVAN: (Inaudible) Premier said their caucus was in crisis yesterday, didn't they?
MR. J. BYRNE: No, he did not say, but someone else said it, I say to you, Mr. Speaker.
Again, there are so many issues to discuss here. I think I have covered many of the things that I wanted to cover.
Mr. Speaker, another thing that kind of gets me going and gets my blood going is that in negotiations - if you go in and have negotiations - it is only common sense that if you are bargaining in good faith, you do not use threats. You do not say, basically, you have no choice; we are going to do it anyway. We have the power and if you do not do it we will fine you that much that you will have no choice but to do what we want you to do. Then you expect people to accept this and say: Yes, Minister.
There used to be a show on television and the name of the show was Yes, Minister! It was about politicians and the people around him, and everything that he said, no matter what he said, was: Yes, Minister. All we hear now on this issue is: Yes, Premier.
It is outrageous, I say to you, Mr. Speaker.
All the speakers so far that I have heard had very legitimate concerns. I have spoken to many nurses. I have spoken to nurses who told me: Jack, get us back to work as fast as you can.
We know that 97 per cent of the nurses have voted for a strike, but there are 3 per cent out there that did not vote for a strike, for whatever reasons they had.
We are talking about this 7 per cent. If somebody is making $100,000 a year and is getting 7 per cent, they will be getting $107,000 next year. Somebody who is getting $30,000 and gets 7 per cent only gets an extra $2,100 a year. Somebody who is getting $10,000, it is only an extra $700. Maybe what should be done - I have heard this - is that if government can only afford 7 per cent and they have x amount of money for their budget for salaries, apply 7 per cent to that and then give everybody the same amount of money.
If I was making $100,000 a year - which I wish I was - and it ends up at $3,000, I will get $3,000; but the person who is getting $15,000 or $20,000 will get $3,000 also.
Percentage, oftentimes, is not the right way to go in my mind. That is my own opinion. Now I think I have an opinion. When I came into this House of Assembly there were over 4,000 people in my district who voted for me because of my opinions. I can stand in this House and give my opinion. We want to speak. We have people in this house - the Leader, the Opposition House Leader - and they have the right to speak on behalf of their party. We have the freedom. That is an opinion of mine. That is something that could be considered. I am not saying it is right or wrong, but it is another way or something to consider.
Before I clue up - I know I only have a couple of minutes - government has within its hands, within its power, today, within minutes - we can do it by 5:00 p.m. or 5:30 p.m. - the right to settle this. They have the binding arbitration. It is the law of the land today, and now we are talking about changing it. I am still not convinced of the reasons that have been put forward by the Premier, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Health.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) minutes.
MR. J. BYRNE: I am doing okay. I have lots of time, I say to the Minister of Fisheries. I am not convinced we cannot go to binding arbitration. I am not convinced that we cannot afford it.
Again, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, the government is prejudging the outcome. It is prejudging the outcome of binding arbitration.
I am not convinced that if - if - it comes back in favour of the nurses, and the nurses are asking for 17 per cent, if you twist it around according to what the Premier is doing, and offered 7 per cent, it may come back at 10 per cent. It may come back at 11 per cent. It may come back at 7 per cent - binding arbitration - we do not know that. We do not know. Why can we not go to binding arbitration? Again the Premier is prejudging what is going on - the person who would make the judgement. There are all kinds of ways of looking at it.
I expect we are going to be here late into the evening. There is a point I was going to make and I almost forgot. The Premier was on his feet today about being so predictable - getting reports, one at 5:00 p.m. and one at 8:00 p.m.
I would venture to guess that the Premier is going to come back at 8:00 p.m. or 10:00 p.m. or somewhere and say: There is a crisis created here now and we have to go into Committee and third reading of this and put it through the House tonight, and finish it off tonight. That is what I predict.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: No, it is not going to happen, but that does not mean they are not going to try. They tried it yesterday. The Government House Leader tried it yesterday but it did not work, and it is not going to work.
If a situation rises, as I said earlier, in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, and the health care crisis situation arises in any given area, it will be addressed.
We will agree, if they want to come through the House and bring in this legislation and take out section 8, I think it is, and section 7, we can do it and it will be over with.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. J. BYRNE: Just in conclusion, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. J. BYRNE: I am not going to take much time now. I have basically made some to the points I wanted to make. I will have the opportunity in Committee stage to speak again and to clue up.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. J. BYRNE: I am getting indications from the other side of the House and this side of the House. We have, I think, agreed to break at 6:00 p.m. for an hour so I will adjourn debate at this time.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, by agreement we have agreed to recess until 7:00 p.m.
Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: The House stands recessed until 7:00 p.m.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Cape St. Francis, I believe, adjourned the debate.
The hon. member's time was up.
MR. J. BYRNE: By leave, Mr. Speaker?
AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.
MR. SPEAKER: No leave.
The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is no secret in this House that the Official Opposition's position is that there exists, within current legislation, the ability to legislate nurses back to work with the provision of binding arbitration. Any delay that is created by the introduction of this new legislation falls squarely on the shoulders of government and the Premier.
Section 30 of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act says that the House can resolve that there is a state of emergency and send the dispute for binding arbitration, thereby bringing an end to the job action. This mechanism is supported by the nurses. This Act is supported by the Opposition. This Act is also supported by the majority of the public. According to the latest opinion poll, 88 per cent of people support binding arbitration.
Binding arbitration is the law. If government feels that nurses should be fined for breaking the law - the new law that is entered into, this legislation that we are now debating - then my question to government is: What actions are going to be taken against government? What actions are going to be taken against the minister and the President of Treasury Board for bringing in this new legislation which breaks the law that presently exits - the law that allows for binding arbitration? Because that law is being circumvented as a result of the new legislation that has been put before this House.
Government is saying that 7 per cent has been agreed to by other members of public service bargaining units. By saying that, they are basically saying that only the first union to reach an agreement has the right to bargain collectively, while all others must accept that benchmark even though they did not get to vote on it. That is wrong. We all know that is wrong, to demand that every union in this Province has to follow the benchmark set by the first union to accept a wage settlement that government agrees to.
Government has browbeaten the unions with a costly PR campaign. We have all seen the ads in the paper, and government has paid for those ads with taxpayers' dollars in an effort to sell their ideas to the general public who agree with the nurses. They are using the taxpayers' dollars to try to sell them on something that the public does not agree with, and that is insulting. I find it insulting, the nurses' union find it insulting, and the general public find it insulting.
Mr. Speaker, this no longer a democracy; it is a dictatorship. The government -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon member has used a word that is considered unparliamentary in this Legislature and I ask him to withdraw it.
MR. T. OSBORNE: I withdraw, Mr. Speaker, if I have said anything to offend the Chair.
Mr. Speaker, the government has intimidated the union during negotiations with threats of costly fines, and we have seen those fines now introduced into the legislation: $100,000 for the union, $10,000 fines for the union leaders, and $1,000 for the nurses for each day that they break the law - the legislation that we are not debating. If this legislation is put into place and nurses continue their work action, it is $1,000 a day. So government are going to fine nurses for breaking a law. Yet what do we do to government for breaking the law that presently exists today, the law that says that if there is an emergency and we have to force nurses back to work that we resort to binding arbitration?
Mr. Speaker, we have heard there is no such emergency. The St. John's health care board says that crisis has not arrived yet. There has not been a crisis announced. The Corporation says that it is managing to care for patients thanks to the cooperation of nurses, both striking nurses and essential working nurses, and its remaining staff. The Corporation also makes it clear that it supports the right of nurses to strike, yet we see a government here today forcing us to debate legislation to allow government to break an existing law.
The Premier claimed he was surprised by the nurses' decision to strike when he thought there was a tentative agreement, but we have since learned that the nurses informed the conciliator that they had considered the government's late offer and found it unacceptable. We find it unacceptable, the water bombers found it unacceptable, the physicians found it unacceptable, the Marine Institute employees found it unacceptable, and judges found it unacceptable.
The government withheld announcing the number of new nursing positions in its Budget, saving that news until after the strike had been called, to be used as a bargaining chip I would presume. The government said that it was a bargaining issue. The Premier stood in his place and mocked our leader for asking government to announce new nursing positions only just last week, and days later the Minister of Health stood in her spot and did just that.
The nurses offered an olive branch to send only the monetary issues to binding arbitration, leaving the other issues to be worked out in another method. Government has refused. Collective bargaining calls for cooperation. We have not seen that from this government, not the level of cooperation that is expected, not the level of cooperation that is demanded by the general public that relies on our health care system, or the nurses that deliver the health care that we deserve and we look forward to, the nurses that are now being punished with hefty fines for doing what they have the right to do.
If there is an emergency there is a process already on the books to address it. We are all aware of it, we have debated it, we have talked about it, we have had questions about in this House, the nurses have asked for it, Debbie Forward has asked for it. The Premier has declined.
The St. John's Health Care Corporation has stated they are not in a state of crisis despite statements by the Health Care Association in the Province. The St. John's Health Care Corporation confirms what nurses are saying, that health care facilities are receiving help from both essential and striking nurses to ensure that the patients' needs are met.
Other than binding arbitration, the government has the option of choosing final offer settlement. They have refused to do that. What that means is that the union will put their best offer on the table, government will put their best offer on the table, and an arbitrator will accept either one or the other, and both agree, before the process starts, that they will live with the outcome. The Premier has refused to do that. Instead he has taken a very heavy hand and done other than democracy in this Province.
Other bargaining units received different settlements. The judges received over 13 per cent, doctors have received 23 per cent. What makes nurses any less essential to our health care system than doctors are? What makes the issues that cause nurses to leave our Province any less important to deal with than the fact that doctors have left our Province? The retention rate for doctors in this Province was deplorable. It still is, but it was helped with measures brought in by government and an increase of over 13 per cent.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. T. OSBORNE: Or 23 per cent. We still see that the retention rate for nurses is deplorable in this Province. What is government doing about it? Saying that nurses are not as essential as doctors, that nurses do not deserve the same treatment as doctors, that even with the new demands placed on nurses over the previous decade they are not as important as doctors? Is this what the Premier is saying? That they do not deserve the same increase that doctors got? Or even if we do not give them the same increase, that they only deserve 7 per cent. Is this what we are hearing, Mr. Speaker? Because it is what I am hearing, it is what I am lead to believe that the Premier is saying. This is the reason we are here today because he is afraid of the binding arbitration process, because he knows that what he is offering nurses is not fair, and he knows that the binding arbitration process will find that what he is offering nurses is not fair.
The President of Treasury Board in 1990, Winston Baker, stated that there was a good reason for giving extra consideration to nurses, particularly in view of the retention and recruitment challenges this Province faces when it comes to nurses. Has that all of a sudden not been the case? Has that all of a sudden been resolved? Are we now all of a sudden finding that we have a need not to follow that advice from 1990? Nurses' roles have changed because of staffing cutbacks, the changing roles of institutions with high patient turn over -
[There was a commotion in the gallery.]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I want to inform visitors to the gallery that on several occasions today the proceedings in this Chamber have been interrupted by a disturbance in the gallery. The Chair will not tolerate any further disturbance. If the disturbance continues the Chair will have no alternative but to clear the galleries and have the galleries locked for the remainder of the parliamentary day.
The hon. the Member for St. John's South.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I was saying nurses' roles have changed because of staffing cutbacks and because of changing roles of institutions with high patient turnovers and new nursing duties coming from new technology being used. There are precedents elsewhere in the public sector for increasing wages and changing wage scales when there are significant changes and duties. That is not being followed here. Doctors were given additional financial support in an effort to boost their retention and recruitment efforts. Nurses, too, are front line health care workers with changing roles. We need to keep that in mind.
Unfortunately, the Premier has chosen not to do that. The people of this Province have made very clear in pre-budget consolations this year, last year, the year before, that health care is their number one priority. What has happened? What has happened that that advice from the public is being ignored?
Other bargaining units in the Province have already entered into contracts that bind them for several years. Binding arbitration is not as costly as government suggests. We cannot presume the outcome of binding arbitration, although we know what government is offering is not fair. That will be proven through binding arbitration if it goes there, although I feel that government is not prepared to do that because they know they are not fair, the public know they are not fair, the nurses know they are not fair. The only way they can sleep at night is to get this over quick, to ram it through the House. That is the only way they can sleep easy at night, because I doubt if many of the members on the other side of the House are sleeping easy these nights. They know they are doing wrong.
The Premier has said he understands nurses because he has one at his dinner table and one at his Cabinet table, and he has urged nurses not to elect his Minister of Health, a nurse, out of office because she is the voice for nurses. Where is that voice today? Where is that voice during this process this evening? Is that voice going to speak out for nurses tonight? Is that voice going to speak in this Legislature during this debate for nurses? Is she going to speak at all?
During the election the Premier returned from Ottawa, during the social union talks, saying he had money and he was going to address the nurses' concerns and fix our health care system. If what he is doing now is fixing our health care system, we do not need the money he brought back, if that is what he is using it for. The Premier backtracked on his attack on the federal Budget, admitting in the end that it gives substantial new money to Newfoundland and Labrador. The Minister of Finance in his Budget said the Province was in very good financial shape. The Premier just this week said the Province over the past three years has done exceptionally well.
We were told that this was a health care budget, yet we saw the money in the health care budget being used for old debts and already announced capital works projects. Bill 3, in the context of this year's Budget, leaves the fundamental problems in the health care system unaddressed. There is no reason to assume that the horror stories in the health care system will end. Nurse overwork, burnout, low morale, and loss to other Provinces will continue.
That is another issue. If we legislate nurses back to work - and I should rephrase that, because it is not we that are doing it, it is them that are doing it. We already see morale at probably the lowest it has ever been because of burnout, stress, too few nurses in the system. If we in this House witness government legislating nurses back to work, what is it going to do for morale in our health care system? We know what it is going to do, but it is the Premier's bottom line that he is looking at. He made reference today, almost in a threatening fashion to our leader, that there are lives at stake. You made that comment today Mr. Premier, but you are the person holding the knife. You are cutting out of legislation the right for binding arbitration. You are the person holding the knife, and if that is any blood shed you are the one that is going to have to wash it from your hands.
There is a rule in the legislation today that allows for a quick resolution, and that is binding arbitration, and you have cut it out through this new legislation. You have cut it out and you are cutting the heart out of health care. You know it, we know it, and the people of the Province know it. You can sell your large full-page ads that cost thousands and thousands of dollars but you are not fooling anybody, Mr. Premier.
I have often spoken in this House about exporting our natural resources, and that is exactly what we are doing with nurses. Only one nurse from the graduating class of 1997 found a permanent position here.
Our salaries for nurses are significantly below those offered in other provinces. Yet one of the ads that the Premier paid for, a full-page ad in the paper, showed how fair he was being, how fair government was being in offering 2 per cent this year and 2 per cent next year, and how fair that was compared to the rest of the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, 2 per cent of a lower wage is a lower increase. Two per cent of a smaller salary is a smaller increase. While other provinces are offering 2 per cent, or 2.2 per cent, or 1.9 per cent, the salaries they are paying nurses are significantly higher than we are in this Province.
While the ad attempted to buy the public with their own taxpaying dollars that paid for the ads, I do not think it worked; because we all know in this Province that the nurses' salaries are significantly lower than those in other provinces, and that is one of the reasons nurses are leaving.
You see places like Florida offering accommodations and travel expenses, and far more money than what we are paying in this Province, and you wonder why Newfoundland graduates are moving to Florida.
Other provinces and countries offer nurses additional benefits that this government will not offer, proving that they want our nurses more than this Province wants our nurses. That is evident by this legislation that is being rammed through the House. That is evident by what is happening here today and what happened here last week. It is evident that the government is not listening.
Our nurses want to work here but many cannot afford to, especially with the high levels of student debt they have after graduating.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what else can be said to try and convince the Premier, to try and convince government, what is happening here. I do not know what else can be said to bring a resolution to this in a fair manner to nurses. I do not know what we can do. The Premier said publicly that the nurses are getting the same increase as the Premier. I would say that if we were to offer the nurses 7 per cent of the Premier's salary over the next few years, they would grab it and run.
I almost feel ashamed that we could see fit in this House to allow the Premier to tell nurses and to tell the public, and to feel that the public is gullible enough to think that the nurses are getting the same increase as the Premier is getting. It is just not the case.
Debbie Forward, the president of the provincial nurses' union, put out a press statement. She says that nurses continue to meet their obligations under the essential employee agreements. Nurses are continuing to care for patients.
I have received a number of phone calls from nurses who live in my district, encouraging us to continue to fight for them. They told me, when I asked if they would be willing to go back to their jobs if there was an essential crisis in the health care system, not one of them said no.
Did the Premier or any of the ministers on that side of the House ask the nurses that question? I doubt it. If they did, they did not listen.
The nurses I have spoken to said that if there is a crisis that demands they go back to save somebody's life, they would do it gladly.
We do not need to ram through back-to-work legislation in this House. They take pride in their jobs, they take pride in what they do, they take pride in the fact that they save people's lives, and they would not stay out on the picket line if there was a crisis at the hospital in which they work. So, I ask: Why are we pushing this legislation through the House?
I do not mind saying that I would agree to back-to-work legislation if we lived to the letter of the law and said we would give binding arbitration. I do not think you would have any question from any member on this side of the House. I do not think you would have any dispute from anybody in this House. I do not think you would have any dispute from any of the nurses, or from the nurses' union, with back-to-work legislation. But for government to create a new law so they can essentially break an existing law is unacceptable.
I hope and pray to God that when I get to that side of the House I will have more sympathy and compassion for the public employees than this government has, because they have none. They expect every bargaining unit in the Province today to follow and live up to what they have given one bargaining unit. That does not spell out collective bargaining to me, Mr. Premier, and it does not spell out collective bargaining to any of the bargaining units in this Province; not only the ones who still have outstanding contracts but the people who have settled. I doubt very much if they would be very happy the next time around if it was them on the other end of the stick, being told they have to accept 3 per cent, 4 per cent, 5 per cent, or 7 per cent because the first bargaining unit did and therefore you should. That is not collective bargaining.
The reason binding arbitration is in the law is that in the event there was ever a crisis - which there is not, but in the event there was ever a crisis - there would be a method to solve it that would be fair to everybody.
The only people in this Province who are not being fair today are the very people who are using thousands and thousands of taxpayers' dollars to try to convince taxpayers that they are being fair, and that is the government.
If the nurses are prepared to go back to their jobs if there is a crisis, on a voluntary basis, over and above their companions who are back on the job as essential employees, I think that is more than fair. I do not know what else we can ask. And after the crisis has been solved, allow them to go back to the picket lines; or, do what legislators should do: Lead by example and follow the law. Give them binding arbitration.
How can any of the members of this House agree to or accept a new law saying that we are going to punish nurses if they break this law, and yet we watch government members breaking a law today by ramming through a new law so they can break the existing law.
MR. GRIMES: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may not think that I have been paying close attention to his comments but twice now he has suggested that the Legislature is about to break the law, that we are going to break the law. I think everybody understands that this Legislature creates and makes the law of Newfoundland and Labrador. I do not understand the concept of him suggesting that we are about to break the law.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I will withdraw the phrase "breaking the law" but they are certainly circumventing the law.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. T. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HARRIS: 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: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wonder if I could have leave to advise the House that we have here thousands and thousands of postcards showing public support for the nurses in their cause for a fair contract. They all say to the Premier that they believe that nurses deserve to be respected and paid for the work they do, and that our health care system needs more nurses. These are all addressed to Premier Tobin. There are thousands of them here, showing public support for the cause of the nurses.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Does the hon. member have leave?
AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.
MR. SPEAKER: No leave.
The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Is there leave for the hon. member? I am not sure what the hon. member wants. To distribute these to the House, is that...?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I wonder if the hon. member could clarify what he is looking for.
MR. HARRIS: I was wondering if I could have leave to announce to the House that I have these -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member has already done that, using the point of order.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I stand tonight to say a few words on Bill 3. The Member for Labrador West spoke and put it quite clearly when he got up and said this was a dark day in Newfoundland politics, a dark day for the Province, a dark day for collective bargaining. I could not agree with him more.
We are sitting here tonight. We are supposed to be celebrating fifty years of being part of this great nation of Canada, something that I am very proud of. I am proud to be a Newfoundlander, proud to be a Canadian, and I would be proud to attend the gala ceremony that is happening down at the stadium tonight to show that we are proud Canadians. That is where we should all be, I say to members in this House. Instead, we have to ask ourselves how far we have come, how far we have progressed in fifty years, when it comes to dealing with the employees of government and labour relations in this Province.
As I sit here and listen to members stand in their place and speak, one member after the other, I am shocked to look across the House and see the President of Treasury Board stand in her place and introduce one of the most important pieces of legislation that this House will see for this sitting. How long did she take to put the case forward? How long did she take to bring forward her reason for introducing Bill 3, back-to-work legislation? How long?
AN HON. MEMBER: Sixteen minutes.
MR. FITZGERALD: Sixteen minutes.
The Government House Leader stood in his place, when he called Orders Of The Day, and said there would be one member speaking on the government side of the House. One member is going to stand on that side of the House, the government of the day, and tell Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, tell nurses, and tell the rest of the country, why they are introducing a piece of draconian legislation in this House tonight to take away the right to collective bargaining. That is disgraceful, I say to members opposite. That is disgraceful!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: When you look across the House, you can see that a lot of members are not comfortable with this piece of legislation. I would suggest that if the Premier stood in his place tonight and said: I think I will change my mind. I think I will grant my caucus a free vote. I will not dictate to you how you are going to vote...
I can tell you that there are a lot of members on that side of the House who would stand with members on this side of the House and represent the people gathered here tonight.
PREMIER TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. FITZGERALD: There are a lot of members on that side of the House who would stand in their place -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I know the member wants to be accurate but there must be a profound difference in the Conservative caucus and the Liberal caucus because in our caucus every vote is a free vote.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the emperor of the Liberal Party knows that is wrong.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: The Premier knows that is wrong. The Premier knows that the troops are reined in, and the people who want to stand and vote with the masses of people here will not be allowed to do it. They are stifled, they are muzzled, they are not allowed to speak. God help me, Mr. Speaker, if I ever find myself in that position in this House. I will tell you one thing: I will not be here long.
I can tell you one thing: When I was elected to the House of Assembly, I was elected by the people of my district to serve them the best possible way that I had the ability. I was not elected to serve the Premier or my leader or my caucus. I was elected to serve the people of Bonavista South, and that is what I continue to do. You put your constituents first and you put your desire to be in the front benches last. It is a dark day.
When I look back on unionism and I think about unions, my first memory is back to the days in 1959, forty years ago. I remember going to bed at nighttime with a radio. It was not one of those modern radios where you put your earphone in and listen to it privately. It was something that was played all over our house, and you would hear the messages coming from Badger, from Millertown, when the IWA strike was at its peak. You would hear the Premier of the day get on the radio and come out and lambaste the union, trying to kill unionism. We all know what the end results were - terrible - one of the blackest marks, I think, in the Province's history. I am not sure how far we have progressed.
I was always a union member, I say to members opposite and members on this side, and I am a union member today. When I was employed, I did not go around with a labour agreement in my pocket and flash it around but I was always proud to be a union member because I believe in unions. I believe they have done wonderful things. I believe there is a place for unions today as much as there was forty years ago, especially when you see what is happening with the government of the day.
The government of the day would like nothing better than to do away with unionized employees. If they could contract out nurses and nursing people, it would be all contracted out. They would not want to stand here and negotiate a settlement as a union agreement. They do not want people coming to them and causing them grief, having to cancel their holidays and sit late at night in order to deal with unionized people. They would much rather try to contract everything out. That is what we see happening in many areas of many departments of government today. As much as they can do away with unionized contracts and unionized people, and contract it out, that is what they are doing.
We, in Opposition, are sometimes accused of being negative. We are always against everything that government does. That is not the case, I say to members opposite. We can stand and vote with government. We have done it many times here in this House. It is not uncommon for somebody to put out a news release and talk about the wonderful things that government has done, or how they agree with a stand that government has taken.
Mr. Speaker, we have an obligation, as members in Opposition. People elected us to this House of Assembly in order to keep government honest and in order to put forward the facts in situations which we are witnessing here tonight, something that should never have happened. There is another way of dealing with this situation. The nurses have told government: We are willing to cooperate. We are willing to sit down and negotiate. There is a way out of this. We are willing to settle for binding arbitration.
Government has seen fit not to include that. They are seeing fit to legislate nurses back to work, take away the right to binding arbitration. They qualify it by saying: If we give you, Madam Nurse or Mr. Nurse, an 8 per cent or a 12 per cent or a 15 per cent raise then we have to go back and renegotiate with every other bargaining sector in the public sector.
That is not the case, I say to members opposite. You are dealing with the nurses. We are not talking about NAPE, we are not talking about CUPE, and we are not talking about any other union here. What we are talking about is the nurses, and every other sector should have been able to come to government and go through the negotiation process in isolation of everybody else. That is what it is all about, I say to members opposite.
When you look at this piece of legislation, there are some frightening things. It makes you wonder if government wants to solve their economic woes on the backs of the nurses and the nurses' union. When you look at the amount of money - I think I have it memorized; there is no need of me putting on my glasses to look - $100,000 a day they are going to charge the union if they defy back-to-work legislation; $10,000 a day for the union executive; $1,000 a day to each union member. Shame, I say to members opposite. That is utterly ridiculous.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about Newfoundlanders and Labradorians here. We are talking about people who treat us when we go to hospital. We are talking about skilled, dedicated individuals.
AN HON. MEMBER: Human beings.
MR. FITZGERALD: Human beings, I say to the member opposite; he is so right. That is what we are talking about here. We are saying to each and every one of them that we are going to fine you if you defy the rule that we impose on you; because that is what it is. Somebody is ruling from the mount and bringing down rules and regulations by which you must abide.
I can tell you, it is going to happen. There is nothing that we on this side of the House can do to prevent this piece of legislation from going through the process and being signed and given assent right here in this House and becoming law within a couple of days. We can do absolutely nothing about it. That is why I think sometimes it is good to have a minority government. At least when you get pieces of legislation like this, people can stand in their place and stand together, and stand for the people who need people to support them and defeat such legislation. It should never be allowed to happen.
Only a few short weeks ago we went through an election in this Province. We all refer to it here because everybody can well remember every night when you turned on your television and watched Here and Now, or the NTV news, you saw the Premier going around the Province pinning badges on somebody, running up ladders. It was all good news. He had a scattered scuff as he went around, I say to members opposite. It was all good news.
How many people here heard any bad news during the election? How many people here were told what was coming down three weeks after the election? How many people here - when they got the knock on the door and saw the smiling face, or had an opportunity to ask questions - were told, if they were a nurse or if they were a health care worker, they could be on the street within three weeks time?
The hand was placed on the shoulder, and it was said: Trust me. We are going back into government; it is obvious who is going to form the government of the day. Do you want to be on the government side or do you want to be on the Opposition side? Trust me and we will look after you.
I remember the Premier going down to my district. We have health care problems down there, many of them. I stand here many times and plead to have some of the health care problems corrected. One fellow - in fact it was a local doctor - approached the Premier at Discovery Collegiate in Bonavista. He said: Premier, we have lots of problems down here. One of the problems we have is trying to get ten health care beds open, ten long-term care beds, at the Golden Heights Manor. Tell me, when can we expect that to happen and when can we expect to see an improvement in our health care system here on the Bonavista Peninsula?
The Premier put his hand on his shoulder and said: If you elect this man - pointing to the Liberal candidate - we will look after your health care. He said: Uh-uh, Premier, that is not enough. You have had ten years already, Premier, and you have done nothing. I am hardly going to trust you now.
That is the kind of election that was carried out. It is shameful.
Another question I ask: Is anybody surprised that we are here tonight talking about health care? Is anybody surprised that we are here tonight with this crisis on our hands? We might be surprised that we are here talking about the nurses' strike. We might be surprised about that, if we single out one item -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. FITZGERALD: - but I do not think there is anybody here tonight in this House surprised that we are sitting at 8:00 p.m. - and we will be here until 1:00 a.m. or 1:30 a.m., until everybody gets their time to speak.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FITZGERALD: After 2:00 a.m. we will be here, but there is nobody surprised that we are here tonight dealing with a health care issue.
The health care system has been pushed so far, for so long, that it has finally started to break down. It is no surprise, and I get no pride out of saying that.
You talk to people who are going into the hospital today and you hear of people having to take pillows into the hospital. You hear of people having to go in and look after their loved ones in the hospital. You hear of people going in and having to spend eight hours and ten hours a day in the emergency wards. It is no reflection on the workers. They are doing their utmost in trying to make things work, but it has been cut back and stretched so far that it is finally starting to break down. It should be no surprise for anybody here.
I remember going into the Health Sciences complex - it was probably two years ago, it has been awhile - into the emergency room. I took my wife in. She had a bad back, and was in terrible pain. She went to the doctor and the doctor said to her: I am going to send you into the emergency ward because that way you may get looked after. She went in. We stayed there two hours waiting to see a doctor. The waiting room was full; the emergency ward was full. While I was there, I just watched. I saw one lady there, who had travelled in from Clarenville. She had a cut on her leg which I suggest was probably that long. The nurse on duty came out and tried to make her as comfortable as she could, tried to do something to stop the bleeding, and elevated her leg. I went over, after the nurse left, and struck up a little conversation with her because I knew she was from Clarenville, around my own area, by a conversation that she was carrying on as I was next to her. I asked her how long she had been there. She said: I have been sitting here for eight hours now; eight hours in the emergency room of the Health Sciences complex.
The sad part about it is that if you are fortunate enough to be healthy, and if you are fortunate enough not to have to go to the hospital you never see those things. But many of us have had to go to the hospital, either to visit somebody or to access services there, and you know full well the value of nurses in the hospital and you know full well what they are trying to cope with today. It is only a matter of time before the system fails.
Health care questions have been raised in this House time and time again by the Leader of the Opposition, by the Opposition House Leader. It has all been sloughed off: We don't have any big problems, everything is all right, you are fearmongering, leave it alone. Then all of a sudden the nurses go on strike. I have to compliment the nurses. They have been on strike now for eight days and I have never seen a group of people act so professionally in this trying time than the nurses have. I have listened to the open line shows, I have watched television, I have seen the picket lines. In fact, I visited picket lines down in my own district, at the Golden Heights Manor on Saturday, and I drive by the picket line every morning at the Health Sciences Centre on my way to and from home.
I have never seen a more professional group of people and I compliment them for it, because it is a trying time when you are on strike. I have been on strike as well and I know what it means every day to have to get up and go on the picket line and be without money and be unsure of when you are going to go back to work. Nobody wants to be on strike, I can guarantee you that, and nobody gains a lot by being on strike, but something has to be done and it has to be done soon in order to correct this situation.
We hear of casual nurses not being offered full-time jobs. We hear of nurses having to leave this Province and travel to other places in order to find work. We all know nurses. We all know young people, we all know graduates that have had to leave this Province and go to other countries and other provinces in this country in order to access work. It is not uncommon to hear of nurses calling in to some of the open line shows and giving support to their fellow nurses, calling in from Florida, from Texas, from North Carolina, all over North America. I am sure they are in other places as well, our youngest and our brightest people calling in echoing support for their fellow nurses here and saying: The reason I am where I am today is not because I want to be here but because I did not have a choice.
It is a situation where they just got fed up with being casuals, waiting by the telephone every morning, not knowing if they were going to get a call into work or not, not knowing if they were going to have a pay cheque at the end of the day. Go to the bank, I say to members opposite, and try to arrange a mortgage, try to arrange a car loan. Tell the bank manager you are working at a casual job, you don't know when you are going to work, you don't know if you are going to get another day or another week or another month. Try it and see if it works. It does not work, and that is why nurses and other graduates are leaving this Province. We are losing our youngest and our brightest to other places around the world and we are the people who are going to be the losers.
There is a way to settle this strike. There is a way to settle it and it should be settled now. We should not have to go through more of this legislation. We should not have to stand here and be thinking whether we are going to use this approach or some other approach. Binding arbitration. That has been stated on this side of the House every time somebody gets up to speak. If the nurses' union and if government has enough faith in an arbitrator to both agree - and I suppose it would have to be something that would be agreeable to both parties - then surely to God we trust somebody to come forward and put forward an increase that they feel is fair and reasonable in order to resolve the situation that we find ourselves in today.
We don't have to rule with an iron fist and get our back up and say: This is the way it has to be because we cannot afford to pay you any more money, or we feel that we settled with somebody else and now you are not worth any more because other people have settled for less. That is not the way it should be. We should not have to go out and have the Premier spend taxpayers' dollars and take out full-page ads in The Telegram. We should not have to see the Premier go out and put on little blimps on the television, the radio, and talk about government's offer. In fact, this side of the House has gotten more information from the news media than we have gotten in the House of Assembly. It is very difficult to get answers here.
This piece of legislation was introduced yesterday, and we almost had to create a scene here, we almost had to close the House down, in order to get the legislation.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!
MR. FITZGERALD: We did, we had to shut it down for an hour and then you had the Government House -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. FITZGERALD: If I am lying, then stand up and tell me.
AN HON. MEMBER: You are pushing (inaudible).
MR. FITZGERALD: I am not pushing anything.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, the notes on this piece of legislation were passed to the news media -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) ministerial statement.
MR. FITZGERALD: There is not point having a part of a ministerial statement if it is not attached, I say to the member. You will find out it was not attached. We had to go and beg for a piece of legislation where the Premier stood in his place and tried to patronize the Opposition and tell us how bad we were, and all of the suffering that was happening out there, and the crisis we were putting the Province in, how bad we were that we did not even have a piece of legislation to let us know what it was the Premier was looking for.
The Premier brought in - and I am sure they were invited -
AN HON. MEMBER: They were commanded.
MR. FITZGERALD: They were probably commanded. They were appointed people that came in here yesterday and sat in the Speaker's Gallery. Three officials of the Health Care Corporation, the seniors' home. There was Mr. Peddle of Community Health, Mr. Fitzgerald, and I forget the other gentleman's name. They were seconded by the Premier to come here. The Premier stood in his place and talked about the crisis that the health system was in. If the health care system was in such a crisis, what were the three administrators of the health care system doing here in the building listening to the Premier? Probably here in the building for four or five hours. Is that the place they should have been if this crises was about to happen, if something was about to break?
Mr. Speaker, they were told to be here for obvious reasons. I will tell you one thing. It is not the place they should have been if things were as bad as the Premier said they were. I will tell you one thing. If things were that bad, then you would have thought that those three people, instead of the Premier having them in here he would have them out where they were supposed to be attending to the situation.
I go back to elected boards again, I go back to appointed boards, I go back to hospital boards, whether we need them or not. I think the only way in the beginning of improving something, improving everything or part of it, whichever way you want to put it, in the health care system is to have our hospital boards elected. If we are going to have hospital boards and they are not working the way they are now, I would just as soon see the health care boards done away with altogether and have somebody answerable to government. If we are going to have them then let's have them appointed and let's have them carrying out the people's wishes and not the minister's wish.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) the exact same day. The CEOs reporting directly to the Minister of the Department of Health. (Inaudible) you have any problems about that, you have to talk to your own CEOs about that. (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. FITZGERALD: The minister knows full well that the hospital boards are not working. It is working to her advantage, I say to the minister. The hospital boards are working to your advantage because you go out and you appoint them, and who do they owe their allegiance to?
Mr. Speaker, if you are going to have hospital boards, if you are going to try to make them work, then do the decent thing and have them elected. It is the only way. Let the people have a choice, and not have hospital boards out there attending to the wishes of the minister. It does not work and it will not work as long as that is allowed to happen.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, you appoint hospital boards and in most cases they spend more time to get a mission statement and find out what their mandate is, and they forget why they are there until the minister makes the call and says: Come in today, we are having a news conference, and I want you to nod your head when you see me. That is not the way it should be, I say to the minister.
Have them elected. It is the same as we do with school boards. What is wrong with that? The people here were elected, you had to go out and put your name on a ballot paper because you were interested in doing something. Then let the members of the hospitals boards do the same thing. When they become accountable to the people and not the minister then it might have a chance of working. If not, do away with them altogether. It is certainly not working the way it is today.
The Premier again stands here and says: Okay, Opposition, you want to give the nurses a raise. Where do you want to take it from? Do you want us to go out and increase the debt of the Province? Do you want us to go out and increase taxes? Do you want us to go out an take money away from road work. You do not have to do all that, I say to members opposite. Your figures that you put forward are certainly inflated according to the figures that we have put forward here. I will tell you, when you look back and compare the figures that are coming from that side and the figures from this side, it not hard to see who is correct most of the time.
There is a $30 million contingency fee in your Budget. What is the $30 million contingency fee for? Maybe we can use some of that money, I say, to -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The member's time is up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am not very happy being here tonight speaking to this bill, and it is not because I do not want to be in the House of Assembly speaking on behalf of nurses. It is because this is a bill that never should have been brought to this hon. House. It is a bill that flies in the face of collective bargaining and it takes away the rights of our people. It takes away the right of our nurses, who will technically have no rights as it pertains to their employment. I guess they will have a right to strike, but when they can be legislated back to work without ever having attained any of the things they went on strike for, then they do not have a right. If they express an opinion, as they have over the past eight days, they will be stopped. They will be told: We are not giving you what you deserve, we are not giving you what 88 per cent of the people who were polled said you should have, namely binding arbitration. We are going to do all that we can to circumvent the laws of the House of Assembly and the laws of the land and we are going to do everything we can to crush you. You will go back to work and you will take what we give you.
It is ironic that we should be debating this bill today. This is a day when people are reflecting and some are celebrating our country and our Province becoming a part of Canada, a country that is known for its freedoms. How ironic that we should be discussing such an oppressive bill.
The government will get their bill all right. They have more people on that side, they have enough over there to vote for it. I want to say now to some of the new members who will be for the first time voting on a bill of such magnitude, that when you stand in your place and your name is called - and the Premier said here this evening that all of the votes over there are a free vote - when you stand in your place and your name is called and you are voting, make absolutely sure what you are voting for. You are voting to take away the rights of these professional people. Make absolutely sure when you stand and your name is called that your conscience is very clear about what you are doing.
I am ashamed to be a member of a legislature that would introduce such a tyrannical bill, but I am proud to be a member of this Opposition that will be vehemently voting against it. The Premier, both in this House and as well in the various media, has tried to turn the tables, and has tried to say, repeatedly, that by not speeding this bill through the Legislature the Opposition is jeopardizing the health of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. In fact, he has gone as far to say - I was walking through when he was doing one of the interviews and I heard him say - that we are actually jeopardizing the lives of the people in this Province. I am sorry, Mr. Premier. He is not here right now -
AN HON. MEMBER: He is gone to the gala (inaudible).
MS S. OSBORNE: Yes. It is time for him to wake up and smell -
MR. GRIMES: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER (Smith): On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I am not referring to the reference to the gala again which people earlier today decided they would not talk about anymore, since it was the Leader of the Opposition that made the reference.
The hon. member, in speaking, made reference to the absence of a particular member from the Legislature, that being the Premier. Everybody in this Legislature knows that it is not allowed and not permitted in the rules of this Legislature to reference the attendance or absence of any member. I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the rule be enforced and that the hon. member withdraw that reference.
MS S. OSBORNE: I will withdraw that reference, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.
The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like for the Premier to get the message to wake up and smell the coffee. I haven't been nineteen years in legislatures like this Premier has, but it is my distinct understanding that there is already legislation in place in the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act that this government can use to deal with a crisis or a state of emergency. Any delay created by the introduction of new legislation is not the fault of Opposition. It is government's responsibility; there is a bill that exists to permit them to end the work stoppage quickly.
I say to the Premier, and to this government, don't try to blame this Opposition for the delay and don't try to circumvent the rules of this hon. House.
I would like to quote from an editorial that was in The Telegram yesterday:
"Legislating employees back to work is one thing; removing any sort of option in bargaining is backing union members into a corner. This is not the dialogue that normally accompanies collective bargaining; this is dictation, and the union members involved are well within their rights to be angry.
"Angry, because the province has been face-deep in organizing this little prize fight from the very beginning. And when the fists start to fly and something actually goes wrong in one of these two disputes, the government will be the first ones out of the gate claiming they didn't throw a single punch."
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) she is reading that from a newspaper article. (Inaudible).
MS S. OSBORNE: No, I am reading it from right here.
AN HON. MEMBER: What, did you make that up yourself and send it to the paper?
MS S. OSBORNE: Yes.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!
MS S. OSBORNE: That is what I just said.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS S. OSBORNE: I am paraphrasing from an editorial in The Telegram.
AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, you are paraphrasing. (Inaudible) word for word from The Telegram.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS S. OSBORNE: I won't answer.
AN HON. MEMBER: No, leave him alone.
MS S. OSBORNE: To continue: "Keep in mind the provincial government is busily lighting this fire. They shouldn't be allowed to absolve themselves of responsibility when something actually burns."
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS S. OSBORNE: Mr. Speaker, I have had many calls, e-mails and faxes from nurses over the past little while. They feel betrayed, they feel demoralized, and they are emotionally drained. They feel betrayed because during the recent -
AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS S. OSBORNE: They feel betrayed because during the recent election campaign, when they were campaigning themselves for a better deal, they were told by the Premier that they would be taken care of. One nurse who called me said: I feel like an absolute fool, I believed him.
One night I was watching that show, This Hour Has 22 Minutes, and he was driving around with Rick Mercer. When he put down his visor or whatever in the taxi cab, there were three things on his things to do sign: spend more time with the family, become prime minister, and be nice to nurses. She said: What a joke, but we are not laughing. Is forcing us back to work in this tyrannical manner funny? Charging us $1,000 a day if we do not comply, is this being nice to nurses?
She went to say that they feel this strike is useless, because they have been out there for eight days, they will be legislated back, they will not get what they want, so what is the use? She said she feels like she is not even regarded as a professional person.
I also received an e-mail. One of the e-mails was from a nurse and it was a copy of an e-mail she had sent to the Minister of Health. I used this e-mail one day this week when I was presenting a petition on behalf of the nurses. The e-mail says:
We are incensed that you have not responded to our issues. We stress the word "our" because, as you have constantly reminded us, you are still one of us, you are a nurse. In your former role as President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union, need we remind you that you were crying out for exactly the same issues. We are also confident that you are fully aware of the looming nursing shortage and, as such, you should be concerned about the problems of recruitment and retention. In your current position you freely voiced your position on physicians' concerns. Now more importantly you should be standing by us and supporting our fight to improve health care in this Province. In your address to the national nursing forum in June of 1998 you said: If you don't make dust, you eat dust. Nurses make dust. Nurses in this Province will make lots of dust whether you are with us or not. We have not heard from you in the media relating to our needs. Where have you gone? Your silence is deafening.
That is quoted from an e-mail I received from one of the nurses. The nurses are demoralized. Here we have professional people who are being treated in an archaic manner. Their rights are stripped from them. They expected, and I suppose as all people who are members of unions expect, to be able to bargain in good faith. This has not happened. The Premier has played with them, let them go on strike. He could legislate them back.
I am proud of the nurses. They blindsided the Premier with this strike, because last Wednesday morning they were presented with a contract that was so convoluted and so complex the Premier knew it would take them a long while to read through the details. He figured they would stop and analyze the details, and by that time the time would be up. The strike deadline would have been reached and gone passed, and then they would have to wait another thirty days before they could strike. The Premier would be able to take in his gala and would have been able to have his Easter vacation.
I am very proud of the nurses, that they were able to outmanoeuvre him, but how demoralizing it must be for them to sit in these galleries, to turn on their t.v. sets, to read their papers, and to see and hear the Premier of this Province treat them as he is treating them.
They have asked us to act on their behalf and we fully intend to do so. One of the faxes I received was from the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union in Gander. I guess this fax probably went to all members on both sides of the House, but I will read it anyway. It says: We at the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union, Branch No. 8, Gander, are faxing you in urgency. Please, as a representative, continue to fight for what is right.
To that person I say, we fully intend to do so right to the finish.
It goes on: You must not support legislation denying binding arbitration to all nurses of Newfoundland and Labrador. Continue the negotiations. We are depending on you, and our health care is depending on you.
To that person, and to the folks at the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union, Branch No. 8, in Gander, we will fight for the right thing. The right thing is not to legislate these professional people back to work and not give them the option of binding arbitration. What is happening is they have no say in the matter.
I picked some of the interesting letters I received. This one is from a community, Flower's Cove. The name of that community sure sounds familiar. It is in the district in The Straits & White Bay North.
It reads: I am a registered nurse who came to Newfoundland from Ontario in 1972. I married a widower and we raised his three children as well as a son of our own. I served on our local school board for fifteen years with no remuneration. I am fifty years old and money is not a major issue for me personally. We expect all our young nurses to be university graduates. We are graduating well educated young women and men and we are forcing them to leave home because a) we are the lowest paid in Canada.
Now, I will interject here. When the nurses have brought up that we are the lowest paid in Canada, they said: yes, well, other professions here are also the lowest paid in Canada. The nurses have been chanting something as we have gone through the foyer of Confederation Building. Some people are not the lowest paid in Canada and the nurses know who I am talking about.
She goes on:
There are no permanent jobs offered to them. Please note that the average age of the registered nurse in Canada is forty-seven years old. I work in a community health centre in Flower's Cove. We have twelve nurses who work in our area. One nurse is sixty years old, five nurses are fifty to sixty years old, five nurses are forty to fifty years old, and one nurse is thirty to forty years old. Within five to ten years this Province will be forced to offer lucrative salaries and job incentives to foreign nurses because we forced our own sons and daughters to leave home. How embarrassing, how shameful. When I was eighteen years old I campaigned for the Liberal Party because I believed we could work towards, quote, a just society, unquote, but you lawmakers who expect us to respect the letter of the law are the very people who manipulate the laws to suit yourselves. Until yesterday I believed we had a civilized democracy. I am embarrassed that I was so naive, so stupid for all these years.
Another nurse called me the other evening and she said - and I will have to use the name, and it is with no disrespect. I will quote her: During the election campaign I was all Brian Tobin, Brian Tobin, Brian Tobin, and my husband wasn't. He used to tease me all the time for believing in Brian Tobin but I did not mind, I believed in him and I liked what he was saying, so I voted for him. Now every morning when I get up and look in the mirror I can't stand myself because I was sucked in. I am mad, I am really, really mad.
I have had calls from nurses in community health. The role of nurses in community health has changed dramatically from what it used to be in the past because now our health care system has changed and we are discharging people from the hospital after they have had surgery, after major surgery. We discharge them after just a couple of days.
That is where the community health nurse steps in. The people they are treating and go to visit are almost acute care people because they are immediately post-operative, and I mean anything can happen to them. The community health nurse has the responsibility for that patient and they are there on their own, sometimes in the house on their own. There isn't another professional there that they can call and get advice from. It is very stressful. They enjoy their jobs. They visit homes where there are people who are post-cardiac surgery and people who are receiving cancer treatments. They have to hook up IVs. They have to take blood for lab work. They have to be a psychologist and a social worker. They have to determine if that person is able to be left in their home or if maybe they should be moved to a chronic care facility.
They have a mammoth case load but they are not complaining. They love their work, they care for their patients and they do not want to be on strike. The ones who have called me said: We want to get back to work, we want get back to our patients. They do want to be respected and recognized for their worth. They have said: Yes, we do not mind being legislated back to work, but we want binding arbitration.
Why don't we give them what they deserve? The government will not have to decide that amount and the nurses will not decide that amount. Give them binding arbitration.
There was a nurse at the Waterford who called me in and said she was the only nurse on one evening and there were twenty-six patients. She had two male attendants with her, two male nursing assistants with her, and she was the only nurse on with twenty-six patients. She had to be the one who went to the pharmacy, and that night she was also the casualty nurse, which meant that if there was a crisis or somebody came into emergency that she had to leave the floor and go down. What a caseload, what a responsibility to give that person, and that is not an isolated case. That is happening in all the hospitals here. This nurse was on by herself with twenty-six patients. As I said, she was the crisis nurse, so if there was a crisis, if somebody came into the emergency department, she had to leave the floor and go there. That was because they had called several of the casuals but were not able to get anybody that evening. That happens lots of times when they call the casuals. The casual nurses are out there going around to the supermarket with beepers or cellphones or whatever. Their lives are totally on hold. They can't not accept a call because they could jeopardize getting another call, but this nurse called and she was really stressed.
I have had calls from other nurses who work in the hospitals. They are devastated. They know that elective surgery has been stopped because of the strike but they are wise enough to know that eventually elective surgery turns into emergency surgery. They are emotionally drained because they know they are going around carrying this responsibility, and they are carrying this responsibility because they care. They want to go back to work because they know the surgery list is piling up. They are conscientious, they are worried. I say to the government, by all means, get them back to work, but don't force them back do two things: Go back to work and take what you have offered them. It is not fair. Why have they been members of a union and in good faith thought all these years that they could depend on collective bargaining but they can't?
Oftentimes you are visiting patients in hospitals and you see the nurses and they are running around. They are literally run off their feet. They have to go to the pharmacy. Sometimes they have to do an EKG. They have to take blood. They have to write up charts. They have to write reports. They are expected to have a good bedside manner. In all of the cases when I have seen these nurses whizzing by, back and forth, they are at the station, the buzzers are going, they are tending to people, there are elderly people there who probably need their clothes changed, and all the time through that the nurses are smiling. Nurses are lifting these patients sometimes alone and their backs are put out. You see it and you wonder: My gosh, I could never ever cope with that. You see these nurses there coping with that on a daily basis.
All of us have had occasion to either be in the hospital or visit patients who are in hospital. We have all been witness to that. We know the value of our nurses. We also know now how they must be demoralized by what this government is doing to them, forcing them back to work, forcing them to be unable to voice their opinion and imposing upon them this - and I will use the word again, it has been used many times today - oppressive and draconian bill. It will go through. They will get it. The government will get this bill. As the Premier said, and as I said earlier when I first got up to speak, it would be a free vote.
I would like to charge the people over there now, the people who are newly elected, some time within the next couple of days you will be standing and your name will be called. Remember when your name is called what you are doing. Remember the times that you visited hospitals and you have seen the nurses run off their feet. Remember the times that you visited loved ones probably in nursing homes and you have seen what the nurses are doing. Remember the times that probably a relative of yours has been discharged from the hospital and the community health nurse comes to visit, and the responsibility that that person has. When you stand to vote, think to yourself: I'm taking away their right to say I deserve better. Their rights are being taken away from them, and I am saying to them: Nurse, if you don't go back to work when we tell you to go back to work, you will be charged $1,000 a day.
When you stand in this House within the next couple of days and vote, then, when you go to visit your loved one in the hospital and you see that nurse who has probably been on her feet for eight hours come in and take your elderly father, or your elderly mother, or your grandmother, or your grandfather, and prop them up in the bed and wipe their brow while the buzzer is beeping down the hall, because another patient needs them and there are not enough people on the floor because the government will not put enough people on the floor, think about it. That nurse does not have the choice to ever say again: I do not like what I am making, I think I will go on strike. You remember that when you stand up in this House to vote, and remember it each time you go to a hospital, or to a nursing home, or to a private home where there is a post-operative person discharged.
Will you be able to look that nurse in the eye and say: I voted against you, you did not deserve any more than we said you deserved, you did not deserve what you think you deserved, you did not deserve what 88 per cent of the people who were surveyed in this Province deserved? Think about it very seriously. It is probably one of the most important votes that you will take in this Legislature, and in some cases it will be your first important vote.
The nurses of our Province, those educated professional people who take on the responsibilities of everybody from our great grandmothers down to the newborn babies, to the infants who are born who weigh a couple of pounds and they are in incubators and they nurse them to life so that we can raise them as children, when you look them in the eye after having stood in this House and voted for Bill 3, remember what you have done. Remember that these professional people who take on these responsibilities - many of us will never realize the magnitude of these responsibilities - deserve better.
The government has come in and reported that health care has said that we are in crisis, but the health board says that the crisis has not arrived yet. We have this from CBC -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MS S. OSBORNE: Yes, it is a crisis of convenience because if that legislation -
MR. GRIMES: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minster of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering if the hon. member in articulating what she just said, heckled by her own crowd to say it, really wants to suggest that we have a pending crisis of political convenience in the health care system of Newfoundland and Labrador. Because that is exactly and precisely what I heard, and I would like to challenge her to clarify as to whether or not she or any other member in that Opposition truly believes that this is politically motivated. Otherwise they are being two-faced. Because if they do not think it is politically motivated, they have stated that they would not be debating this bill at all unless they believed there was a crisis, so they cannot have it both ways. Would they please clarify, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
No point of order.
The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The nurses have said that if there -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair recognized the hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Nurses have said that if there is a crisis and if people's lives are in jeopardy they would be glad to go back to work. They have stated that right through this strike. The St. John's health board says that a crisis has not arrived yet. When the crisis arrives, I am very comfortable that the nurses who said they would respond in a crisis -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MS S. OSBORNE: I am very comfortable that, if a crisis arises, these nurses will respond. They said they would and they will.
AN HON. MEMBER: Anywhere in the Province.
MS S. OSBORNE: Anywhere in the Province they will respond. I am comfortable with that. I know that, if a crisis occurs, the nurses will come back. I also know that if a crisis occurs, immediately this government can have them back to work. All they have to do is legislate them back on binding arbitration. Don't forget: the power is in the hands of the government, not the Opposition.
The last time I counted, we had improved ourselves by 40 per cent, but not yet do we have more than what is on the other side. The power to legislate the nurses back is in the hands of the government. In a crisis, you can have them back immediately. Just give them binding arbitration; they deserve that.
MR. GRIMES: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Just to raise a question again, Mr. Speaker, because several of the speakers have mentioned this notion of binding arbitration. Would any one of the speakers - even the one who is recognized now - like to tell the House what they know happened the last time that binding arbitration was used in Newfoundland and Labrador and what the consequences were? Do they know? And, if they know, would they like to describe it to the Legislature?
MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for St. John's West.
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I know that, if a crisis occurs, the nurses will get back. The St. John's health board says that a crisis has not arrived yet. I also know that the power is not with us. No matter how many days this debate goes on, if emergencies arise, the power rests with the other side. With the stroke of a pen, binding arbitration, nurses are back, everybody is happy. But, as I said, the crisis has not arrived yet. I know that the nurses will go back. The St. John's Health Care Corporation is moving to distance itself from the government's move to legislate nurses back to work.
The government's action was prompted by a letter from the Province's health care association, saying that some boards are facing an imminent crisis.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.
AN HON. MEMBER: No, leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been denied.
MS S. OSBORNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is my pleasure to rise to participate in the debate with respect to the legislation that is before us.
The debate tonight is about far more than nurses on strike. It is about the quality of our health care system. Fundamentally, if government were to address the issues that face the health care system in the Province today - as was promised - then I would doubt sincerely that we would even be here in the Legislature tonight debating a piece of legislation that calls for $100,000 fines on our own citizens, $10,000 worth of fines for non-compliance on officials within the bargaining team, and $1,000 per member. That is the type of legislation we are debating.
Today is not unlike any other day in the House of Assembly, with the exception of the legislation before us. In the last six days there have been in excess of seventy to eighty questions asked in this Legislature, of this government, with respect to the issues concerning health care.
Five days before the election - we all know about it - there was a sense clearly given to the people of this Province. There was a sense clearly given to employees within the health care system. That is not fabricated, I should point out before the minister jumps up again on some useless nonsense point of order. It is not fabricated. It is clear, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy, very clear. It is very clear in terms of what was indicated during the provincial election.
Finally I heard - the Premier said - and I understand the issues that face our health care system: continuity of care; recruitment and retention; having to do more with less; the numbers of people required; the changing and emerging nature of the professions that we are speaking about today. Those are all issues that were talked about during the election.
I listened to my colleague from Bonavista South, as I always do, when he stood in this House tonight and talked about: Did anybody believe that this is the type of legislation we would debating during the election? Is there anybody in this Province, anybody in this Legislature, who thought that we would be here tonight debating this type of legislation?
It has been described as many things. It has been described as draconian. It has been described as high-handed. I think all of those descriptions fit but I have learned one thing in the last number of days with respect to this strike, a very fundamental thing: This government does not understand the nature of collective bargaining. This government wants to impose a one size fits all. If that was the case, we would all be making $50,000; we would all be living in three-room bungalows; we would all be driving Ladas. It does not require that. The reality is that, when you treat different professions -
MR. DICKS: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, driving Ladas, I say to the Minister of Finance, because that is the same approach that Communist China uses, and others, just like the legislation that you have right here. That is what I say to the Minister of Finance (inaudible) point of order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. DICKS: (Inaudible) a little further down the road.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: It is not a time to be cute, I say to the Minister of Finance.
The issue before us tonight is too serious to be cute, with half-hearted comments. The reality is that the one size approach does not fit everybody. We do not live in Utopia where things are the same for each and every person, that we apply things equally to each and everybody with respect to the circumstances that our public employees represent.
The Minister of Mines and Energy asked: Could anybody on this side of the House tell us what happened nine years ago? Yes, I will tell you what happened nine years ago when you were in Cabinet. You stood behind the President of Treasury Board then who stood up and said that we have reached a tentative agreement for nurses in the Province because it is a special case. That is what happened nine years ago; and nine years later, still part of a Cabinet -
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, keep going.
MR. E. BYRNE: I will keep going. Nine years later, still part of yet another Cabinet, is standing up and doing something different today.
MR. GRIMES: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I hope he is not having a convenient memory there. He just started to tell part of the story about nine years ago, about the special case for nurses. Could he then tell us what happened with the rest of the health care sector and the major strike that we had in the health care sector that lasted for a week or so, which was settled by using the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act and invoking binding arbitration? Could he please give the rest of the story?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I would ask the hon. minister to take his seat. There is no point of order.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the Minister of Mines and Energy - he seems to be such an authority and his memory seems obviously to be very good about that point in time - I would gladly give him five or ten minutes leave if he would like to stand in his place and talk about this piece of legislation and what happened then. Would he care to take me up on that? Would the Minister of Minister of Mines and Energy care to take me up on that? Would you like five or ten minutes to explain to all of us again what happened during that time?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: Would you like five minutes? Go ahead.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate an opportunity, actually, to lay out the -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has not yet recognized the hon. minister.
MR. GRIMES: Sorry, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: I would appreciate maybe just two or three minutes leave.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the Leader of the Opposition - because it is important in this whole debate to make sure that we do have the context of what is happening and why this particular bill is here today.
In the early 1990s, the case was made and agreed to by this government that the nurses in Newfoundland and Labrador, bargaining of and for and by themselves, as they always do and always should, they do not have any obligation to try and bargain for anybody else. Nobody does.
When I was president of the teachers' association, I had the privilege and I had the luxury of being able to say I am concerned only with teachers. In the government, we have to be concerned with everybody. When you get elected, you do not get elected to represent a constituency; you are elected to represent all of your constituencies.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: In 1990, the government did support the notion from the President of Treasury Board that the nurses were a special case and that we could have a particular increase for the nurses even though we knew, and the treasury knew, that we could not afford that same level of increase for every other group in the health care sector because it is the reverse order of now. The nurses were settling first. The rest of the units - hospital support and others - were going to settle afterwards.
When we settled for the nurses, because everybody convinced us that the nurses were special - everybody understood that, including their co-workers in the hospitals, in the nursing homes and in community health, and that nobody else would ask for the same money as nurses because they all believed that nurses were special - we bought the argument.
When we went to the bargaining table weeks later with the rest of the health care system workers, they all went on a strike because they said: No, no, you gave the nurses x per cent; we want the same percentage as you gave to nurses. We do not believe they are special. We believe that if you, the government, have that percentage to give to nurses then you must have the same money to give to us because all the nurses are paid more than we are. We are the low paid end of the health care system. The nurses are the high payed end. The whole case unfolded and there was a strike.
Within a week, the same health care board people came to the government and said: We have a crisis. Would you please intervene and order the people back to work? The government of the day intervened and did what is being suggested now. We let the matter go to arbitration. The arbitrator ruled that every group deserved the same as the nurses.
For seven years after that we had to go through wage freezes because the treasury could not afford it. Nobody bought the argument that there was a special case.
Now, for the first time in seven years, we are in the position to give some increases, modest increases, to everybody including nurses, and the Opposition and the nurses seem to want to repeat the last seven years again so that we give a raise, go to arbitration, and then somebody - us in the next few years, or the Opposition if they become the government in three or four years' time - would be put in a position to not be able to afford the increases, to have to make all kinds of very severe decisions in the public, and to go through the last seven years all over again.
If that is what they are proposing, put it on the table and let's talk about it in that context.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: I do not know where the Minister of Mines and Energy has been for a week, because we have been pretty clear on where our position has been. It is very obvious - and I let him have five minutes of my time because I knew he would do exactly what he did - that this minister and this government, like they have done with collective bargaining, are predetermining what an arbitrator is going to do. That is what this minister is telling us right now: that he knows full well, right now tonight, that if they refer this to the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act that he can tell us all in this Province, and everybody in the gallery, and anybody who cares to listen, that he already knows what the arbitrator is going to do.
No wonder the collective bargaining process did not work, because that is what they did in bad faith.
MR. GRIMES: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition might acknowledge two things.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) point of order.
MR. GRIMES: Getting to the point of order, Mr. Speaker, to state my point first -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to get to his point of order.
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
There has been an arbitration recently in the Province that ruled at 14.5 per cent, and every single arbitration that has ever been done in Newfoundland and Labrador gave a settlement higher than the employer was proposing.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: Every single one done in the history of Newfoundland and Labrador has given a settlement higher than proposed by the employer - every one.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. minister to take his seat.
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Mines and Energy knows full well that what he is doing tonight is interfering with the process. He is standing on points of order that are not points of order. He has been in the Legislature since 1989. He understands the process well enough. I am not going to suggest to the Speaker how to do his job - the Speaker knows full well how to do his job - but I will say, in the course of debate, that member has the equal opportunity of every other member of this House to stand. If he wants to stand and make all of his points, do so within the rules of the House and not in terms of interrupting members as we go through it.
Before I was so rudely interrupted, this minister has predetermined what an arbitrator would do. He has referred to the RNC. That is not binding arbitration. He knows full well, the RNC are different altogether.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, they do not have the fundamental right to strike. Maybe you would acknowledge that, would you? Would that make them different than the nurses or any other professionals in the gallery? You will have an opportunity to stand up and speak as well. Maybe we will hear from you later on tonight.
The reality is that RNC officers do not have the legal right to strike. Therefore, they are in a separate arbitration case. They do not fall under the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. The minister knows full well about that. The reference that we have pointed to is binding arbitration. It is the law of the land.
With respect to good faith bargaining and collective bargaining, it is obvious - since this minister knows and he is an example of the Cabinet, speaks on behalf of government on many issues, and he has predetermined what is going to happen with the arbitrator - it is obvious that before they even entered into collective bargaining they predetermined what was going to happen at the bargaining table.
I stood in this House earlier today when another member was speaking with respect to what went on between the parties, the employer and the employee. While we were negotiating, supposedly in good faith, there was a public relations campaign going on in the papers in this Province. Government was negotiating publicly, while there was a media blackout on, while they were at the table supposedly in the collective bargaining process in good faith. As former president of the NTA, Sir, would you have put up with collective bargaining like that?
We heard it again today, each and every day. Another one today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: Thirty-five hundred dollars a day, I believe, for one ad.
Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to make, and it is a valid point, is that while collective bargaining takes place - I have a background in collective bargaining. In a former life, before I became involved in politics, I worked for a number of unions. I worked for a labour management group, settled disputes. I was involved in dispute resolution mechanisms, got involved in labour management issues. I understand the process very well, intimately, as other members in this House who have a history, like the Member for Labrador West.
In collective bargaining and in good faith bargaining you do not wage public relations campaigns to encourage and to solicit public support while you are sitting across the table from each other, face to face, in the hope and intent of settling and reaching tentative agreements. One of the basic principles in the collective bargaining process, if you are bargaining in good faith - bona fide, in good faith - that while you are doing so you do impose media blackouts; that you give general statements saying that we are making progress; there are areas of concern. You never release the details. However, collective bargaining in good faith does not include massive public relations campaigns to a predetermined agenda to convince the public of something that you are going to do.
Earlier today - and I have spoken to people on the bargaining team, during negotiations the bargaining team were told clearly: You cannot win. We will legislate.
Prior to this piece of legislation, I had information that I talked about in the House about the fines that would be imposed, and they were right. Three days before this legislation came down, people on the bargaining team told me they were threatened that, if they did not take the agreement, there would be legislation brought before the House - three days before any of this happened - that fines would be $1,000 a day per member; $10,000 a day per official, and over $100,000 a day - it turned out to be $100,000 a day - for the union. It is not an example of collective bargaining, I say to members and I say to people generally. That is a "my way or the highway" approach. That is what has taken place.
The reality is, we saw in the gallery here some time ago, last week, student nurses, graduates. We faced this problem in the Legislature - many of us were here, prior to the new members coming here - with the retention and recruitment of rural physicians. The critic for health on many occasions, too many to name at this time but on many occasions, talked about the fundamental weakness within the health care system with respect to the recruitment and retention of rural physicians. He pointed to the fact, on many occasions, that there were special circumstances that existed for us to move and move quickly because, if we did not, we would have been into such a hole that we would never dig ourselves out of it; and if we did, it would take an inordinate amount of time to do so.
MR. SULLIVAN: And they let us get in that hole.
MR. E. BYRNE: And we got in the hole. That is why not so long ago, prior to the recent election, government took an initiative to bring on par, to the extent that we could, with at least Atlantic Canada, to offer -
MR. SULLIVAN: Close to.
MR. E. BYRNE: - close, with other comparable salaries, benefits, an entire compensation package that equalled 23 per cent. The reason that the 7 per cent benchmark did not apply simply is because there were extraordinary circumstances. Everybody agreed.
Mr. Speaker, we have the same problem happening within the nursing profession today. The average age of nurses, I believe, is forty-seven. The recruitment and retention issues are so serious to this Province today that five to seven years from now, if we are lucky -
MR. SULLIVAN: Before that.
MR. E. BYRNE: Before that, but certainly if we do not address fundamental weaknesses within the system today in terms of recruitment and retention and the delivery of health care services for all of us, then two or three years from now we will stand up in the Legislature and government will be making extraordinary measures in terms of settling for extraordinary circumstances they see at the time to address fundamental weaknesses within the health care system.
MR. SULLIVAN: Close the barn door too late (inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: That is exactly right.
So there is a special case. The Minister of Education has stood in this House every day responding to petitions, responding to what members have had to say.
MR. SULLIVAN: Mines and Energy.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mines and Energy, I am sorry, the former Minister of Education, responding to petitions.
The reality is, again, that in the collective bargaining process if the system breaks down - and it can break down and it has broken down - there is a mechanism that we can live by, there is a mechanism that people in this House put in place before us so that we could live by it, and to predetermine what is going to happen is unfair. It is not right.
The process can play foul or fair for the employer or the employee group. The arbitration award may in fact be less than what government even offered. Government could be in a better position. Who knows? What is important is that groups come to the table, make the leap of faith in the best interest of everybody involved.
The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act was put there for that reason, and that reason only. The relevant sections of that Act were put there for the exact set of circumstances that we find ourselves in today.
I know that during the election I had the opportunity, the year leading up to the election, to be in close to 300 communities in this Province. Every community I went into, I visited the health care facilities, and to say that our system is not stressed would be an understatement.
I recall being in Port aux Basques in a health care facility there - one of the finest facilities in the Province, one of the most up-to-date facilities in the Province, one of the most up-to-date birthing rooms, for example, in the Province. The problem is that they could not retain and recruit physicians. They could not keep specialists there in terms of delivery of children. They could not keep specialists there for cardiac surgery, or for the assessment of cardiac patients. In Port aux Basques, we have a wonderful facility with all the modern equipment, state of the art technology comparatively in the Province, but yet people in that area and in that neck of the Province, for the most of their health care services, the most important acute care services that they require, travel to Corner Brook, because we have not been able to recruit and retain the necessary health care workers in the system that we require. That is obvious. That is a fact. It is not an opinion, it is not spun out. That is the reality of what is faced in that region.
I was in Corner Brook and talked to the entire nurses local, the president, the vice-president, the executive during the election for about three hours, (inaudible) in the Glynmill Inn around 1:00 p.m. and for an hour-and-a-half they discussed with me directly the problems that nurses are facing today.
Question: Nurses today, as health care professionals of our Province, have their roles and responsibilities changed within the last ten years? If so, how much have they changed? The answer: Yes, they have. How much? Dramatically.
Throughout the entire government payroll system we recognize within classification scales - we do it daily sometimes - that when there is a significant modification to the duties of our employees than those recognized within the pay scale, we acknowledge it and changes are made, normally upward if the duties have increased and responsibilities have increased. That has happened. I do not know if government offered that in terms of giving back to nurses because, in recognition of, the dramatic difference in their role today as it was compared to nine years ago. The dramatic difference in not only their role and responsibilities but what is expected of them in the prosecution of health care each and every day on behalf of those people who need it most.
I am not sure if that was on the bargaining table or not. If it was not, it should have been. It would have been a mechanism, I think, by where both the nurses' union bargaining team, on behalf of its membership - because that is what we are talking about when we get into negotiations - and government could have both won. People could have gotten what they wanted: recognition that the roles and responsibilities have changed, that their duties have changed to the extent of more responsibility, expected to do more with less, more burnout, but at the same time government recognizes that roles have increased, responsibilities have increased, so therefore we bump them up in classification scales.
Government could have done that and still offered 7 per cent on top of that and we may have been where we should have been to avert this strike today, had we done that. It is a possibility. I am not sure if that was on the table or not.
It would be a legitimate thing. We have done it in many occasions in this House - not necessarily in the House but government, through Treasury Board, its Reclassification and Pay Division, look at these situations each and every day. We have done it within our own departments. You have done it within your department at times, when it is recognized clearly that roles and responsibilities have changed to such an extent that it requires a different scale and classification in pay. Recognition that the times have changed, responsibilities have changed, and therefore we need to change with them.
Mr. Speaker, I know the argument has been put forward with respect to: Well, if we give it to nurses that means 30,000 other public employees will have to be given it too. Not the letters I have on my desk from other unions.
AN HON. MEMBER: I would like to see them.
MR. E. BYRNE: Pardon me?
AN HON. MEMBER: I would like to see them.
MR. E. BYRNE: Would you like to see some of them?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: No problem. I will send them over to you tomorrow. How is that?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Not a problem. I will have them photocopied and sent over to you.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: That is okay. It is not a problem.
Out on the steps of the Confederation Building the other day, labour leaders gathered. Representatives from NAPE were on a public open line program this morning in support of what is taking place here. I had a letter tonight from the Fishermen Food and Allied Workers Union talking about this piece of legislation and what it will do to collective bargaining in the Province.
I understand government - in giving people the benefit of the doubt, nobody wants to be here discussing this issue because this issue should not even be before the Legislature. That is our point. It should not even be before this Legislature in the face and form that it is in. It did not have to be, should not have been, could not have been.
The reality is that we are. Government, obviously, has taken a position that because we offered 7 per cent to everybody else, because we have negotiated collective agreements with everybody else, signed legal collective agreements, that automatically, if a special set of circumstances warrant it, that a separate bargaining team, because of different needs, a different set of circumstances - no one can say that the needs of one local in NAPE are the exact same needs of a local within the nurses' union. No one can say that the needs of the nurses' union are exactly the same as the needs within the RNC. No one can say that the needs of social workers in the Province are the same as the needs of nurses or social workers or clerics, et cetera, within the public service. That is what government is saying.
If we take that approach to its logical conclusion, when we come back after Easter we will be debating a bill that every public servant, or every person on the public servant payroll, will now become part of one union; because the first one in the door is going to negotiate for everybody.
Last week, or a couple of weeks ago, we were in the lobby with social workers who were there. Here is what happened to social workers: Government reclassified them, steps up, and then guess what? Stripped them of their pay equity.
AN HON. MEMBER: That is not true.
MR. E. BYRNE: What is not true about it? Social workers talked about it. The representatives out there talked about it. I did not see you out talking to them about it.
MR. SULLIVAN: Everybody is wrong, according to you.
MR. E. BYRNE: Everybody.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: That is what happened. Government went so far so fast, they recognized that the role of social workers had changed to such an extent that they reclassified them upwards. Is that right?
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, it is.
MR. E. BYRNE: Why couldn't we do the same for nurses?
AN HON. MEMBER: The nurses are (inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, they are different, are they?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) every day.
MR. E. BYRNE: I thought they were the same as everybody else now.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: I am not sure I get you. Are they the same or different? They are the same when it comes to 7 per cent but they are different when it comes to everything else, is it? Is that what it is?
MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) show me the letters. You said you had letters (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: I said I would photocopy them and send them over to you tomorrow.
MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) they were letters about (inaudible) 7 per cent. (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: No, that is not what I said. Letters -
MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Exactly. No, no.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: All the letters that I have, that have been given to me with respect to this strike by outside groups or agencies, I will photocopy tomorrow, just in case you haven't gotten them, because I am sure some of them must have gotten there. I will send them over in a parcel for you. How is that?
AN HON. MEMBER: They do not say (inaudible) 7 per cent.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: No, hold on, now.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: No I did not. They were not even in here to hear it Premier, but the reality is that they support what this union is doing on the street. That is exactly what they are doing. They support exactly what this union is doing.
Mr. Speaker, if you look at -
MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) they don't get more than 7 per cent, so then they can get more than 7 per cent. That is what it is all about. (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, the reality is that government has - the truth is - forget about the reality - the truth is -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) reality.
MR. E. BYRNE: I said the truth is. The truth speaks to the reality. The truth is that this government has the opportunity to settle admirably and honourably with a group of public servants and they have chosen not to. That is the truth. They have taken a specific public policy purpose, based upon the past experience of the Minister of Mines and Energy, who has predetermined what an arbitrator will do in an arbitration award, supposedly; some arbitrator that is yet to be defined because they not even going to go there.
They took the same high-handed approach with respect to collective bargaining and said: It is my way or the highway. That is why we are here today. What was promised to nurses during the bargaining process and their representatives with respect to back-to-work legislation is exactly what we have today.
AN HON. MEMBER: It wasn't promised for certain.
MR. E. BYRNE: They promised they would do it, they threatened they would do it, so here we are debating it, all of us. Nobody in this Province wants to be here.
Mr. Speaker, the question is, where do we go from here? By the end of this process thirty-two Liberal members of the government will stand and rise, we will ask for division, and will go on the record of who supports this bill and who does not. What happens after? That is the interesting question. What happens to the system after? Where do we go from forcing people back into a situation that they should not have been forced back into -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Totally irresponsible?
MR. SULLIVAN: What book are you reading?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
AN HON. MEMBER: I'm actually reading the Leader of the Opposition's questions (inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: You have some good reading there.
MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) I'm being totally irresponsible for standing up yesterday where legislation was asked to be handed here, notice, stage one, first reading, second reading, Committee, stage three, Everything wanted to be done in five or six hours. That is what government asked for yesterday, that this legislation - and that we would run right around the clock, and it would all be done by today. We all could go home and we could be satisfied that we did our part, and they could be satisfied they did their part, but it did not work out that way. It did not work out.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: What is that?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) not right.
MR. E. BYRNE: It is absolutely right.
AN HON. MEMBER: No it's not.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: Is that right? That was what was attempted here yesterday, and he talks about me being misleading. You wanted the debate to start yesterday, I say to the former Government House Leader. You wanted to start yesterday, you wanted in one parliamentary sitting every stage of the bill. That is what you wanted.
AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, but (inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: Nineteen-and-a-half hours, I think you guys said, and that we would have been out of here.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: I said that you hoped that in nineteen hours we would have been out of here by earlier today and that public attention to this would have been over and done with and members could have went on.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: That what you wanted, Chuck.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, we are seeing health care corporations around the Province back off today. We did. It is in black and white. The Western Health Care board hospital association - where is it?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: One second now. Hospital administrators say cracks are starting to show. Right, I have the letter. Hold on, now. This one came out today. You were talking about what we were referencing. I quote:
The government's decision to order nurses back to work comes after conditions inside hospitals had started to deteriorate. How close did they get to crisis levels? Dr. Eric Parsons, CEO of Western Memorial Hospital in Corner Brook, was one of the hospital administrators who agreed the end had come.
He agreed the end had come in a late night conference call between government officials and hospital administrators the decision was made to recommend beginning the back-to-work legislation process. The cracks are starting to show, says Parsons, and the reasons are because they felt they could not get the cooperation of nurses responding.
That was one of the hot spots as described by Mr. Peddle. I have spoken to a number of people throughout the Province in the last hour, as a matter of fact while debate has occurred in this House. Some people may have wondered why I have been in and out. It is because I have been speaking to people within the hospital association around the Province. I have been speaking to people in Western. I have been speaking to nurses, nurses' locals around the Province. I understand that at the institutional level things are coping very well, because in the hot spots at the institutional level, that if nurses are required they have not only lived up to their essential service agreements, but they have actually sent in more when it has been required.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: I am not finished. Hold on now. Here it is: Ending the strike is one thing, says Mr. Parsons, but ending it without the prospect of an arbitrated settlement is quite another.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. E. BYRNE: Can I read it again?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Parsons says: Ending the strike is one thing, but ending it without the prospect of an arbitrated settlement is quite another.
People within the system understand what is going on here. If you take this today and look at it for what it is -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: No, it does not indicate that. We all know the system is stressed. I am not going to stand here today and say the system is not stressed. It is stressed. I understand that, but that is the point. The stress on the system did not happen because the nurses went on strike. It certainly exacerbated it, it certainly added to it, but the system has been under stress for some time, I say to members of this House.
The reality is again that even people within the hospital system, a gentleman like Dr. Eric Parsons, hospital administrator, who is saying cracks are starting to show, while they requested back-to-work legislation, clearly in that sentence they say: Ending the strike is one thing, but ending it without the prospect of an arbitrated settlement is quite something else. Fundamentally.
MR. SULLIVAN: That is a strong statement from an employee now.
MR. E. BYRNE: It is a strong statement. There is no question about it.
MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) that is our decision.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. E. BYRNE: Did the Minister of Mines and Energy (inaudible) -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: By leave, I understand, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
Does the hon. member have leave?
MR. GRIMES: By leave, just for clarification.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!
MR. GRIMES: Just a point of clarification. I understood the Leader of the Opposition did not quite get what I said and he wanted to hear it.
Mr. Speaker, the whole point is this. We fully understand why either a Dr. Parsons or a Sister Elizabeth Davis or a Mr. Peddle and so on would say: It is not our business to decide whether or not there is going to be binding arbitration or not binding arbitration. What they have asked the government to do is to get the nurses back to work at the earliest opportunity. Which mechanism the government -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. GRIMES: Because the only place that decision can be taken is in this Legislature. They cannot take the decision. The only place the decision can be taken is in the elected Legislature. Therefore, the only people who can decide whether there is arbitration or not are in this Legislature. They cannot take the decision.
The only place the decision can be taken is in the elected Legislature. Therefore, the only people that can decide whether there is arbitration or not are in this Legislature. So we fully understand their comments, and it proves nothing with respect to the point. I do not know why the point is being made.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: I will try to explain the point again to you so you will clearly understand it, in a more simplistic way for the Minister of Mines and Energy.
The point is this. Even people who are running the system know that the high handed way government is dealing with this type of legislation - $100,000 fines for the union per day for noncompliance, $10,000 a day for the bargaining team or officials, $1,000 a day per employee - is dead wrong. That is what it is saying. Clearly, ending the strike is one thing. We know that can happen, you have the power to do it. It can be done successfully with all parties in this House, but most importantly with the employer, its employee association, backed up by strong, convincing and overwhelming public support that it be arbitrated. That is the point, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: We know what you can do, we know what you cannot do, but most importantly we know what you have done and we know what you are about to do, and that does not make it right, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy.
Mr. Speaker, there have been warnings coming from this side of the Legislature for some time about what would happen in the health care system, that it has been stressed for some time. During the election, right in our policy manual, under the section that deals with health, it clearly outlines that because of the stresses in the health care system - and I am almost quoting verbatim actually from the book itself -, that because of the failure of government to deal effectively with recruitment and retention, to provide for the continuity of care, to provide for a stable environment where standards are equal across the Province - not one set of standards in Port aux Basques under one board, and another set of standards for another board -, and that because of the amount of money that has been taken from the health care budget in particular over the last three years - from the health care budget federally in terms of transfers, I say to the Government House Leader. You have dealt with this in Cabinet.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: The former Government House Leader, but still a member of the governing party who really is running the House today, who still sits in the front bench, is one of the senior members of the House. So you would have dealt with this in Cabinet, wouldn't you? You would have dealt with the declining transfers for health care, and you would have dealt with, I suppose in caucus, the Premier's statement one day of chastising the Prime Minister and the federal Budget, and then saying everything was alright the other day. You did not deal with that?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Oh, you did not deal with that. That is right, you were not in Cabinet. So a requirement for you to go to the woodshed was not a requirement because you are not back in Cabinet yet. That is right, that is exactly right.
The reality is again, Mr. Speaker, that we said then that if something is not put back, if there is not a recognition for the principles we just talked - and we put forward a policy for health care in the Province that clearly said that the first call on the public tax dollar will be health care, that our spending priorities would be rerouted and changed.
Government on many occasions have stood in the last four to six days when this has been an issue and said: Where would you take it from? As my upper colleague for Bonavista said, would you take it from roads, would you take it from this, would you take it from that? Government announced their Budget. The plan that we put forward during the election called for a redefining of spending priorities by government. It called for a redefinition of how we spend our money on behalf of people. We took some criticism during the election for it because we raised the level of public debate.
MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Indeed we did. Again, you are wrong. The Minister of Mines and Energy is wrong again.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, that is completely false. He knows it. He can purport it or propagate it. The numbers -
MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible) been number one (inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Yes, you are right, but the difference is where you spend about $940 to $950 million, our plan would have called for over $1 billion. That is the difference. It still would have been number one, but there would have been a higher level of funding provided for health care in the system.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. E. BYRNE: Obviously.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible)!
MR. E. BYRNE: No, it is not true. Mr. Speaker, the first call on the public tax dollar is what we talked about to address fundamental issues in health care: recruitment and retention of health care professionals; providing appropriate levels of compensation; recognition of the realities of the workplace and how they have changed over the last nine years. If government would address those fundamental issues within health care then this strike would not be occurring today. That is what I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy. That is what I say to government.
When this legislation comes for passage sometime in the next couple of days - tonight we have to vote on stage two, I say to the people who are here, who have come to listen to the debate tonight. Before this night is over we will vote on one section of this bill. It does not mean the bill is passed because it is not, but we will vote tonight on whether we support the passage of second reading on this piece of legislation. I can tell you, from our caucus' point of view, we will not be supporting it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: I should say hello to the former member for Kilbride, Mr. Bob Aylward, and the former member for Burgeo & LaPoile, Mr. Bill Ramsay, who I just saw come into the House.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. E. BYRNE: When I was first elected in this House in 1993, shortly after we engaged in some pretty controversial legislation known as the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. I haven't seen the galleries as full this hour in the night since that time. On that night a member on the opposite side said, and I believed it, I listened to it at that time, I believe it today, and I remembered it: It is not where you sit in this Legislature that matters, but it is where you stand on the particular issues. We will be standing up against this legislation later tonight.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER (Oldford): The hon. the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.
MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I cannot stand in my place tonight in the House of Assembly and say I am pleased to be here. On a day that the Province and, I guess, the country are in the process of celebrating, or thinking about Confederation with Canada and all the good things that it supposedly brought us - I heard the Premier earlier when this House of Assembly opened today talking about how far we have gone ahead, how far we have progressed since 1949.
I say that with the legislation that we are standing here tonight debating I think we have gone back ten to fifteen years with collective bargaining in this Province. We have gone back forty years with people having the right to stand up and present their case in a fair and equitable way.
I heard the Premier also making comments over the past couple of weeks, and especially the morning of last week when the nurses finally went on strike, that he was surprised that the nurses were on the streets. I cannot understand why the Premier or the government would be surprised that the nurses were on the street after the attitude and the hard arm of the political process that the government put towards negotiations with the nurses. No, there are only a few things the Premier was surprised about. There are only a few things the Premier did not count on. I would like to touch on a couple of those.
The most important one he did not count on was the public support that is in this Province for the nurses. That is the one the Premier of this Province did not count on. For some reason or other his polling did not pick that up. I was on the strike line with the nurses in Placentia in my district on Sunday - I was there also last week -, and as I stood there with the nurses and the continuation of the traffic up and down through Placentia and the horns blasting and people waving, I knew the support was there.
When I went down to the headquarters and I watched people bringing in doughnuts and Pepsi and coffee and whatever else the nurses wanted, I knew the support was there. Some people came in, dropped off a package, and just said thank you, thank you for something that some nurse had done a few years ago for themselves or a family member, or thank you for putting health care at the front and foremost agenda of this Province today.
Here is another thing that the Premier did not count on. I have left this seat over the past number of days and walked out to the lobby just to have a look around. I sit down and I look here tonight, and I spent three years here from 1993 to 1996, and as the leader just touched on, I have never seen the galleries as full.
Another thing the Premier did not count on was the coming together and the comradeship of the nurses in this Province. That is one thing that the Premier did not count on. I have not seen it with any organization in this Province for many years.
Another thing that the Premier did not count on is the resolve of the people on this side of the House of Assembly to stand up and be counted and ensure that the people are heard and that the law of the land is abided by.
We will stand here tonight into the wee hours of the morning and we will be back tomorrow, or the next day, or into next week, whatever it takes, to try to get the message to the Premier and his government that this is the wrong way. We have a way to resolve this. It is in legislation today. We have a way to resolve this before the clock strikes ten; that is by giving the nurses the opportunity for binding arbitration.
I talked to the headquarters in my district today at Placentia. I have been back and forth letting them know what is going here. They know what the government is up to, but they also are willing to go back to work at a moment's notice with binding arbitration. They are also willing to do, and have been for the past number of days doing, their part with essential services.
I guess one last thing I would like to touch on that the Premier did not count on is this. The Premier did not count on the fact that he could not wink, nod, smile, or talk his way out of this one. The nod is up, I would say, and the nurses out in the lobby are letting him know that.
I stood here today when this piece of legislation was put into second reading and I heard the President of Treasury Board speak about the most important piece of legislation ever to come to this House of Assembly. If it takes sixteen minutes for the President of Treasury Board to stand and talk about the most important legislation to ever come to the floor of the House of Assembly, while she could have spoken for an hour, I question the sincerity. She could have spoken unlimited, but she chose sixteen minutes. Sixteen minutes, I say, one minute more than a coffee break that the nurses have. One minute more than a coffee break that the nurses have the President of Treasury Board decided that this was the most important issue.
MS S. OSBORNE: That is if they can get one.
MR. MANNING: That is if they can get one. You are right, I say to the Member for St. John's West. If they can get one.
Mr. Speaker, I also want to go back to a couple of comments and a couple of times when the Premier got up to answer the Leader of the Opposition during Question Period, how he talked about the finances of the Province and why we cannot give the nurses a little extra.
We talked about the deficit, and the Premier keeps reminding us of what has happened since 1996 in this Province. He will not go back and talk about before that. He wants to talk about what has happened since 1996.
Well, my memory isn't gone yet, I say to this hon. House. I stood in this Province, along with many other people in 1996, and I heard the promises of a better tomorrow. I heard it time and time again, the promises of a better tomorrow, but I would like to ask a question of this House tonight: Does a better tomorrow include overworked, underpaid, stressed out and demoralized nurses? I say not, Mr. Speaker, I say not.
As the Leader of the Opposition touched on earlier, this situation that we find ourselves in here tonight is not about nurses only; it is about the total health care situation in this Province. It is about something that affects every man, woman and child in Newfoundland and Labrador. I say, Mr. Speaker, thank God that the nurses once again have brought it to the forefront.
I had the experience to end up in the hospital, the Health Sciences Centre, a couple of years ago for about a week or so. I had to go to the Placentia hospital first. I had a medical problem. I spent about a week in the hospital, the Health Sciences Centre, and I was more or less told by the doctors to take it easy for a few days. I was not causing the nurses at the time very much trouble. They would just come in and do their regular checks. It was more or less bed rest in my case, but I can remember my door open in that room and the nurses going up and down, and up and down the hallway, and beepers going here, there and everywhere.
A nurse came in to me and said: Would you mind if I just sit here for one second to catch my breath? To catch her breath, Mr. Speaker, working a twelve-hour shift with very, very little human resources. At the same time, the Premier or the Minister of Health stands up and announces new buildings, new hospitals. They are great, I do not knock completely that fact, but I think it is important that human resources come before bricks and mortar, and that we put nurses in the hospitals that are already built before we try to build hospitals to put the nurses in afterwards.
I also came across, in my research, some salary rates. We hear on Open Line, or in the news media we read, and we talk to nurses out on the street and we talk to nurses in their homes, and I know several nurses from my home town of St. Bride's who are in Florida today, or some other part of the country, or some other part of the world.
AN HON. MEMBER: They are not on vacation.
MR. MANNING: They are not on vacation. They are down there working, trying to pay off their student loans and trying to get a start in life, because this government and this Province drove them to that.
I just want to touch on, for a minute, some statistics that I have which give us a starting rate, a collective agreement from January 13, 1995 to December 31, 1995, a starting rate of $15.19 an hour in this Province, while a starting rate in British Columbia gives you $20.98 an hour. The top of the scale rate in Newfoundland is $19.18 an hour. The top of the scale rate in Ontario is $27.04 an hour. We ask ourselves: Why are nurses packing their bags and leaving here? Because the opportunities are elsewhere. That is why they are leaving.
I look back on the recent election campaign, as I listened to the Premier travel throughout my own District of Placentia & St. Mary's, and indeed throughout all the districts in the Province. Just a few days before the campaign came to an end, the Premier hopped on a private jet and flew to Ottawa and came back with supposedly a load of money in the back pocket; $40 million to straighten up health care in this Province. Forty million dollars, and when all the dust settled, it was a little over $4 million. Forty million dollars down to $4 million, and then this crowd will tell you they can count. My God, they were never good at math but that is ridiculous.
Then in the Budget a few days after - no, I have to go back to the $40 million first, the $4 million. Many people in this Province - and I am sure, without a doubt in my mind, many people who are in the galleries tonight, or out in the lobby - believed that when the Premier said it. Why wouldn't you?
My own two parents are up seventy years of age, and they were delighted that we were going to have more money into our health care system. They were relaxed, a kind of a sigh of relief, that there was going to be $40 million new dollars put into the health care system. What a letdown.
Then, a few days after, we stood here and listened to a Budget from this government. A so-called health care budget, another joke, a health care budget where they announced $40 million. What was that $40 million for? The $40 million was to cover the deficit of politically appointed regional health care boards. Forty million dollars to cover the deficits of these boards that must have spent money like drunken sailors, I say, Mr. Speaker. Forty million dollars to pay off their bills while there is no help for the nurses to pay off theirs.
This $40 million did not take one person in this Province off a waiting list. This $40 million did not open one bed on a ward in a hospital in this Province. This $40 million did not put one nurse on a floor in the hospitals in this Province. Forty million dollars to pay deficits of politically appointed boards. I say, shame, shame on this government for that.
I want to touch for a few moments, if I could, and some other members have also, on what I feel is so important an issue that it has to be repeated. Maybe if we stand here tonight or in the next couple of days and repeat it often enough the members on the other side may start to believe us.
I will go to clause 7 of the bill where it says a union, which represents thousand of people, thousands of nurses in this Province, if they defy the legislation are going to be fined $100,000 a day, $100,000 for half of a day according to the legislation, for five minutes out of a day if they defy the legislation. I look at a bill where the president of that union or officers of the union, such as Ms Forward, are going to be fined $10,000 a day, or $10,000 for their five minutes. I look at a piece of legislation that is going to fine nurses $1,000 a day.
I have a grave problem thinking that we are living in Canada. I have a problem thinking that we are living in Newfoundland when we are going to be fined $100,000 a day for a union, $10,000 for an officer of the union, and $1,000 for nurses. I have never seen measures implemented or tried to be implemented before in this House, I've never heard of measures to this extent that have been tried to be implemented to this House in the past.
It amazes me and my colleagues on this side of the House that the government of the day could bring forward legislation with such draconian measures. I know that word has been brought up several times, but there is no doubt about it, that what we have here before us tonight is back in the Dark Ages.
As I said earlier, there is a method right here today under the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act with which we can resolve this issue. Members on both sides of this House, including the members in the NDP I am sure, nobody wants to be here tonight debating this issue. We are forced to be here because the government decided to lay down the foot. There is an act here today with which we can solve this issue, but there has to be a resolve within the party on the other side to do that. For some reason or another, they decided to take the hard side of things.
Mr. Speaker, it is not that the public pressure is upon them to do that. It cannot be, because in a news release today by the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union, there was a poll taken by a company here in town, Market Insights -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. MANNING: Maybe you should release your polls also, I say, Mr. Speaker. We have a company, Market Insights, that carried out a poll for the nurses' union. I think it is very important that we stress to the members opposite the feeling of the people of this Province. Not only the people gathered on this side of the House, but indeed the feeling of the people in this Province.
I want just to run through question number eight. It said: Do you think that nurses should be allowed to keep their rights to binding arbitration where an independent third party would settle the dispute in a fair and unbiased manner, and both sides would have to accept the decision?
That was the question. Eighty-eight per cent of the people who were asked responded yes. The Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs says it is a garbage poll. I would that what should be done with Bill 3 is throw it in the garbage. That is what they should do with anything they want to throw in the garbage here.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. MANNING: I would say, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, who was a former Minister of Health when I was in the House before, should be on his feet tonight putting forward his comments. Then, when you are not allowed and you are told what to do, you have no choice.
I also want to touch on part of the press statement by the nurses' union which I found, as a member of this Legislature, very interesting. In the words of the nurses' union themselves according to the press release today:
Today we wish to tell government that it is not too late to choose the right path. We will end this legal strike if government will agree to submit all monetary matters to binding arbitration. Although present law gives us the right to binding arbitration and all outstanding issues we are willing to entertain the establishment of studies and a mediation panel to deal with issues related to workload and casualization. This is an offer we believe to be fair to all parties.
Mr. Speaker, this olive branch, this coming forward from the nurses' union, shows that they want to get back on the floors of the hospitals in this Province. This statement today shows that the nurses in this Province want to get back to doing the job they were trained to do. This statement goes to show that the nurses care, that the nurses have put their patients and the people of this Province first. Still, at 11:00 a.m. today this news release came out, and it is going up for 11:00 p.m. tonight, and we are here debating it because we have a government as cold as ice.
Bill 3 sends a message. It does not only send a message to the nurses, it sends a message to all of the people involved in the labour movement in this Province. It sends a message to every collective bargaining unit in this Province. It sends the message loud and clear: If you do not do as we tell you to do, we will make you do it anyway.
I would say there is no doubt about it - as the nurses' union said today -, that that is not the right path. That is not the path that this Province, this government, or the people here should be taking. We find ourselves here tonight debating a piece of legislation that never should have come to the floor of this House. We stood here yesterday and listened to the Premier try to contrive a crisis that was not even there. I sat here yesterday and watched them being marched into the Speaker's Gallery. Puppets being marched into the gallery to do what they are told.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!
MR. MANNING: The truth hurts, I say to the members opposite. We are here, Mr. Speaker, to tell the truth. We sat here yesterday and listened, as I said, to the Premier try to create a crisis. There is no crisis at the present time. There is stress in our hospitals, but the stress has been here long before we stood here today. The stress in the health care system has been here for many years. This was an opportunity for the government to alleviate some of that stress but they chose not to. We had an opportunity here over the past couple of days, and the Premier was given ample opportunity to right the wrong. He was given ample opportunity to get the nurses back to work. He was given ample opportunity to resolve this issue but he refused to do so.
The St. John's health board released a news release today stressing it is in no immediate danger. The Corporation says it is managing to care for patients thanks to the cooperation from striking and essential nurses. They are caring for their patients. They are meeting the challenges because the nurses have decided to ensure that the concerns on the floors of the hospitals in this Province are met, and they are doing that by keeping essential services.
I want to go back for a moment, if I could, to conversations I had with the nurses in Placentia, in my own district over the weekend and late last week, on Sunday. I had one nurse who told me she is getting close to retirement. I would not want to get into how many years but she is getting close to retirement. She said to me: I can't believe at this time in my career, at this stage of my life, Fabian, I cannot believe that I am on the picket line. I've loved to go to work each and every morning for the past twenty-six years.
A nurse, an individual, a human being who has given twenty-six years to the people of this Province, who has given twenty-six years to the patients of our area out in Placentia. She could not believe and could not understand why that day she was heading for the picket line. I say it is a sad commentary on a government that ran an election campaign that said health care was the number one issue in this Province. It is a sad commentary on a government, that brings in what they call a health care budget, that they have forced the nurses to a point where they have to hit the streets.
I say that we stand here tonight - and my time is getting limited - as an Opposition. We stand here tonight to ensure that the concerns of the people who are gathered here in the galleries, the concerns of the people that are on the picket lines throughout this Province, the concerns of the people that are in every nook and corner of Newfoundland and Labrador, are heard, debated and voted upon. I look forward to standing shortly in a few hours' time -
MR. SPEAKER (Smith): Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
MR. MANNING: - under Division and stand, Mr. Speaker, and vote against Bill 3.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!
MR. SPEAKER: No leave.
MR. MANNING: I would just like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I believe -
AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.
MR. MANNING: In conclusion -
MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been denied.
MR. MANNING: - instead of taking a turn for the worse, the Premier should be taking a turn for the nurse.
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.
It gives me no pleasure to rise this evening to be forced to speak on a piece of legislation that intends to destroy the very notion of collective bargaining, not only in the public sector but in this Province itself.
This legislation is called An Act To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation Of Health And Community Services. Under its purpose it says, in clause 3, that it "...is to provide for a return to work of striking nurses" - and here is the key phrase - "in light of a serious and deteriorating situation in the provision of health care to patients and the public..."
I agree that we have a serious and deteriorating situation in the provision of health care to patients and the public. It is the nurses of this Province who, for the past six months, have being pointing out continuously, each and every day, the "serious and deteriorating situation in the provision of health care..."
Many of us over the last couple of years, patients, members of the public, people in this House, have talked about the problems in the delivery of health care. We started hearing about those problems directly from the nurses themselves who were pleading to the public, pleading to the government, saying: We are not able to do the jobs we are trained to do. We are not able to provide the level of care that we see our patients need. We have a crisis on our hands.
The crisis is one that they sought to remedy. They sought to remedy that through the law, through the legitimate process of collective bargaining, through the electoral process by bringing it to the attention of candidates, bringing it to the attention of the Premier, bringing it to the attention of anybody who would listen, to say: We have a serious and deteriorating situation in our health care system.
There were a number of issues. Pay is one of them. It is important for the individual nurse. Let me tell you, it is very important for the whole health care system that nurses be properly compensated, because if they are not we will not have them available to care for our sick, and our injured, and those who need home care and other care that is being provided.
People talk about the words retention and recruitment of nurses. What that really means is: will nurses stay here in this Province, or will nurses, who are trained here, be able to work here, when we have a most recent announcement by another government, in Ontario, that they are going to hire 10,000 nurses? Ten thousand nurses are going to be hired by the Government of Ontario where their pay scales are 40 per cent higher than the pay scales here.
We do not use fancy words about retention and recruitment of nurses. All we have to do is say: Are we paying our nurses properly and in keeping with their skill, ability, responsibility, education, and training, or are we going to lose them and the ones who are being trained to other provinces? It is pretty obvious what is going to happen. It is going to hurt the nurses who are here in the gallery and nurses who are working in the system, but it is going to help our health care system and, of course, our patients.
When they went to collective bargaining they were not just bargaining for themselves. They said: We want proper and fair compensation, yes, but we want you to hire more nurses, we want you to provide better health care in this Province. That is something that the nurses of this Province did because they have an agenda that is much larger than their own self-interest as workers.
I think the numbers that the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs calls the garbage poll reflect the fact that the public of Newfoundland and Labrador understands that fact. They understand that nurses in this Province are not operating out of self-interest as the prime motivating factor. They are operating out of the interests they have as part of what are called the caring professions. The esteem in which they are held by this Province is reflected in people's understanding of the situation, not only members of the public who are standing by and watching, but patients, people who need health care who have been calling our offices, my offices, and saying: I need health care but it is not the nurses' fault that the system does not give me the care I need immediately. It is the government's fault.
People are seeing beyond the rhetoric that is often used to dissuade the public from supporting a job action such as this. I have never seen so many people actually working during a strike as the nurses have. I have never seen so much solidarity on the picket lines and amongst the membership than we have had in the nurses' union, and I have not seen as much public support for a strike of this nature as I have seen during the nurses' strike. That is a great tribute to the nurses and to their leadership.
Let's look at what the response of that has been to the government. Has it been a response that says: Thank you for focusing our attention, our job as government, on the delivery of health care on the front lines? Let's find a way of solving this problem. Let's find a way of ensuring that you can get recognition for your responsibilities, for your duties, for the educational standards that are growing in the profession, and let's do it in such a way that is fair to you. Let's do it in such a way that will improve the health care system. Let's not raise all of these spectres of what other people might do - that, according to the Premier, they might do - that other people might break the law if we are fair to you.
This is the proposition that is being put before the public of Newfoundland and the Legislature. If we are fair to you, other people might break the law. Therefore, we are going to take away your rights.
AN HON. MEMBER: Therefore we cannot be fair to you.
MR. HARRIS: Therefore we cannot be fair to you because somebody else might break the law, and the evidence for that is that some one person has said that some of their members might break the law.
That is what we are faced with here tonight. That is why we are all here. That is why the nurses are filling the gallery. That is why the lobby is full out there. That is why, on all the open lines for the last ten days, everybody has been phoning in with support - almost without exception - for the nurses' cause. We are here today because the government says we cannot be fair to you because somebody might break the law.
Then we look at the legislation, and who are they really worried about breaking the law? The people who have signed contracts or the people who have been abiding by the law for the last eight days or more? Not only abiding by it, even more so offering above and beyond the requirements of essential services. So, what are they afraid of? They must be afraid of something because they have the most punitive piece of punishing legislation in place that I have ever seen in this Province for back-to-work legislation or any kind of public regulation.
Let's do a little calculation here: $1,000 per day per member, 4,500 nurses, $4.5 million per day; $100,000 for the union; $10,000 for each union official, and that could include shop stewards and everybody along the line. Five million dollars per day.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Romanow.
MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) Romanow, he said. There is no strike in Saskatchewan, so stop that nonsense.
Five million dollars per day for the nurses if they break back-to-work legislation that is about to be imposed on them. Why are they doing it? Because, if they are fair to them, some other unnamed people might break the law; people who have legally binding collective agreements, done and passed.
The minister can look askance, the way he does. He can jump up and object if he wants. They have signed, legally binding collective agreements with 30,000 people, he keeps saying. Some of them might not like the fact that they are legally binding, so in order to keep them from potentially, possibly, breaking the law, we are going to impose the most punitive labour legislation in terms of fines that this Province has ever had, against the most law-abiding strikers that this Province has ever had.
I know a little bit about what happens on picket lines. I know a little bit about what happens during strikes. I have been involved as a lawyer, defending people, representing them in situations where they have been on strikes. This is the most law-abiding strike that I have seen in this Province. What does this government do to them? Decide to impose the largest fines ever heard of in this Province for breaking back-to-work legislation. That is what this government thinks about the nurses of this Province.
I am ashamed to be in a Legislature where, in a cavalier manner, members opposite can line up behind their leader, listen to a fifteen- or sixteen-minute speech - maybe it was seventeen minutes, I do not know - about the so-called most important piece of legislation...
Maybe it is the most important piece of legislation because, when people introduce legislation as draconian as this, it is important. It is important because it takes away the rights of people, the democratic rights of people.
The nurses had a vote back in October. They were presented with an offer that had been discussed and negotiated and tentatively agreed to, subject to ratification by their bargaining team. It was put out to them and they had a vote, a democratic vote -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: No leadership says the minister. This is the kind of government we have here, Mr. Speaker. They are not prepared to accept the fact that the leadership of the nurses' union respects the democratic process, and when they make a tentative agreement and go to their members and their members say no, no, we do not want that, the leadership says: Fine, we respect your wishes. We will go back to the government. We will fight tooth and nail. We will do everything that we can to improve that offer.
What the minister says is, no leadership. This is a no leadership garbage poll here that we have, from the Minister of Municipal Affairs. That is the kind of respect that this government has for public opinion in the Province, for the wishes of the people, for the people's understanding of the basic fairness that should be at work here, and for the nurses' union and their organization and their understanding of what leadership is: to take a position, to listen to your members, to follow their wishes and take the leadership role. That is what has happened, Mr. Speaker. That is the respect this government has for the leadership of the union.
All we have happening here, as the Leader of the Opposition says, is a lack of leadership on the part of the government. I have to say, of course, led by the Premier. The Premier has not shown leadership here. He has not shown leadership. What he has done is, from the very beginning of his involvement with this strike, the day the strike started, made a major blunder. He showed his total ignorance of the collective bargaining process and his total ignorance of the dynamics of labour disputes, of the understanding that a union has when they entrust to their leadership the negotiation process.
What does he do? The very same thing as the Minister of Municipal Affairs just did, accused the leadership of not doing their job. Somehow he did not know they were going on strike. He did not know there was going to be a strike. It came as a great surprise to him.
The kind of leadership we have had since then, the bringing in of this bill, the leadership that we heard in this House today when the Minister of Health and Community Services, the former president of the nurses' union, said: We care about nurses. We care about the fact that they have responsibilities, and within our means we have tried to accommodate that. That is why we put, in the round of negotiations that just broke down, more money on the table.
I think the Premier evaluated their latest offer in monetary terms, aside from the extra nurses, $8 million. Eight million dollars was put on the table. The minister said in this House this afternoon: We did that because we value the contribution that the nurses have made, and we understand that they need to be better compensated.
What I want to ask this government is: Where is the $8 million in this legislation? Where is the $8 million in this legislation that imposes the terms and conditions of employment which are identical to - I have a copy of those terms, because if you read the bill you will not find out.
Clause 6 of the bill says, "From the day this Act comes in force, the terms and conditions of employment approved by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, a copy of which is on file with the Clerk of the Executive Council, are considered to be the terms and conditions of employment of the employees..." That is what the legislation says.
The terms and conditions of employment are whatever copy the Clerk of the Executive Council has.
MR. GRIMES: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
MR. GRIMES: A very serious point, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the hon. member either did not listen today - because he would not want to mislead the House or mislead anybody who is listening.
When the minister introduced the bill today, she clearly indicated that clause 6 was determined by three articles that were laid on the Table of this Legislature, that he can pick up and read if he likes: the existing collective agreement from the previous time there was a collective agreement, the amendments that were made to accommodate the reorganization of the boards a few years ago, and the terms that were agreed to and put to the membership of the nurses' union for a vote last fall when it was defeated fifty-one to forty-nine.
Those three documents, explained by the minister and laid on the Table in this House, described the terms and conditions of work with this back-to-work legislation. Either he did not hear it or he is choosing to deliberately suggest that there is something else, and that people will not know what the terms and conditions are. He should clarify that he knows the difference of that.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I can understand why the minister is so testy, because the lack of moral leadership on this side of the House is showing. He will not even listen to what I am saying. I said: You can read this bill and you will not find out what the terms and conditions of employment are.
When you look at the other documents that they referred to here - I have a copy of them and I had a copy before they were laid. I had a copy yesterday, I say to the minister.
MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: What I said - if the minister does not want to listen, he just wants to interfere with the speech - you can read this bill and you will not understand.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HARRIS: When you look at what has being filed, they are imposing, as terms and conditions of employment, the terms and conditions that were rejected by a democratic vote of the nurses.
MR. GRIMES: They know what they are. They voted on it.
MR. HARRIS: They know what they are. What is missing from them - you are missing my point - if the minister would hold his tongue for a moment and listen...
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I remind the gallery again, they are not to participate in debate in any way.
The hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.
MR. HARRIS: What this government is doing, Mr. Speaker, is imposing on the nurses a tentative agreement that they rejected. Not only that, they are taking away the $8 million that they claim today was on the table. So not only do we have enforced back-to-work legislation with the largest fines ever heard of in this Province, $5 million a day -
AN HON. MEMBER: To punish them.
MR. HARRIS: - to punish them; they are taking away what they offered three or four days ago. Why is that, Mr. Speaker? Is that to punish them for going on strike? Is that to be vindictive because they are causing a political embarrassment, because 88 per cent of the people support the nurses and not the government? Is that why they are doing that? Is that why the minister got up in the House today and said: We care about nurses. We appreciate their contribution, and that is why we made all these additional offers.
Now we have legislation before the House that is going to take it away. The $8 million the Premier said we put on the table, that is gone? And if you defy our legislation we are going to fine you $5 million a day. That is the kind of government that we have. That is the kind of leadership that is behind this bill.
Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious matter. This is a very sorry pass to which we have come, when the government of the day takes it upon itself to vindictively punish workers exercising the legitimate, legal right to strike, with an opportunity for government, if there is a crisis, if the health and safety of the public is endangered, where there is a route to go - an honourable route which has nothing to do with NAPE or CUPE or anybody else - an honourable route to go.
These people have done their negotiations. That is over with. They might complain. They might want more; they might want to leapfrog in the next contract, and that is their right. That is the way progress is made on an ongoing basis in terms and conditions of employment. That is the nature of collective bargaining, and that is the nature of economic progress, but there is a legitimate, legal, lawful and honourable way to settle this dispute.
Government said it could not do it by negotiations, even though today the nurses made an offer which recognized that they were prepared to compromise. So there are still three honourable ways to solve this problem.
One, you could reopen negotiations and make a deal. That might not be possible. You could follow section 30 of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act and institute binding arbitration. That is the preferred method. That is the one that 88 per cent of the public supported, when the question was put to them in a poll. Or, you could seek agreement on a final offer selection, if both parties agree to that approach. That would be another honourable way of solving this dispute, but they have chosen this honourable way: They have removed any value that the right to strike has had for the nurses of this Province, which they exercised in a meaningful, lawful, coordinated, supportive way. They are making a legal strike illegal. They are imposing terms and conditions of employment that were rejected by nurses.
I think the ministers today, the President of Treasury Board and the Minister of Mines and Energy, talked about how it was a fifty-one to forty-nine rejection. Well, let's take a vote today. What about a 97 per cent strike vote?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HARRIS: Someone said that Confederation was not much farther away from fifty-nine to forty-one.
A 97 per cent strike vote, almost unanimous support for the action taken by the leadership as a result of the breakdown of negotiations. Not only is it dishonourable, it is doubly dishonourable by removing what they had on the table only a few days ago.
We are looking at a government which claims to be taking the leadership role when in fact the role that it is playing is causing and will cause harm to public respect for the law, harm to public respect for the Legislature, harm to the morale of the health care workers in this Province, harm to our ability to recruit and retain nurses. The 10,000 jobs that Ontario is now offering are beckoning our nurses. That is the reality. It is a fact of life. They are beckoning them with money 40 per cent higher than our wages.
Yes, we do have a crisis in the health care system, a serious and deteriorating situation in the provision of health care of the patients and the public; one that is caused and continuing to be caused and being exacerbated by this legislation, this legislation that has already been called - the Federation of Labour calls it a declaration of war, an affront to every unionized worker in the Province.
The fishermen's union says that today's action is a high-handed dictatorial approach in dealing with the current nurses' strike. It is being condemned by the Secretary-Treasurer of the Federation of the Fishermen's Union. This is the kind of approach that this government has taken, instead of choosing one of the honourable ways available to it to resolve this dispute. It has chosen the most divisive, the least popular, the most oppressive to the rights of worker, care givers.
The democratic rights of people in this Province - we do not have many opportunities for democracy in this Province. We do not have very many. One of them has to do with free collective bargaining. One of them has to do with the right to strike. This government is saying: No, you have the right to strike - in some vague and funny way - but if you exercise it, we will take it away and make things worse for you, punish you for it, take off the table what we had there three or four days ago.
That is not acceptable to the people of this Province, as is evidenced by their support for the nurses. It is a disaster for this government politically, but that is their problem. They will have to deal with that. That is why they are so testy over there, I guess.
Mr. Speaker, I want to state unequivocally my opposition to this legislation, my opposition to the tactics being used by government, my opposition to the sledgehammer approach, the punitive approach in treating nurses as if they need to have a sledgehammer held over their head - $5 million a day fine. I think they told them this during negotiations: You might as well agree with us because you cannot win. We will legislate you back to work and if you do not (inaudible) we will destroy your union. That is what this legislation proposes to do.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I rise tonight to make a few remarks on Bill 3. In so doing, I want to say it does not give me a lot of enthusiasm. It is not with a lot of enthusiasm that I rise and take part in this debate at this time in the night.
However, I see already that the rat pack is about to descend into the wolf pack. I see that already. I have noticed it is a trend in this Legislature over the last couple of weeks, since I have been back in this place, that every time I rise to make a few remarks or ask a question, or speak to a petition, the rat pack suddenly degenerates into the wolf pack. They can go ahead, I really do not care personally.
I say to my daughter, who is studying to be a nurse, who is in the gallery tonight, that perhaps she would like to go outside. Perhaps she would just soon not stay and see what happens when... People who were elected here have a right to get up and take part in debate, take part as a result of a democratic process and debate. I have watched it over the last couple of weeks and I tell you it is not pleasant so, my love, perhaps you would just as soon leave. I am sick of it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, no, I will never play to the galleries as much as some people on the other side. The artists of playing to the galleries are on the other side.
I have a few remarks I want to say and I am to going to say them. If I have to shout to get them out I am going to do that, if I have to yell to get them out I am going to that, but I am going to make them, because I want to make sure that people understand what is happening here today.
This piece of legislation got introduced today by a minister of the Crown who spent less than twenty minutes - there has been some debate whether it was sixteen or seventeen, but certainly less than twenty minutes - explaining what this bill was all about. So far, other than government ministers rising on spurious points of order to discourteously interrupt others who are speaking, they have not had the intestinal fortitude to put up a speaker. So I want to make sure that people understand the process and what is taking place.
Secondly, before the minister who introduced the bill took her place, she moved a procedural motion, under our rules, that the question now be put. People generally are not going to understand what that means, but let me tell the House what it means. It is a form of parliamentary closure, that is exactly what it is. If the Opposition, or some private member of this Legislature, wanted to move an amendment to this particular legislation that possibility was foreclosed by the government. It is foreclosed tonight by the government.
If, for example, a member of this Legislature wanted to move that those fines, those $5 million a day fines the government has seen fit to impose on this professional group if they should have the audacity to defy the government, do you know we cannot move that tonight if we wanted to, if we wanted to have a vote on an amendment? We cannot move that tonight, and I suspect the government will try to find a way that we will not move it tomorrow. So let us be clear, that the hobnailed boots of the government have been ground into this union. They have ground that into this union.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I am glad I am back too so I can liven up the ears of the hon. minister. He must have missed it if he had not heard it.
That is what the government has done. The government deliberately moved here today in this Legislature to make sure there was no possibility of fiddling around with the legislation. It was going to be the way the government wanted it or it was going to be no way. That is the way it has been since the beginning with this whole process. It has been the government's way or no way.
MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) amending in second reading. Right or wrong, yes or no?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. RIDEOUT: We are entitled to amend in second reading. We are entitled to put down amendments in second reading, and we are also entitled to put them down in clause by clause in Committee.
MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) they are trying to tell us now when we can do what we are supposed to do.
MR. RIDEOUT: Exactly, yes.
I also want to say that back-to-work legislation is something that I have seen before, but I have to say, as has been said by other people in the Legislature, I have never seen back-to-work legislation as heavy-handed as this. This back-to-work legislation that has been forced on the nurses' union in this Province, as far as I know, my research tells me, is the most high-handed, heavy-handed, back-to-work legislation ever proposed by a government in this Province. In 1981 this Province was faced with a strike in the health care sector. That strike went on for five or six weeks, and after weeks of negotiation there was no agreement on providing essential services. Yet the health care sector, somehow or another, managed to get along for five or six weeks. Eventually the government of the day moved to bring in legislation that would impose essential workers into the system. That legislation was brought in in the form of back-to-work legislation.
Let me tell the House the penalties that awful Tory government proposed for anybody who might have the audacity to stand against the government and not honour the back-to-work legislation. Let me tell the Premier what penalties were proposed.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. RIDEOUT: Look, the orders: Get up on a point of order and tell it. Look at the orders coming from the hon. statesman on the other side, Mr. Speaker.
I am glad people are in the galleries to see that we are paying people like that in excess of $100,000 a year to run our affairs. Yet they say: Get up on a point of order (inaudible). That is the leadership quality that we have in this Legislature today.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. RIDEOUT: Go ahead, boys, I don't care.
AN HON. MEMBER: How much did you get paid when you were (inaudible), Tom?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, back in 1981 there was a form of back-to-work legislation passed by this Legislature. What is the fine for the individuals in this particular bill? One thousand dollars a day individuals stand to be fined if they defy this legislation. The legislation in 1981 proposed that there be a fine not exceeding $200 a day. That is a big difference. Yes, it is a fine, but it is a big difference from what this particular government is proposing.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
MR. RIDEOUT: The officials of a union, the leadership, who might dare to defy that particular legislation, do you know what the fine was, Mr. Speaker? What is it proposed here? Ten thousand dollars a day.
AN HON. MEMBER: Or part of the day.
MR. RIDEOUT: Or part of a day, or five minutes of a day, or two minutes of a day. You know what it was? Not to be exceeding $1,000 a day in the 1981 legislation. What a difference. What about the big whammy here, the $100,000 a day whammy?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. RIDEOUT: What about that one, Mr. Speaker? Just look at him. I hope everybody sees that he cannot take the heat, he has to get up and interrupt and all that.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the hon. member opposite is so terrified. I only wanted to ask: If we lowered the fines would he vote for the legislation, as he did last time, and support it when the Conservative Party brought in back-to-work legislation?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Premier does what they have all been doing over there tonight. They do not have the intestinal fortitude to take part in the debate so they stand on spurious points of order which are not points of order to try to interrupt somebody who has the intestinal fortitude to get on their feet and speak. That is what they doing over there. They are doing it time after time. Everybody can see what they are doing.
It does not matter. The fact of the matter is that this Premier and this government propose to fine individual members of the union executive $10,000 a day if they do not toe the line once this legislation is passed, whereas another back-to-work piece of legislation proposed that it be a $1,000 a day.
Now, what about the big one, the $100,000 a day that this government is proposing? What about that? Back in 1981 that was also proposed in the legislation to be $1,000 a day. One thousand dollars a day, the union would have been subject to a fine, 100 times the difference. This hon. crowd have even jumped ahead of inflation, so therefore I think it shows dramatically what this government wants to do. This government is leaving no doubt that it intends to make sure they will crush this union if they have to. They will make it so expensively prohibitive that they think this union would not dare, they would not even dream, they would not let the thought enter their heads that they would defy this government. I think that is spite on the part of this government, that is vindictiveness on the part of this government, because this particular union took on the Premier.
That is why this is written the way it is. This particular union had the audacity, this particular union had the strength, this particular union had the determination to chase this Premier from one end of the Province to the other and to embarrass him. They embarrassed him night after night on the television screens in every home in every bay and harbour and cove of Newfoundland and Labrador. They embarrassed this government and they embarrassed this Premier and today this union is paying the price. That is exactly what has happened. This is payback time. This is payback time for this government to this union.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
[There was a commotion in the gallery.]
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please!
The House is recessed (inaudible) and I ask that the galleries be cleared and the doors locked.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible) something in Beauchesne?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: (Inaudible) try again?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Throw us out! Throw us out!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, my friend the Minister of Mines and Energy accused me of leaving something out of those notes that I was speaking from here. Something I will not leave out is what the Leader of the Opposition of the day had to say about people in the gallery expressing their views. The former Government House Leader was a member at the time. Do you know what he said? The Leader of the Opposition of the day said: I do not know how the people have the patience to sit in the House of Assembly and take it, sit in the gallery and take it. I don't know how they can stomach it.
This was after an outburst in the gallery. That was the Liberal Leader of the Opposition of the day. So therefore -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. RIDEOUT: Go ahead, boy, throw the darts! They don't bother me!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, the rat pack again becomes the wolf pack.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the hon. gentlemen had over the last hour or so but whatever it is is reacting on them. Somebody has hit a nerve here. Somebody has embarrassed them. Somebody has really gotten to them. Somebody has really made them embarrassed. Somebody has really gotten them. They are hyped up over there. It is the first time they have shown any life today. They have been over there all day like a dead crowd of hon. I don't know what to call them. They were like hon. mopes over there all day. Like hon. mopes, they can just raise their heads up long enough to see who was getting up over here. All of a sudden they are animated! They come to life! They get the galleries cleared and they are as brave as anything! They are great soldiers when the galleries are cleared!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: They have some nerve, Mr. Speaker, when they get the people called out! They have the courage -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: The only one left in the gallery tonight, at this stage, is the person who led the `Clyde lied' campaign from the floor of this Legislature. Everybody else is gone. All of a sudden the government has seized the courage, all of a sudden they are alive, all of a sudden they are up there clapping their hands, they are cheering! They are somebody! All of a sudden, because the people are gone, they are somebodies, Mr. Speaker. They are somebodies all of a sudden.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, not only has this government got the nurses on their backs, but do you know what is hurting this government most? What is hurting this government most is that the vast majority of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are on the nurses' side. That is what is hurting them most. Let me remind the government that when the people of this Province were asked - now perhaps we should go out -
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. RIDEOUT: Perhaps we should go out and invite a few people to come into the galleries because it would tame them down. It would certainly tame down that hon. crowd opposite. The Jackal-Hyde stuff, Mr. Speaker.
Anyway, as I said -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for Lewisporte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Speaker, as I said, what has really got this government testy, what has really got the Premier all upset, is not so much the nurses. The government does not care about the nurses. The government is giving the nurses back what they figure the nurses deserve, and that is a good legislative boot and back to work. That is what the government figure the nurses deserve. What has the government upset is what the people of Newfoundland and Labrador think. That is what got them upset. You know this great communicator, this great manipulator -
MR. GRIMES: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. RIDEOUT: Here he goes, Mr. Speaker! Waste another five minutes. There he goes. Look, he does not have the intestinal fortitude to get up and debate.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
On a point of order. I seek clarification -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
I ask the hon. Minister of Mines and Energy to get to his point of order.
MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The point of order for clarification, because I am always interested in learning the rules of the Legislature, is this.
The hon. member, in referencing a bill and a very important point, was talking about the level of the fines. I wonder how he would feel, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador and the nurses who were in the gallery would have felt, had he read the section that said: The employer shall forthwith terminate the employment of the employee. Their bill fined the workers $200 and fired the workers, Mr. Speaker!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The Chair is going to recess the House until there is some order restored.
Recess
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: I was about to make a few comments on public opinion.
AN HON. MEMBER: Come (inaudible) with the substance (inaudible)!
MR. E. BYRNE: A point of order, Mr. Speaker?
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: I just heard the Member for Twillingate & Fogo say: Come on with the substance, Tom. The Member for Lewisporte has spoken more in this Legislature in the last six days than the Member for Twillingate & Fogo has since he was elected in 1996.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: If you want to continue to interrupt, we can have it that way. I am going to say right now, if you want to continue to interrupt and use types of points of order that the Minister of Mines and Energy has, fair enough, but the deal is off. If you are going to continue to interrupt while the members on this side of this House are up speaking, then so be it.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. E. BYRNE: First warning, no second warning, we will start right now. Every motion from here on in, the bells will ring in this Legislature like they did last fall. That I can guarantee you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
As I was saying -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HARRIS: 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, my point of order is actually a question as to whether or not the public galleries are unlocked and the House is open to the public.
MR. SPEAKER: No, the public galleries are closed for the reminder of the parliamentary day.
The hon. the Member for Lewisporte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was trying to make the point a few moments ago that one of the reasons we see the government reacting the way it is, is that they could not care less how the nurses' union and the nurses feel about the tactics of this government. What really got the government sore, what really got the government testy, what really got the government upset, is how the people of the Province feel.
The people of the Province are very, very upset with the way this government is acting. The people of the Province have made it clear - they have made it abundantly clear in a survey that has been taken over the last couple of days - that they do not support the government.
The manipulation process that this government has been used to accompanying at will over the last number of years has finally failed. It has deserted them. It has not worked. They have tried the ads. They have tried the bully tactics. They have tried all the tactics that one can think about, but this time the people of the Province have not been swayed. Public opinion, if it has done anything, has solidified and galvanised in the opposite direction. That is what has the government so upset.
People were asked, for example: If you had to choose, which side would you support the most, the nurses or the government? If you got fifty-five to forty-five, or sixty-forty, or something of that nature with that kind of a question in the body politics of this Province, for a government that is only a month or so into a new mandate, if you got that sixty-forty response but 420 people answered 80 per cent that they prefer the position taken by the nurses, they prefer to support the nurses and their union in this fight, that is an amazing statistic. That is an amazing amount of public support, and it is true. It is not an apparition; it is true. It is out there. You can see it. You can feel it every day as you move out and about this Province, that it is out there and it is out there in the numbers suggested by this kind of public opinion polling.
The people of the Province also have deserted the government when it comes to its prime argument. The government's prime argument is that because they settled with everybody else for 7 per cent, the nurses have to settle for 7 per cent. That has been the government's prime argument - fairness and equity - because we did it to everybody else and everybody else accepted those numbers, it has to be the same for the nurses.
The government, of course, in their arguments put forth in this House by frequent interruption, in particular from the Minister of Mines and Energy, is what happened back in 1990 when they settled with the nurses and recognized the nurses to be a particular case. Then everybody else got on their case and the government had to roll back their wages. They do not say a significant difference this time is that one of the last bargaining units left in this Province to settle - if not the last, certainly one of the last - are nurses. Basically everybody else that is bargaining with the government through the public service has settled. They have legally binding collective bargaining agreements in place. So that argument holds no water. What makes the government more concerned? The people of the Province know it holds no water.
The people were asked this question - 85 per cent of the public service has settled for a 7 per cent increase; however, other arrangements were made for physicians, water bomber pilots, judges, and marine institute employees. In fact, physicians received a 22 per cent settlement, for arguments similar to the arguments put forth by the nurses: special case, retention, keeping them in the Province. The health care system is falling apart without them. These were the special arguments that were made to justify an increase above the average, above the rest, for the doctors. Well, the same rules apply, the same arguments apply to the nurses. The people of the Province had this question put to them: Knowing this, should nurses be allowed to negotiate their own settlement over 7 per cent?
Again, with a government only a month or so into its mandate, the people deserted the government, they deserted the government in droves, and 80 per cent of them have seen the merit of the nurses being able to negotiate the merits of their own settlement.
That is the reality. That is the truth of what is happening to this botched public relations campaign undertaken by the government, to this public relations fiasco that the government has undertaken. It has not worked. That is why the government is so upset. That is why the government is so testy.
The people were asked another question. The question was this: If government decides to end the strike - and the government talks about how it cannot entertain binding arbitration. Well, what do the people think about that? What do the government masters, what do the political masters of this government think about that decision? Four hundred and twenty people were asked: If government decides to end the strike, the law today requires both sides to go to binding arbitration whereby an independent third party would settle the dispute in a fair and unbiased manner and both sides would have to accept the decision. If nurses are forced to return to work, do you think that nurses should be allowed to keep their right to binding arbitration where an independent third party would settle a dispute in a fair and unbiased manner and both sides would have to accept the decision?
What happened to the numbers on that kind of a loaded question? Did the numbers go down? Did the nurses lose support on that kind of question? No, the numbers went up. Eighty-eight per cent of the people, when put with that kind of a clear question, said binding arbitration is the fair and only way to settle this if you have to bring in back-to-work legislation. That what was said, Mr. Speaker.
There was another question. People were asked this question. As you know nurses are now on a legal strike. In Newfoundland today the government could pass a law ordering nurses to return to work. If nurses are ordered to return to work, the current law requires that nurses have the right to binding arbitration. However, government could make a new law and end the strike by forcing the nurses to return to work with a forced settlement, and thus no right to binding arbitration. This was the question: Do you think that it would be fair - imagine now, asking the people of the Province who only a month or so ago voted for this hon. crowd opposite, who gave them a new mandate to govern, a month or so after the people are asked this question - do you think it would be fair for government to make this law whereby nurses would lose their right to binding arbitration?
The political masters of the hon. gentlemen and ladies opposite said: Very fair, 1 per cent. Not even the 48 per cent of the Liberals, not even the 48 per cent of the Province who voted Liberal could stomach to support them when asked this kind of question. One per cent of the population said it would be fair.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. member's time is up.
AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.
MR. RIDEOUT: By leave, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave!
MR. RIDEOUT: Leave, I heard leave, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Windsor-Springdale.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HUNTER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I was reading some of this press statement by Debbie Forward, the provincial President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union: In direct contravention of the existing Public Service Collective Bargaining Act in this Province, nurses are being legislated back to work without arbitration. Existing legislation states that if government interferes with a public sector labour dispute they must offer binding arbitration as an alternative dispute settlement mechanism. The Liberal government is showing no respect for the law of this Province.
Mr. Speaker, what about the rights of this Province? Doesn't this government recognize people's rights, unions' rights, collective bargaining rights? I think for too long that governments can do this to people. Ms Forward also states: this back-to-work legislation, the Premier has tabled it, an attack on every unionized worker in this Province. It is an attack on nurses, an attack on health care, and an attack on our patients. Without doubt, the Premier has embarked on a battle with organized labour that will last for years to come.
I am wondering what the reason is for this bill. The Premier and his members were saying that the reason was the money part. They cannot afford to do it. They are afraid that other bargaining units will go on strike against the law, which I do not think they will do. I talked to a lot of members of the different unions and they are supporting the nurses 100 per cent. They agree that the nurses deserve more. I don't know where the government is coming from to say that 7 per cent applies to everybody. I don't think that is right.
I think there is another reason for the government to legislate this back to work. I think, in my opinion, it has something to do with other big businesses and Crown corporations. I think this government is afraid to give the nurses the right of binding arbitration. They are afraid that they might set a precedent that some other big company - I have talked to some of the officials with some of the companies. They stressed the point: I hope the government doesn't give binding arbitration because it is going to open a lot of doors that is going to make it difficult for us to bargain with our unions and our units in the years to come. Big businesses told me that.
I think the message was signalled to the Premier and this government that at all costs this legislation must go through, binding arbitration can't apply. They are not going to allow it to apply. I think they are very afraid that if it does apply then it is going to open up a can of worms and down the road they are going to pay a bigger price. Right now they are sticking to their guns and saying we are -
MR. TULK: (Inaudible).
MR. HUNTER: You can laugh if you like. Do you want to laugh? Laugh!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SPEAKER (Smith): Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Bonavista North.
MR. TULK: Let me apologize to the hon. gentleman's paranoia. I certainly was not laughing at him. There is no humour in what he was saying.
MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
MR. HUNTER: Alright, perhaps I can give you something to laugh at later. (Inaudible). Probably if you become premier that could be a laughing matter that we could all laugh at later on.
Ms Forward also states: It is not too late to choose the right path, if government will agree to submit monetary matters to binding arbitration.
As we know, the government is responsible for the health care, raises most of the money, and it allocates how it is spent and where it is spent. Government negotiates with all the unions and controls the clarification system.
Mr. Speaker, at present, we have in reality a provincial system. We have expressed an eagerness to cooperate fully with this process so nurses can get back on the job immediately. The government has chosen instead to pursue a completely different approach that involves speeding passage of a completely new piece of legislation that circumvents the existing Public Service Collective Bargaining Act.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) mommy write that?
MR. HUNTER: What did your mommy write for you? You will never become the person your mother was. I have known your mother a long time. She was a wonderful person. I do not know where you get your traits from. I've known your mother a long time, and I would say she was a wonderful woman, and my mother is a wonderful woman too, and you know that. I'm proud of your mother.
Mr. Speaker, there is already a mechanism on the books to end this strike. The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, Section (inaudible) and following, says the House can resolve this matter if the state of emergency is (inaudible), the dispute for binding arbitration, thereby bringing an end to this job action. This mechanism is supported by nurses, this mechanism is supported by the Opposition. How many times must this be said before the message gets through on your side? This mechanism is supported by the public, according to the latest public opinion poll, by 88 per cent.
I visited some of the hospitals in the past couple of months, I have seen the deterioration in the health care system. I went there and I saw patients waiting for seven or eight hours to get in. I have been there myself waiting seven hours to get in to see a doctor. I know what it is like.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HUNTER: No, in the Health Sciences. Grand Falls hospital does have its problems too.
I have seen members of families going into the hospital and doing the work that nurses and nurses' assistants should be doing. The help is not there. With twenty-seven patients on a ward, only three nurses there to tend to these twenty-seven patients. Some of them are lying in desperate situations and need to be cleaned up and taken care of, and no one is there to take care of them.
Mr. Speaker, this is not tolerable any more, we cannot put up with this kind of situation in our hospitals. It is a serious situation. A lot of these nurses I have talked to say that they are not intending to stay in Newfoundland. If they cannot get a fair share and a fair deal on the monetary issue, then some of them will have to leave because of their circumstances, and that is going to be unfortunate for this Province. We are going to be the ones to lose. If this is not addressed now, then someday we are going to have to pay a bigger price.
I think we have to deal with this nurses' issue based on the health care system and what the nurses are doing for it. I do not think it is fair that we can apply 7 per cent to everybody. Nurses in their situation should be dealt with based on their abilities, and their ability to bargain a collective agreement freely and fairly. I do not think that is happening.
Right now the Premier with this legislation is taking away that right. We are losing too many rights and this is one right that we should not lose. Other unions are standing and recognizing that if this happens, then in some cases binding arbitration would apply to other bargaining units. I know, because of some of the people that I have talked in the bigger businesses, that if that happens then it will put them in a very unstable position when it comes to bargaining with their different groups and the bargaining units.
I think this government is afraid to pass the legislation including binding arbitration, afraid that big business and even their own Crown corporations' bargaining units, might come back and demand bargaining arbitration in their cases when they are bargaining. That might set a precedent, and this government is afraid of that. I think someday they will pay a big price for that.
The Premier claimed he was surprised by the nurses' decision to strike when he thought there was a tentative agreement. We have since learned that nurses informed the conciliator that they had considered the government's late offer and found it unacceptable. There was no surprise to a lot of people in the public of this Province that this was going to happen. I think people were expecting this to happen. Government did not take the nurses seriously. Collective bargaining calls for cooperation, not confrontation, not dictating but negotiating with fair collective bargaining, and not taking away the rights of the bargaining units and the nurses.
If there is an emergency, there is a process already on the books to address it. The St. John's Health Care Corporation has stated that they are not in a state of imminent crisis despite the statement by the health care association. The St. John's Health Care Corporation confirms what nurses are saying, that the health care facilities are receiving help from both essential nurses and striking nurses to ensure patients' needs are met.
Part of that crisis in the system predated the nurses' strike and are the result of the cuts to front line health care, which are a large part of the reason for this strike. The horror stories are not the result of the nurses' strike; rather, they are one of the major causes of the strike.
Other than binding arbitration, the government has the option to choose final offer selection. There has been a full cooperation of the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union, and nurses within individual organization, to provide both agreed essential employees and additional staff in response to needs which meet and exceed the predicted service levels. It is not certain that this level of cooperation will continue to give a breakdown in the negotiation process.
All the things I have been hearing tonight, I don't think that this government is taking it seriously. This is a problem. They are expecting this to be settled. It will be settled because they have the power to do it. I think this will lead on to other, bigger things that are going to hurt our health care system, that are going to put us in jeopardy to deliver that health care that our patients and seniors need and deserve. I think after this bill is passed we are going to see a lot of unrest among the workers in the health care system. I think you are going to see a lot of the nurses -
MR. T. OSBORNE: The lowest morale they have seen in years.
MR. HUNTER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, morale is probably going to be the lowest we have ever seen in the health care system. From the vibes I'm getting, it is not going to improve after this legislation is passed. I'm sure that a lot of these workers are going to carry on and do something else that maybe they might regret for sure, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador don't want to see. Certainly I don't want to see it.
To impose these fines on these workers, I think that is unbelievable. It is not necessary to do this kind of thing to the workers: $100,000 for the union, $10,000 for the officers of the union, and $1,000 then for the workers. I think that is unbelievable. That is just one tool the government has been using to intimidate them, to scare them off, to hope that they would go away and accept an agreement, hope that things would turn around and that the could push this bill through fast and easy. They expected that we would support it and get this bill through so easy.
They underestimated the public, they underestimated us, they underestimated the nurses. I think a price is going to have to be paid, and they are going to have to pay that price. We have seen in the last eight days that nurses are cooperating on all aspects when it relates to delivering health care and essential services to the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. As they alluded to when they were speaking out in the gallery, there is a price going to be paid by the members opposite. They are going to have to stand on their own feet and make their own decision. If that decision is not in favour of the nurses then I think they are going to have to pay a big price. The moral of it, in their own mind, that they should consider, is what is the right thing to do. The right thing to do is give them binding arbitration.
In the past election we have seen all the promises that were made by the Premier and the money he was going to bring back to take care of the health care situation. What did he do? He came back and legislated a bill such as this to take away a right that they deserve. I have letters from nurses in my district who are very concerned. They have told me they do not want this legislation to pass as it is with legislated 7 per cent increases.
No matter what the union was saying, I think the membership in the union are sticking to their guns and saying they want binding arbitration. If they do not get it, I think we are going to be in for a big battle and a lot of trouble down the road, something that we are all going to regret. The opposite side is going to regret it for sure, and some of the members will regret it. It will not be forgotten in the next election, I am sure of that. In some of the districts in Newfoundland and Labrador I think nurses are going to play a key role in making sure some of these members are going to be defeated in the next election. I think they better keep that in mind. Because public opinion is supporting the nurses. In the next election, instead of seeing the nurses out campaigning for the different members, you are going to see them out campaigning against them.
I know in some of the districts for sure Liberal supporters have called me and said they will never vote for any member that is in this Legislature on the Liberal side again. I have heard that in my own district and in close districts to my area. Anybody who votes for the passage of this bill, then they will do everything they can to fight against them in the next election. That is something you are going to have to think about, something you are going to have to live with.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HUNTER: Mr. Speaker, it is easy, I know, to stand here and criticize this bill, but the reality is fairness. Last week the member opposite was talking about balance and fairness. You were talking about balance and fairness last week. I believed you, but I have learned quick. I do not take you at your face value. Where is the fairness?
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HUNTER: To the member opposite, I ask, where is that fairness, what happened to the fairness? So I am learning fast.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. HUNTER: You learned about it but you do not implement it. Hearing and learning are two different things.
It is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker. Whatever happens after the next few days then they can laugh and comment all they like, but a price will be paid. If there is any chance at all, consideration should be there to change your minds and go with the binding arbitration and give the nurses a fair chance. Do not be afraid of what could happen. We do not know what is going to happen.
You cannot say to every bargaining unit: This is it, it is 7 per cent, it is our way or not way. It has to be done on a fair and equitable basis, based on each bargaining unit. If we take away that right then you will see in the future a lot more chaos and a lot more bargaining units fighting back even harder the next time.
I think we have to pay attention to the public opinion. Public opinion is important, and if we do not pay attention to that then this process is in serious jeopardy. I think down the road, then, public opinion might even be stronger on other issues and we could see probably devastating results if we do not pay attention now.
In the last few minutes before this debate closes, I hope some of the members on the other side will stand up and be counted and consider the devastating effect it could have on nurses and the health care system when the nurses get back to work. Will they provide the level of care that we deserve? Will they rebel and do things that could jeopardize safety and jeopardize health care? We do not know; they may even walk off the job illegally. We do not know what is in store if this legislation is passed. I think a lot of consideration is going to have to be given to all the effects that could happen if we do not address this serious issue right now and implement the binding arbitration that these people deserve.
Mr. Speaker, it seems like there is not a crisis right now in all of the areas. We know there is a lot of stress and strain on certain areas of the Province, and maybe cracks are developing in the system. I think that over the next few days we are going to see a lot of things change. You are going to see a lot of unrest and maybe something will happen; we do not know.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HUNTER: It might go up again, and it might go up very seriously. Maybe someone might get hurt again; I do not know.
I think this is a serious matter. The government should consider binding arbitration.
AN HON. MEMBER: Members opposite should take it more seriously.
MR. HUNTER: Members opposite here tonight should take it more seriously.
I am not going to be very long. This is my first time speaking like this. I will let the other more experienced members say more about it.
I will end by saying that I take my job seriously and I take this situation seriously. I have visited people in the hospitals - in St. Clare's, the Grace, and the Health Sciences - in the last two weeks. There are very serious situations and these people are worried. Nurses are worried. They are worried about what is going to happen after this is settled. Are they still going to maintain the same health care and the quality of health care that they were getting? Are things going to change? Is the morale still going to be up for the working? We do not know that. Maybe the morale might be so low that someone is going to suffer because of that. I think we must take that very seriously. I hope that the members, when they stand to vote, think about that and think about the seriousness and the jeopardy that it could give to patients in our hospitals and the health care that they deserve.
Thank you very much.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, never in my wildest dreams did I think or did I expect to be up here tonight on this auspicious occasion, on March 31, a date that all through my life I held in great reverence -
AN HON. MEMBER: Just before the stroke of midnight.
MR. HEDDERSON: Just before the stroke of midnight, and I am waiting for the stoke of midnight. As a matter of fact, I stood at this time for that particular reason.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HEDDERSON: I am speaking on both days today - on March 31, and I will talk about April 1 a little later on - but I find it very difficult to believe that on this auspicious day, one of the first bills that I get to debate is one which clearly - fifty years ago we were given something, but this bill is taking away. It is taking away a fundamental right of the workers in this Province to negotiate a fair settlement in a labour dispute. Again, the taking away.
Of all the people, the health care workers. I cannot begin to tell you, when we look at health care workers and we look at the heavy burden they have taken upon themselves over the last at least decade or more in their working conditions, it is just unreal.
Once again, I speak from experience, first-hand experience of using the health care, visiting relatives and friends in hospitals, visiting the emergency room myself, and finding again great professional care being given by these health care workers but once again a heavy burden placed upon them.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HEDDERSON: I have just been reminded from across the House that - just like in high school literature class, right? Well, when you talk about high school literature class, I cannot help but think of Shakespeare. I am speaking on a bill tonight but the first day I came in here was on the ides of March, would you imagine, Oliver - or, I am sorry, hon. minister? On those ides of March, I was not nervous; but, I tell you, there should have been people who were nervous because the ides of March certainly gave me an indication of what I could expect in this session, and it has come true.
I heard today - I do not know where it came from - "Et Tu", and it has come true.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HEDDERSON: I think I hear someone speaking over there, an unfamiliar voice, I might add.
MR. E. BYRNE: (Inaudible) never stands up to speak.
MR. HEDDERSON: That is what I thought.
There is no doubt in my mind that the nurses of this Province need support. There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the nurses need support. Not only do they need support - well, I do not know if they need support because from where I stand they have lots of support. All you have to do is look in the surveys that were already brought - one survey in particular - where you are talking 88 per cent, 90 per cent. This group of health care workers, without a doubt, have been getting the support that they justly deserve. They need support. Again, when we look at these health care workers, they have certainly bargained in good faith. Unfortunately for the nurses, they do not always get a fair deal.
I understood from listening today that in the early 1990s the nurses were first, if I am not mistaken. In 1990, weren't they first? Did they not get a good settlement, a settlement that they accepted, but after getting that settlement they were rolled back? Now we are into almost the next century and the nurses are last in negotiations. The nurses find themselves at the end of the debate.
Again, just to get to the point that I was making, in 1990 the nurses had a rollback after negotiating a settlement, but in this one particular -
PREMIER TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: I beg the indulgence of the hon. Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne who now has his chair. The clock shows 11:59 p.m., and it was exactly fifty years ago to this minute that Newfoundland and Labrador became a Province of Canada.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is showing his Canadian heart by applauding the minute - and so did all members - the minute that Newfoundland and Labrador became part of this great country. Surely the essence of democracy is that we can have great, powerful and sometimes anguished and passionate debates but at the end of the day can still recognize the essential democracy of this place, the privilege of freedom to express ourselves wholeheartedly because we are part of a great democracy called Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I would move that we adjourn the debate for a few minutes and pay tribute to fifty years of Confederation with the best rendering that this House can muster of our country's national anthem, O Canada.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
PREMIER TOBIN: I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to second the motion.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, (inaudible) something like that. I will second the motion, obviously.
[The members sing O Canada.]
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, may I conclude the point of order by simply saying, before the Leader of the Opposition speaks, that it was not quite up to the standard of the gala celebration but it was not bad.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.
MR. E. BYRNE: Mr. Speaker, may I invite the government members to stand and sing with us the Ode to Newfoundland?
[The members sing the Ode to Newfoundland.]
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Harbour Main-Whitbourne.
MR. HEDDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I will not call that a rude interruption. It was an interruption. The Folk of the Sea may -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. HEDDERSON: Anyway, we shall move forward.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) born before 1949. (Inaudible).
MR. HEDDERSON: I wasn't born before 1949. You are not getting me to stand on that one. You almost got me.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. HEDDERSON: For the record, I was born in 1954.
I will just get started again and something else will come along. Anyway, it kind of took the sting out of what I was saying, if I can remember what I was saying. Let's pick it up.
I was referring to the health care workers and certainly the burden they carry as they go about their duties. I indicated that the nurses were getting tremendous support and the nurses, without a doubt, bargained in good faith. They bargained in good faith; yet, they found themselves suspended with regard to due process.
I just want to bring a note forward that this suspension of due process by this government is shameful. It was a situation that was already taken care of by provincial law, and this violation certainly circumvented provincial law and was a violation clearly against not only against provincial law but, I suggest, against the principles of natural justice. It violated the fundamental democratic rights of nurses and the provincial law but also, I would suspect, international law as well.
I draw attention to the fact that Canada has been a recent signatory to the United Nations International Labour Organization's Declaration of Principles. This ILO has previously ruled that restrictions on the right to strike - I will say again, restrictions on the right to strike - should be offset by adequate, impartial and binding adjudication procedures. This is international law; this is an international situation.
As I move forward, the nurses' strike again was a strike that was brought about in due fashion, and the strike itself was certainly carried out in a manner that was quite acceptable. With regard to the ending of the strike, there certainly is a mechanism on the books to end this particular strike.
The Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, section 30 and following, says that the House can resolve that there is a state of emergency and send the dispute for binding arbitration, thereby bringing an end to the job action.
This mechanism, without a doubt, was supported by the nurses. It was supported, obviously, by the Opposition; and, as already previously mentioned, it was a mechanism that was certainly supported by the public, according to the latest public opinion poll. When we look at the government, we find a different story.
The nurses, as I pointed out, certainly did follow due process. The government, on the other hand, chose not to bargain in good faith. They brought the union to the table, already inflexible on the 7 per cent wage figure. The PR campaign carried out by the government was not only costly but it sent a message, the message being that the unions could be browbeaten into submission; the intimidation of a union during a negotiation - or, I should say, attempted intimidation - with the threat of certainly costly fines. As we found out, these fines - $100,000, $10,000 and $1,000 - were certainly draconian to say the least. Again, I repeat that the government certainly did not bargain in good faith.
Now we are dealing with Bill 3, An Act To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation Of Health And Community Services. It is unnecessary legislation and it is certainly intended to circumvent the laws of the Province, suspending due process.
The purpose of the Act, as laid out in section 3, is to return to work in light of a serious and deteriorating situation. We have seen the news release that came out from the St. John's board today - that has already been referenced - stressing that there is no immediate danger as it is. Thanks to the cooperation of the striking and essential nurses, the crisis has not materialized.
The action of the bill is: to put back to work the nurses; to tell them to be silent; to give up the protest; to accept what this bill is now determining; to, in actual fact, simply suspend the due process that these nurses have come to expect.
This bill again, Mr. Speaker, is draconian in nature, when the legislation already has in place an act indicating that, if the government interferes, binding arbitration is indeed the alternative.
Again I bring to your attention that, as far as I am concerned, collective bargaining is sacred. As a teacher, I certainly knew what it was to struggle to establish collective bargaining in this Province. As I stand in this House today, I am very disappointed that the struggle to continue collective bargaining has taken a serious downturn.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. HEDDERSON: The legislation that is coming down is a direct attack on collective bargaining. Again, as I have pointed out, it took years to achieve it and just a short space of time to have it put aside.
If this bill goes through, the question is: Will it stop? Will it cure? Will it take care of the ills of our health system?
With regard to the ills of the health system, I have to point out that one of the most pressing needs would be to hold on to our nurses. Bill 3 will not stop that.
We realize there has been only one nurse from the graduating class of 1997 who has found a permanent position here. The salaries for the nurses are significantly below those offered by other provinces. We are wasting the investment we invest in training the nurses when we export them to other provinces. We have to stop the bleeding, and introducing a bill of this nature will not address the ills that need to be addressed.
I will finish up by once again voicing my disapproval of such a bill, and with the hope that nurses, if forced to go back under this particular bill, will go back and be able to carry on their duties in the professional way in which they have.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. John's East.
MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to stand for a few minutes and participate in this debate with respect to this bill; a bill, of course, that many people have difficulty with. None the least, of course, were the approximately 150 or 160 nurses who were in the gallery this evening, the hundreds of nurses who have been demonstrating in the lobby of the Confederation Building and have been doing so for the past five or six days, and the many thousands of nurses who are on strike in our Province and who have been publicly displaying their opposition and their disgust with the fact that legislation, Bill 3, is now before this hon. House of Assembly.
We have essentially scrutinized this legislation and, in hours of debate which began here today - we have now had some seven or eight hours of debate - much of what can be said about this legislation has in fact been said. Many of the sentiments and many of the points of view have been expressed by protestors, by striking nurses, by union officials, and by members on this side of the House of Assembly.
It is interesting that when we look at this section, section 7 of Bill 3, and we look at these very strict penal provisions, it occurred to me that it was perhaps an important exercise to compare this sort of penalty provision with other provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada.
Of course, in the Criminal Code of Canada there are numerous sections of that Code where criminal acts have similar penal provisions whereby it is stated that it may be a summary conviction offence and subject to - in the case of a summary conviction offence in the Criminal Code - a fine not exceeding $2,000; and also in some cases, particularly in default, a period of incarceration.
The language of this legislation is quite strong. This is the hammer, we may say. This is the type of legislation which thrusts upon ordinary citizens a situation really where they have no control; because when you look at legislation such as this, how can an ordinary employee in the health system in our Province, a nurse in our hospitals, how can a particular individual even consider defying legislation, knowing that he or she may face a fine of $1,000 per day or even part of a day?
Obviously, this legislation is the use of the legislative hammer. The legislation is really unheard of and, as has been indicated by other members in the Legislature this evening, it is something which is unprecedented when we consider the extent of these fines and when we consider the extent of these penalties.
It is somewhat ironic that this session of the Legislature began with the reading of the Speech from the Throne and is with interest that I look at the section of the Speech from the Throne dealing with health and community services. There are just a few portions of it that I would like to make reference to this morning. It states, "Our people are concerned about the quality of our health system."
Well, I would suggest that they are certainly much more concerned about the quality of our health system today, particularly when we look at the pending situation that will be confronting our health care workers, namely when inevitably they will be forced to go back to work pursuant to Bill 3 that we are now debating.
It states, to continue, "My Government, despite declining transfers from the federal government until this year, increased funding for health in the 1996 Budget, the 1997 Budget and the 1998 Budget."
It states again that, "...in the 1999 Budget, increase funding for health and will do so by an amount that exceeds the increase in funding under the CHST provided in the recent federal Budget." So it is indeed ironic, and perhaps somewhat tragic, I would say, that approximately three weeks ago The Speech from the Throne was read in this particular Chamber, and three weeks later we are debating this type of legislation.
It also states, for example, on the side note of The Speech from the Throne, "We must stabilize our health system and provide it with the fiscal flexibility needed to address the changing health needs of our people." So, again, one has to question how this sort of flexibility which is envisaged in The Speech from the Throne can, in fact, come to fruition when again we read it in the face of Bill 3.
It also states, "Government will continue to take steps to ensure that there is an adequate supply of health professionals in our Province, especially in rural areas."
Well, I say, how is it that this type of legislation and the treatment of our nurses can in fact take place on this very date, some two or three weeks after the opening of the Legislature, at a time when this Speech from the Throne was read.
Again, I will just read this side note, "Government will continue to take steps to ensure that there is an adequate supply of health professionals in our Province, especially in rural areas." There it is, two weeks ago, the Speech from the Throne.
"Government is investing more than a quarter of a billion dollars to build and improve health care facilities." It goes on to state: "While we need to provide adequate funding, we also need to achieve efficient delivery of services so that this funding is wisely used."
Mr. Speaker, I ask the question: How will the wise spending of public funds - how is that particular question answered when we considered the dilemma that our health system now faces? We have thousands of nurses on strike, we have hundreds of protesters in this building, we had 150 protesters and striking nurses in the gallery this evening, but yet the government indicates that it is all an issue of wise spending. How can that be, when we have morale at an all-time low?
Nurses have indicated to all of us - we have received it in faxes and we have received it in correspondence as individual members - that one of the big problems facing nurses today in our hospitals in our Province is the fact that they get no respect and the fact that morale is at an all-time low.
A number of days ago, a couple of my colleagues and I had the opportunity to meet with student nurses who are really in a situation, I guess, that is somewhat pathetic. Here they are, having spent thousands of dollars, their student debt is climbing, and we have heard there are some forty-one nurses about to graduate from the nursing program at our university and no positions for them.
These students, by necessity, will have to leave this Province. They will have to go to other states or other provinces in search of work. Of course, we have heard repeated stories of recruiters who are actively recruiting in our Province to really take the best of our lot, the brightest of our lot, and take them elsewhere when in fact these very people, if they had their own way, would want to work very willingly here in our own Province.
It is indeed a shame that we are in this situation. It is indeed a shame that so many of our young people, both student nurses and our practising professionals today, find themselves in a situation where this government, to put it simply, has turned its back on them and is not giving them the flexibility they need to make a decent wage and to practice their profession the way they wish.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard repeated commentary about the provisions of the Public Service Collecting Bargaining Act, which is legislation which safeguards and acts as protection to individual nurses and to any individual who comes under the provisions of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. Once section 30 is invoked, there are provisions pursuant to section 32 which make it quite clear that a provision that will act and serve to rectify labour disputes can be put in place.
Again, we have a situation here where that is not possible. Members opposite have made it quite clear that this is a situation they are not prepared to consider or entertain. That is obviously the basis and the thrust of the dilemma in which we now find ourselves.
Nurses have made it quite clear that if section 32 of the Public Service Collecting Bargaining Act were in fact to be considered and respected by members opposite, our nurses would be back in the workplace immediately.
The question, I guess, has to be asked: Why is it? Why is it that government even refuses to consider this as an option? When one assesses that particular question, there is no logical answer. There is no logical rationale whatsoever in response to that particular question. Government has nothing to lose, as was said by the Leader of the Opposition repeatedly, and it was stated in Question Period in the past couple of days, Mr. Speaker. The risk is equal to both sides. The risk is equal to both the employer and to the employee. So, if government felt confident in its position it would put forward its case and allow the independent arbitrator to rule as he or she sees fit.
This binding arbitration mechanism is a remedy which is used quite often in the collective bargaining process, it is one that is constantly considered, and it is a provision, of course, which regrettable is not given the due attention that it needs at this particular time.
Mr. Speaker, the issue of the exporting of our nurses and the leaving of our young people is a situation that requires serious attention by members opposite. We have certain statistics; one that includes, for example, that only one nurse from the graduating class of 1997 has found a permanent position here in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador; only one position out of a class of perhaps sixty, seventy, or eighty. I am not sure of the exact number.
Salaries for nurses are significantly below those offered by other provinces, so obviously there is indeed an incentive to have our young people go. That again does not reflect what, in fact, the young people want to do. It would be their preference, obviously, to remain.
Other provinces and countries are offering nurses benefits which again are very difficult to refuse. If they had the opportunity to remain in this Province, it would be their choice and their preference to remain in this Province.
We are wasting the investment we invest in training nurses when we export these young people. We spend and invest a lot of money in our young people in this Province. We have a lot of young people who, through student loan and through their own resources, invest a significant amount of dollars, and their families do the same, only to find that this hard work, this energy, and this financial investment is for what purpose? It is to send our young people away when, in fact, it is their choice - and their first choice - to remain at home. Clearly, our young professionals want to work in this Province but, through necessity, must leave.
Mr. Speaker, the legislation has caused a significant debate here in our Province. The question that I have to ask is: What is it all about? We are talking about the penalizing of our own people, of our young people; people, in many cases, both young and old, who may have worked in the health profession either for a short period of time or for a significant period of time. Why are we, in fact, penalizing these people when all they want to do is devote and dedicate their training to their professional lives? That is all they want to do. They want to do nothing more and nothing less; yet, government is making it impossible for them to do so. They will fight - it is clear from the letters that obviously all members have received - to the bitter end.
There has been much discussion, particularly in the last twenty-four hours, about a pending crisis in our health system, about a situation that potentially may get out of control. It is interesting that a strike bulletin was today forwarded by the Health Care Corporation of St. John's, dated March 31, 1999, a message from the Chief Executive Officer, who simply stated that yesterday's announcement, perhaps - or the impression that was given by members opposite - did not indicate the real situation as it exists in our hospitals today. The Health Care Corporation of St. John's made it clear to government that at the present time that organization has been able to continue to provide care for both urgent and emergency patients.
They list a number of reasons why this has been able to happen. They state that local union representatives have worked cooperatively and closely with site coordinating teams; so there is indeed a spirit of cooperation amongst those individuals who are now given and charged with the responsibility to protect the system during this particular labour dispute.
Another reason that the Health Care Corporation has cited is that essential nurses have come to work as requested. I think that is indicative of the work ethic of the nurses in our Province, that those who are designated as essential obviously go to work when called upon to do so and carry out their mandate at the workplace.
Another reason cited by the Health Care Corporation is, that additional nurses over and above the numbers forecasted in the contingency plan have come to work when needed in areas where patient volumes were higher than expected.
I think that indicates two things: One, we have a system in place that can deal with, at the present time, the needs of the people of our Province; and, secondly, shows a willingness by these health care professionals to appear at the workplace when called upon to do so.
Another reason cited is that managers have carried out their essential duties. Physicians have cooperated to ensure that patients most needing care have been appropriately (inaudible). Non-striking staff have reported to work as usual, and all components of the organization have worked together to provide essential services.
So it seems, Mr. Speaker, we have a situation which appears to be working. It is stressed - and we have heard that repeatedly as well - but it appears to be working. It also serves to beg the question: Why is it that this hammer legislation is now required? The morale of the nurses in the workplace could indeed be raised. The respect that they feel is needed by representatives of government could, in fact, be restored and the nurses would feel confident that there is a degree of respect by government if, in fact, they would respect the provision of the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act allowing nurses and their union to go to binding arbitration; but, sadly, that has not happened.
Here it is necessary, at now 12:35 on a Thursday morning, to debate legislation which, to put it simply, is unnecessary, and I would go a step further and say even unethical. We have seen, as a result of the public opinion polls, the nurses and the public of this Province say that this legislation is not needed. It is archaic, it is abusive, and it does nothing to enhance health care and the provision of health care in our Province.
I have been proud to witness the effort and the demonstration as put forward by the nurses in this Province. They have represented their profession well. They have, in a very professional manner, demonstrated. They have acted within the law at all times and they have shown, with dignity, what it means to simply be on strike and to stand tall for principles and reasons in which they strongly believe.
It is unfortunate that members opposite have not been able to give credit where credit is due and to recognize the nursing profession in this Province for what it is: a group of dedicated individuals who simply want to put the interest of health care first. I say That can best be done when members opposite come to realize that their collective bargaining rights ought to be maintained.
As long as members opposite fail to recognize that these rights are being denied and fail to recognize that these rights are not being given the respect they deserve, we are in a situation of confrontation which, unfortunately, has led to this ridiculous move by government to force them back to work. If they in fact refute certain provisions of the legislation they will be faced with penal provisions the like of which we have never seen in our jurisdiction. It is indeed unfortunate that this situation exists.
One of the members who spoke this evening asked the question: Where do we go from here? It is a legitimate question. Where do we go from here? How will the provision of health services in our Province be improved once we complete this exercise in the next twenty-four or forty-eight hours, whatever the rules allow? This in all likelihood will pass.
Is the delivery of health in this Province being served any better once this process and once this exercise is completed? We will have nurses, yes. They will be back in the hospitals, they will be back in the various homes and health care institutions in the Province in which they work, but how will the delivery of health services and how will the status of the provision of health services in our Province be improved? We will have a situation where we have disgruntled nurses, disgruntled employees, disgruntled family members, disgruntled patients, and again, if we refer to the polls which have been done in the last twenty-four hours, a very disgruntled general public.
The questions have to be asked: Where do we go from here, and how is the delivery of health care in our Province being improved or enhanced? The simple and obvious answer is that there is no improvement. Morale will perhaps be worse than it now is. The so-called respect that nurses demand from government members will obviously be lessened and diminished. We will have a situation where we will have hospitals operating in our Province with nursing professionals who, having gone through an exercise of a legal strike, and who have acted professionally in their labour dispute, and who have put forward a very genuine and sincere effort, will say to themselves, unfortunately and sadly, that it is all in vain.
Again, how is that in the public interest? The question has to be asked. How is it in the public interest, when we go through this exercise pursuant to the legislation of this Province in the way of collective bargaining, only to find out at the end of the day that our situation, and the status of the delivery of health care, is in fact worse than where it was before the exercise began? That is the sad reality and truth of where we are.
I would say it is perhaps an aspect that has not been given the necessary attention it deserves, because again government is still faced with the disgruntled group of professionals, and a disgruntled public, in dealing with a health care situation which is still not resolved. It is still not resolved, I say, because of the legislative hammer which this government chose to exercise.
I would say to members opposite that it is never too late - it is highly unlikely that any serious attention is given to the many points that have been made this evening -, but I think members opposite should indeed give some serious and appropriate consideration to the many points that have been made this evening, give very serious and appropriate consideration to what the nursing professionals in our Province have been saying over the past eight days - nine days now -, and reconsider whether in fact it is in the public interest to do what this legislation purports it do.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for the opportunity to have participated in this debate and I will now ask my colleague the Opposition House Leader to continue.
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I might put him in a full nelson. He would be wishing he never did that.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: I'm delighted to hear the Member for Twillingate & Fogo is one of the more sensible members on that side of the House, I might add. One of the most intelligent members there, I must say.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: By the way, I have the remedy here for the Member for Topsail. It is coming right up, I say to the Member for Topsail.
It goes:
We the undersigned members of the Catholic Women's League of Canada of Topsail district of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador ask for the House of Assembly to accept the following prayer:
We the undersigned members of the Catholic Women's League of Canada, of Topsail district - he is repetitious too -, do hereby petition the House of Assembly to direct the Department of Human Resources and Employment to review the recent decision to reduce funding to recipients by the amount of the child tax credit.
Signed by the Members for Topsail, Humber Valley, and Torngat Mountains.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SULLIVAN: Since when can people that are out in public under disguise of a male, I assume, or not - they must be. Females or males, I do not know. I cannot see how men are admitted to the Catholic Women's League.
MR. WISEMAN: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Topsail.
MR. WISEMAN: Unfortunately, there are no more memberships available. It was only myself and my two colleagues who were admitted.
MR. SPEAKER: No point of order.
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Member for Topsail wrote the communications convener, the Catholic Women's League of Canada, St. Thomas of Villa Nova Council, P.O. Box 4318, Manuels, Newfoundland, A1W 1H4:
Dear Ms Barron:
This will acknowledge and thank you for your letter dated March 6, 1998, along with a petition on the issue of the child tax benefit. Please be assured that I will present this petition to the House of Assembly at the earliest opportunity.
Here was the petition. The real petition from the Catholic Women's League of Canada said:
We as members of the Catholic Women's League of Canada and as concerned citizens would like to express our displeasure at the provincial decision to reduce the welfare payments to families by the amount given through the child tax credit. This is discrimination and gives no benefit to families who can properly use it the most. As our government representative, we request that something be done to end this unfair practice.
The hon. member stood in the House of Assembly and said: We the undersigned members of the Catholic Women's League of Canada - and signed by the Member for Topsail. He took a petition and he became a member of the Catholic Women's League. Will the member stand and tell this House for the record whether he is a male or a female? I would like to know.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. WISEMAN: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Member for Topsail.
MR. WISEMAN: If the hon. member would give me some of his time, I would be glad to answer the question. He can be assured that I am a male.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Prove it, prove it!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. WISEMAN: He already informed the House that we did support the petition. In fact, I did explain to the House the circumstances under which it did happen. As usual, the members opposite do not want to listen. I already answered the question. It was a simple question, whether I was male or female. I answered male. Maybe, Mr. Speaker, they do not understand that. They do not understand the physical makeup of a male.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!
MR. WISEMAN: Now, Mr. Speaker, to add insult to injury, the members opposite want me to demonstrate it. Not only demonstrate it, but to table it. This is an insult to this hon. House. That member should apologize, not only to me but to my colleagues for Torngat Mountains and Humber Valley. I think that is the hon. thing to do. The member should rise in his place and apologize. Thank you.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
There is no point of order.
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I have done some courses, I might say, in university, in genetics, I say to the person, and I would like him to table the geneticist's statement of the chromosomal pattern in that homo sapiens, I would say!
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Homo sapiens, sapiens meaning wise. It is supposed to be wise. I have a lot of trouble with that word, "sapiens," but I know the word "homo" is supposed to be man. I happen to have a bit of a Latin background too, I might add, and I have a lot of trouble with the last part of that species name.
AN HON. MEMBER: Wise man?
MR. SULLIVAN: Wise man, genus and species.
AN HON. MEMBER: Ralph Wiseman.
AN HON. MEMBER: He is Wiseman.
MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, that's why they call him Wiseman! I might add, everybody does not get the name they deserve, I can tell him.
MR. SPEAKER (Snow): Order, please!
MR. WISEMAN: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Member for Topsail.
MR. WISEMAN: The last time that members opposite talked about homo sapiens, the Member for Baie Verte wanted it hyphenated. Now he should explain what he meant.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
No point of order.
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
When you name a species you give a genus name and a species name. Homo is the species, meaning man, and sapiens meaning wise. They are two Latin words, I say to the member. We can see why he is a wise man. We can say that. He has a head start on everybody else. What I find troublesome are some other statements here, not petitions by the Member for Topsail, but statements by the hon. Minister of Health and Community Services.
Back in March 1991, I might add: The Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union plans to challenge the legality of the budget decision by government to impose a one-year freeze on negotiated salaries, I would say to the minister. It goes on: Nurses are shocked that a government whose Premier is a lawyer she said - l-a-w-y-e-r, not the l-i-a-r kind now - that was lead by - who was the guy that led that? There is a picture, look. She looks older here. What have they done to her in the last eight years, I would say.
She said: That they would renege on a contract. A union president, Joan Marie Aylward, said: We are angry, to be quite honest. The fact that the collective agreement has been broken destroys our sense of trust in the collective bargaining system for what it is worth.
The same minister who said that is going to stand and vote for something she did not believe in eight years ago. Time can do wonders to you, I would say.
She went on to say: Nurses who secured a 25 per cent wage increase over two years in 1990 were set to receive a 5 per cent and 7 per cent. Here is what she said: How can nurses go back to the bargaining table in the future only to have government give you a star and take it away? The same minister who was heading nurses in the Province said: How can they go back to a bargaining table? Well, they did come back to the bargaining table and they shut the door and shut down bargaining, I would say, the very same minister.
The minister here was going to met with the minister then, Chris Decker - I am sure she remembers this. She is smiling about it all, she has heard it before. Then, in another one here - this is a long one; I am not sure if I have enough time to read this one - it reads: The head of the Newfoundland and Labrador Nurses' Union said Friday the contract signed last March by nurses in the Province and the Wells Administration was not worth the paper it was written on. That is what she said: NLNU president Joan Marie Aylward said Thursday's provincial budget shows the government is only paying lip service. The same thing I asked her in the house, why are you only paying lip service?
I am using your own words. I did not realize I was using your words when I asked you a question in the House. It says: When they described nurses as being special, she said they were only paying lip service. How true. Some things never change, I might add.
The president said: health care workers are taking a disproportionate share of the burdens with the loss - imagine, a loss - of nine hundred jobs, adding the government -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!
MR. SULLIVAN: It was the year after the Catholic Women's League in Topsail was formed.
She said: I feel for the nurses who are going to be left in the system because they are going to be subject to more injuries stemming from heavier workloads. They have reduced the nurses in the system, the same minister now who watched nurses being cut, beds being closed all over the city and all over the Province over the last number of years. We are down over 1,000 since that `lawyer' - l-a-w-y-e-r - took over here in 1989.
AN HON. MEMBER: Lawyer.
MR. SULLIVAN: Oh, I thought it was lawyer, just spelt differently. What do you call them, homonyms? That is it.
Then it went on to say: the president contends she is particularly angry with government's perceived discrimination against women. She said they are discriminating against women, that is what she said, because they deferred the $27 million they had committed for pay equity.
I thought they paid out that $80 million, didn't they? Wasn't there a settlement that said they should pay $80 million? If that is not harsh enough, can you imagine a minister of health today as once head of the nurses' union giving statements completely contrary to the statements she has given today. I do not call that consistency.
She said: If that is not harsh enough, look at the number of women who will be laid off as a result of those cutbacks. Women are paying dearly at the hands of this government. Where is the fairness and balance we keep talking about?
I would like to know from the minister if she really believes what she said then, or she really believes what she is saying today? She said she: has to seriously question the integrity of that Liberal government, adding: when contracts are signed and broken through legislation, how can the Province expect to be trusted?
There are a lot of heavy language here by the former head of the nurses' union attacking the Liberal government that cut back jobs, broke collective agreements with nurses, and destroyed it. Shameful, I say to the hon. leader.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) have her back (inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: That is right, I would say. Just her back. They would like to have her back, not her back. Yes, exactly. I would say the minister is right on track there.
MR. MANNING: Just like the teachers would like to have Roger back.
MR. SULLIVAN: Yes, as much as they would like to have the former president who wept on the steps of this building back to lead them, I would say.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: No. I can tell you that, and the nurses do not want her.
(Inaudible) to the 1991 tearing up of contracts - oh, they have the beagle moved into the front row! I thought the hunting season closed last week.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: The current minister, the former president of the nurses' union, said: The irony in all of this is that government was still signing contracts a week before this Budget was brought down. That is in 1991. Can you imagine? A week before they brought the Budget down they were signing contracts, and then they tore them up. That is what they did.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Did you get over here so you could hear me? I can sing out louder if you want to go back to the back row.
The president said her union would be exploring legal options to take legal action against the very government she now sits in. Here is what she said: We certainly are not going to let government destroy the collective bargaining process without reviewing all of our options, including a legal challenge. How much of a turnaround can you get? A 180-degree turn.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: That is not personal. That is the minister.
The Association of Registered Nurses went on and referred to the Budget as: a black cloud. Seeing such a drastic cutback in health care workers will make it very difficult to deliver quality care. They went on. They laid off hundreds of nurses in the Province, and today the system is crippled because we don't have enough front line nurses in the system to do the job.
When you look at the newspapers even, Dr. John Haggie, general and vascular surgeon from Gander, has his comments today in the paper. There are people in this Province indignant, they said, about ads, with taxpayers' dollars being pumped. Yesterday another doctor came out in support. Why are we training nurses to leave this Province, one hired in the last 164? That is from Sean F. Hamilton, MD, St. John's. It goes on and on, people expressing their opinion. They severely underestimated public opinion.
My colleague from Lewisporte who spoke not too long ago raised this House, he brought the House down today with his comments that were sharp and to the point there, and that really told the real reason of what was happening here today. To find out that in this Province, if they were supposed to choose between government and nurses, 80 per cent of the people would pick nurse, 8 per cent would pick government. Out of every eleven people, ten would support nurses and one would support government. That is a very telling statistic.
Also, as to the right to binding arbitration, the question was: If government decided to end the strike the law requires both sides go to binding arbitration and so on. There was 88 per cent who said yes, and no was 6 per cent.
The final question on that poll, and it is a pretty straightforward question, a very unbiased question, was: As you know, nurses are now on a legal strike. That is factual. It said: In Newfoundland today the government could pass a law ordering nurses to return to work. If nurses are ordered to return to work the current law states that nurses have the right to binding arbitration to settle their dispute, with an independent third party making the decision. However, government could make a new law that ended the strike by forcing nurses to return to work with a forced settlement and no right to binding arbitration.
The question was: Do you think it would be fair for government to make this law whereby nurses would lose their right to binding arbitration? Ninety per cent of the Province said it would be very unfair or unfair. How many said it would be fair? Six per cent. One per cent said: Very fair. One in one hundred said it would be the right thing to do, very fair. Ninety out of one hundred, 90 per cent. Three did not know. So out of the decideds, you had ninety out of ninety-seven. That is 93 per cent of decided voters said in this Province, the decided people polled, said it is unfair or very unfair.
Out of those totals, I might add, out of that 93 per cent of decideds, well over two-thirds of those said it is very unfair. How many people do you think who said it is very unfair are going to change their minds? It just does not happen.
I think what has happened here and why we are here tonight in this House, why all members of this Legislature are here, is because government underestimated the resolve and the commitment of nurses. They underestimated, and that is the whole telling tale, the value and the worth of nurses to our health care system today and to our society in general. That is why we are here.
Had the Premier known that 93 per cent of decideds would support that we would not be here today, and we would have a settled agreement. He was there personally, he was the guy, he said, who directed that. We have to take the Premier and the Minister of Health to task, because they are the ones who did not come to this House, who sat here directing these negotiations from a day to day basis. That is the reason why.
To turn around and give us all kinds of lame excuses when the Minister of Finance stood in his place last Monday and said: Health care and other public services have all improved and expanded. How many really believe that health care has improved and expanded in this Province. He said: We have exceeded our financial objectives in each of the last three years. He said: This has allowed us defer to future years revenues for Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro. Deferred ahead, and not put nurses back in the system? That is criminal, that is unfair. Eighty-two million dollars of revenues they did not take they should be applying to nurses and into our health care system, when we had a surplus of $136.9 million before they made their allocations to specific areas in this past fiscal year.
He went on to say: The outlook is great. We have had the best fiscal years in our history and the outlook is great, and we cannot afford to give nurses a fair share? When just eight years ago they should have learned their lesson, what happened when they did not get their fair share. Doctors got 23 per cent because this government failed to address - and I said in this House repeatedly for the last seven years, if you do not address the situation today you will dig a hole so deep - and out in a scrum outside - we will not get out of it. That is why there are seventy unfilled positions in rural Newfoundland today. They cannot fill them. You have to wait a year to see certain specialists there today. You cannot get to see them because the hole is so deep and disparity is so great. When you did give 23 per cent we are still not up to Atlantic Canada, and it is too late. We dug the hole so deep we cannot get out it. I said: Don't let it happen with nurses today.
Lonely Prince Edward Island, whose contract with nurses expired on March 1, still pays them on their old contract 17 per cent more than we are getting here. So we have the rosiest picture in the history of the Province, unless the Minister of Finance did not tell us the truth when he stood in his place. He said we are expecting -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: No boy, I do not want to waste time. I do not want to incite the masses, I tell him. I will give you the speech again tomorrow if you want it.
He said: Real GDP is expected to increase again by 5 per cent. We are on such a roll in this Province, the economy is so bright in this Province, and we cannot afford to pay nurses? We can't afford it. One day it is great. When you are given a budget and you have the galleries full and people out there, it is a fantastic economy, things are great, and when you have to pay somebody what they are worth: We just cannot afford it. How can you speak out of both sides of your mouth at the same time? It must be kind of difficult.
The Minister of Finance -
SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!
MR. SULLIVAN: I plead for protection.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: I'm enjoying it, boy. Yes, I will finish up. I will just take a minute or two to finish.
The Minister of Finance went on to say he is pleased to report that we are recording a surplus of $4.3 million. This is only the second surplus recorded by any government in the history of our Province. What a tremendous year we had. Even if Mike Harris did give us that big $180 million cheque, even if we did get it from Mike Harris, it was the best year in the history of our Province. Now they turn around and use the excuse: We can't afford it, we have commitments.
That is like the guy who ran in the District of Ferryland a few years back. When he got to the Goulds area he said: My father was a farmer. When he got up in Ferryland he said: My father was a fisherman. That is what he said. That is right. Like the Premier. When it is the West Coast: I'm from the Stephenville area. When he's in Labrador: I was born and lived here in Goose Bay. What else would he tell, I wonder? He is all over the place. Be all things to everybody.
They say that if you don't stand for something you will fall for anything, basically. There is some other good news -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank God he didn't go in St. John's North. I would say, thank God he didn't go in St. John's North. Because if he had to go in St. John's North there would be another empty spot, there would be another desk less over there, I can tell you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SULLIVAN: I wish they would stop speaking while I'm interrupting.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SULLIVAN: I will have to ask the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs to stop speaking while I am interrupting. There are a couple of other points. I'm almost finished, almost there.
He said: By budgeting prudently and controlling expenditures we are rewarded with strong financial results. We use these to make needed strategic investments in public services and create additional flexibility in the coming fiscal years. Why aren't you going to exercise that flexibility to give nurses what they deserve?
He said in another part of it: At the same time we have been selectively deferring revenue to future years when it will be needed to fund public service. What greater time to use public services than to ease the burden on health care in our Province? In other words, it is not a priority, you are telling us. Revenues are up by $205 million. He said: This budget strikes the right balance between needs for programs and services and sound fiscal management.
To have Bill 3 come to this House is a downright shame. It is a downright shame when 93 per cent of people in this Province today made up their minds and said you are doing the wrong thing. Only 7 per cent said you are doing the right thing. You might win it on a vote in this House, might (inaudible) on your legal grounds and the rights of this Legislature to make laws, but you will not win it on moral grounds because what you are doing is wrong, and there is always a price to pay when you do not do something on moral grounds. There is a price to pay. It has been paid in this Province in the past and it will be paid again, because the public, like a customer, is always right.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SHELLEY: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I know I am the last speaker on this side of the House tonight. I know we are at the end of the line, I know we are at the end of the night. After many hours of listening without the galleries here now, I am still certainly going to have my term to stand tonight to make some points on a historical piece of legislation in this House of Assembly.
The gallery that is not here now is the reason I am up tonight, because my gallery are the twenty-five nurses in Baie Verte who I spoke to over the weekend, who I have been in touch with on the phone the last two or three days. I told them that when this came to debate in the House of Assembly I would be representing my district, and the nurses in my district, first and foremost, in the Legislature on this particular piece of legislation.
A nurse that was in nursing practice for thirty-five years, a nurse about to retire, could be retired now but still working, about to retire, said that she is doing this not because of her wage increase but because of what she has seen in the health care over the last number of years. This strike is not about the nurses. This is the fuse that was lit because of the entire health care system over the last several years. We could say three, four, five or six years, but it has been coming. Gradually but surely coming.
The nurses here who you have seen in the galleries over the last few days, and the nurses who had the strength and pride to go forward, to take on this government, are the nurses who have been sending a signal that the health care in this Province is in crisis.
I am not talking about the immediate crisis because nurses are not in their positions in the last eight days. That is not the crisis I am referring to. It is a crisis that has been growing for years. What it has come to now is an exclamation point of nurses in this Province who have come together to say it is enough. That is why I raised the example of the nurse that has been in the profession for thirty-five years who is on strike. She is not there because she is going to get a pay increase and be there for another five or ten years. She is on strike, her reason was, because the system needs to be addressed and needs to be addressed now. We cannot go any further, we are at the wall. That is what she said. She also said: I am in this profession so long, I have seen so many changes, that I am striking not for the pay increase but because the system needs to be addressed, it needs to come to the forefront.
All night and all day I have listened to different members on both sides of the House refer back to 1981, refer back to 1986, talk about legislation in the past, what other governments said in the past. I agree with the Minister of Mines and Energy. Let's talk about what is related to this whole situation that is current. What I will relates to that is current is this. Just think back. Never mind twenty years, or seventeen years' ago. Let's just think about it. Let's not talk about 1981 and seventeen years ago when I was in Grade VI. I am not going to refer to that. I will just go back a small ways. I will even stay in the same year, in 1999. Let's take us back in this Legislature back to the month of January, 1999, when we were in this House and rumours were floating all over the media: Is the Premier going to call an election? That is what we were doing here just two months ago. January. When was the election called?
AN HON. MEMBER: January 18.
MR. SHELLEY: January 18. No, do not panic now. Let's take December. We were in the Legislature in December. In January, of course, all the rumours were starting to float around - that is the point I am getting to - just a few short months ago. The rumours were all over the place. What is the Premier going to do? He did not surprise me. He did not surprise a lot of people. As a matter, what was the Finance Minister saying when the first rumours were floating around? The Opposition would get the heebie-jeebies. Is that what he referred it to? This is what he referred it to.
I do not think, by the look of this side of this House, there was too much fear. Especially when Apocalypse Now took place in Baie Verte. I never saw it before but if you saw the movie Apocalypse Now, it happened in Baie Verte about - what was the election date?
AN HON. MEMBER: February 9.
MR. SHELLEY: February 9. Well, I think it was February 8 that the Premier - they were all suggesting, come down to the district, the district for which the Premier was the member for fourteen years, thirteen -
AN HON. MEMBER: Eight years.
MR. SHELLEY: Eight years in that part, and then the district changed. They asked him to drive down over the road, but, no; and he did not come down in his bus, like our leader came down in the bus, came down across there. He did not come in a helicopter, he did not come in two helicopters - three helicopters down through the White Bay, spreading into the White Bay, and everyone wondering what this election was all about.
The biggest issue of all that was going to confront this election was health care, and the Premier did the job on it. He did the job on it everywhere he went, and so on it happened, and he pulled the rabbit out of the hat. He knows it was the biggest issue. Everywhere he went, nurses met him; so he pulled the big rabbit out of the hat from his experience in politics. What did he do? It was a classic, if you stop to think about it. Here was a provincial election in twenty days, and he pulled a rabbit out of the hat. He phoned his buddy, Jean, and said: I have to come up. You have to bail me out. He told the boss: You have to bail me out. That is what he said to Jean; and Jean, in his broken English, said: Come up, Brian, we will take care of you.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SHELLEY: Sure enough, up he goes -
MR. SULLIVAN: Little did he realize he would have to go to the woodshed after.
MR. SHELLEY: That is the point I am getting to, Mr. Speaker.
Yes, he went to Ottawa and sure enough came back, but he had to make sure he paid up for it. The trip to the woodshed took care of it all, and now we are right back in line again; but he pulled a rabbit out of the hat - the public relations.
Every commercial you see on TV - I thought it was the tourism commercial - It is our time, it is our future. It was a tourism commercial, with the music so soft and perfect. I am sure it was a lot like the gala tonight. But the Premier has experience in that, he is very good at it, which leads to the whole discussion we are in this Chamber for tonight: that the nurses we saw him talk to, laid the hand on the shoulder of the nurses, laid the other hand on the shoulder of the pensioners that we saw here a few days ago, and it worked. It worked for now.
What they are really forgetting - there is always the Achilles heel, and this could have been it for the Premier in this Province; because I am willing to bet, in this Province - although the Premier keeps denying it. He is very smart on the words and we listen to him very carefully, but I have watched this Premier as my member for some years.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: I certainly have, I say to the Member for St. John's North, and I have watched him for a long time. We all know in this House of Assembly that this Premier will not be sitting in this seat four years from now. He has pulled a rabbit out of the hat in Ottawa and is heading back for the second rabbit, because he is going back there, guaranteed.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) a brace of rabbits.
MR. SHELLEY: That is a brace of rabbits he is going to come back with.
AN HON. MEMBER: I would love to have a brace of rabbits.
MR. SHELLEY: I can give you a brace of rabbits; that is not a problem. The whole debate tonight, why we are sitting here at 1:00 in the morning, 1:18 in the morning, talking about nurses, is because the truth of the 1999 election is starting to unfold; the truth of the election of 1999, two years early.
It was best summed up - I will not name the gentleman here because I have not asked him to use it, but when I was in Nippers Harbour, and the Premier knows the area quite well, it used to be Liberal.
MR. J. BYRNE: It used to be.
MR. SHELLEY: It used to be.
I knocked on his door. Here was the slough snow coming into White Bay, a terrible night, at about 7:30, into Green Bay. I knocked on the door.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: I cannot say, because -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: In Ming's? There are a few colourful guys in Ming's Bight, I say to the Premier.
Anyway, I knocked on the door - a bit of slough snow in - it was eight or ten days into the campaign. I knocked on the door and he looked at me. Are you supporting me? That wasn't a problem. He said: What are a bunch of fools like you doing going around in the middle of winter, two years before an election is supposed to be called? That is what he said to me.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: He gave me his vote - that was not a problem - but he made a lot of sense. What is this election all about? What this election is all about is what you are seeing unfold in front of you, one piece at a time: the nurses, the pensioners -
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: Absolutely, it is totally politics. That is my point. I agree. The Premier knows it is politics, and it was about getting reelected right here; not just getting reelected, but all landslides. Every single one of them, landslides over here on this side of the House.
Of course, there must have been a big slump in the polls. We never know what is going to happen in the polls. The Member for Ferryland -
PREMIER TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
On a point of order, the hon. the Premier.
PREMIER TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, since members opposite seem to enjoy the result of the last election so much, we will try and repeat that result next election.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.
The hon. the Member for Baie Verte.
MR. SHELLEY: Maybe if the Premier would call it as quick - set another record and maybe we will take him to task on it.
Seven out of the top eleven majorities in the Province, where are there? I think they are on this side. I am pretty sure they are on this side.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: I think I am close to it.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: We have no problem with that; but I will just say again, as we look up and down this long line here, we were supposed to be wiped out.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: No, they did not send Bud down this time. The big surprise, in fact, this time - I will not even say the name. The Premier should know that the parachute candidates do not work in my neck of the woods. It just does not come down. I am still thanking the Premier for the last time.
The truth is, and the point I want to drive home tonight, the reason why we sit in this House of Assembly tonight - and it will come out piece by piece. Yes, the Premier does know the politics and how to manipulate during the election and so on. Of course, it had a little bit to do with a few dollars that were around.
Every time you looked at the TV screen or opened up your Robinson-Blackmore, here was the whole page - not just up in the corner - the Premier's picture in every single paper. We could not afford it. I had my little strip on the bottom every day. It was plenty effective for me. It was plenty effective for many people here.
Knock on the doors, a simple brochure, pass it along, and there it was; but the Premier put up the big push. The Premier did the big job, coming into the district three days before the campaign, right across from my headquarters. I was surprised he did not come over to say hello. I was there. Three helicopter flying in formation coming into White Bay. They have never seen it before - Apocalypse Now. I was waiting for the doors to slide open and the machine guns to turn on. It did not happen in many of these districts.
Mr. Speaker, on a very serious note, I want to conclude the debate tonight by saying this, because there will be more debate, we are not finished this yet.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: We could be here watching the Easter Bunny, I say to the Finance Minister, before this is all over.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: I didn't say the Easter Bagel, I said the Easter Bunny.
Mr. Speaker, I want to finish off debate with the reason I got up. I have just a couple of more comments. I could go over the same points that we have been making here tonight - binding arbitration, the 7 per cent and so on.
How much time do I have left?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: We have some more debate time.
MR. J. BYRNE: Jim Walsh is supposed to get up isn't he, the Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island?
MR. SHELLEY: The Member for Conception Bay East & Bell Island told us that he was getting up before the night was over, and the debate was over, so I am looking forward to that.
On a very serious note, the reason this strike is on is because the nurses saw firsthand the deterioration, better than any of us here. They were in the battlefield. They were not looking at it from a distance; they were there.
The example that I gave earlier tonight of a nurse, thirty-five years in the profession, on strike - she is not on strike because she is looking for pay increases for the next three, four, or five years. She is on strike for the system, what she has seen firsthand in working in operating rooms around this Province and everywhere else.
When I first got elected in 1993 - for the Premier, who knows my district very well - I had just moved back to Baie Verte, after being away for about ten years, through education and working and so on, and I had no intention of running in politics. I had a great teaching job across the street from my house, a new family starting to grow up, and, of course, the two Small brothers had their battle out and people asked me to run.
AN HON. MEMBER: Begged.
MR. SHELLEY: No, they did not beg but they asked me to run.
I ran on this issue, I say to the Premier, and it is the issue that we are in this House of Assembly for tonight.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
MR. SHELLEY: The Member for Twillingate & Fogo asked me how I got out of the protest in Harbour Round and Brent's Cove. All I will say, in answer to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, is: Count the votes and you will see how I got out of Brent's Cove and Harbour Round; 82 per cent.
The Liberal candidate came down and saw the picket line - I was in the middle of it - turned around and hightailed it up to meet the Premier with his three choppers. That is exactly where the member went. He made a big mistake.
The Premier knows that he was not very experienced, because the Premier would have stopped and gone in the middle of them. He made a major mistake. I stayed there.
To finish off tonight, the reason I ran for politics is the reason we are debating here tonight. After being away for years, and after having twelve people in my family born in the Baie Verte hospital, I was now living in Baie Verte, three children of my own, two had to be born in Grand Falls and one here in St. John's.
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).
MR. SHELLEY: I am going to repeat it once more, but you are going to have to pay attention this time. The reason I ran is because twelve people in my family were born in Baie Verte over the years, a big family.
When I moved back to Baie Verte - here it is in the 1990s - my three children had to be born in Grand Falls or St. John's. Sitting in a hotel room at the Mount Peyton in Grand Falls, just before I decided to run, I decided that was the most important issue why I should run. I still believe it.
Here we are in the 1990s, when you cannot born a baby in a population of some 10,000 people. The hospital has gone backwards, I say to the minister. You don't believe that?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) own home now.
MR. SHELLEY: Pardon?
AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) home birthing.
MR. SHELLEY: Home birthing? Oh, I see, that is a good answer. If the minister is interested in doing that, she can go ahead; but when I have my children it is going to be the safest way possible, and that is in a hospital. They are my children.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SHELLEY: Anyway that is why we sit here tonight.
This debate will continue. Some very good points have been made here today. We do not have a gallery to play to but I am standing tonight speaking for the twenty-five nurses who live in Baie Verte, who cannot be here, who do not have the cameras around them, but they are standing on the picket line for the right reasons, as they do everywhere else.
I salute those people. I am proud to stand here tonight. I am proud of all my colleagues tonight, and the fifty-eight questions that our Leader of the Opposition has asked over the last few days. I salute them all and we will continue this debate tomorrow.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The motion is that the question be now put.
All those in favour, `aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against, `nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.
MR. SPEAKER: Carried.
AN HON. MEMBER: Division.
MR. SPEAKER: Division.
Call in the members.
Division
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
All those in favour that this question be now put, please rise.
CLERK: The hon. the Premier; Mr. Tulk; the hon. the Minister of Tourism Culture and Recreation; the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs; the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services; the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment; Mr. Walsh; the hon. the Minister of Finance and Justice; the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy; the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods; Mr. Lush; Mr. Smith; the hon. the President of Treasury Board; Mr. Barrett; the hon. the Minister of Education; the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour; the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology; the hon. the Minister of Government Services and Lands; the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs; Mr. Wiseman; Mr. Andersen; Ms Hodder; Mr. Mercer; Mr. Reid; Ms Jones; Mr. Parsons; Mr. Sweeney.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please rise.
CLERK: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition; Mr. Sullivan; Mr. Rideout; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Hodder; Mr. Fitzgerald; Ms Osborne; Mr. Hedderson; Mr. Osborne; Mr. Manning; Mr. Hunter; Mr. French; Mr. Harris; Mr. Collins.
Mr. Speaker, there are twenty-seven yeas and sixteen nays.
MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.
Is it the pleasure of the House that Bill 3, "An Act To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation Of Health And Community Services," be now read a second time?
All those in favour, `aye'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.
MR. SPEAKER: Those against, `nay'.
SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.
MR. SPEAKER: Carried.
AN HON. MEMBER: Division.
MR. SPEAKER: Division.
Division
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
All those in favour, please rise.
CLERK: The hon. the Premier; Mr. Tulk; the hon. the Minister of Tourism, Culture & Recreation; the hon. the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs; the hon. the Minister of Health and Community Services; the hon. the Minister of Human Resources and Employment; Mr. Walsh; the hon. the Minister of Finance and Justice; the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy; the hon. the Minister of Forest Resources and Agrifoods; Mr. Lush; Mr. Smith; the hon. the President of Treasury Board; Mr. Barrett; the hon. the Minister of Education; the hon. the Minister of Environment and Labour; the hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade & Technology; the hon. the Minister of Government Services & Lands; the hon. the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs; Mr. Wiseman; Mr. Andersen, Ms Hodder; Mr. Mercer; Mr. Reid; Ms Jones; Mr. Parsons; Mr. Sweeney.
MR. SPEAKER: All those against the motion, please rise.
CLERK: The Leader of the Opposition; Mr. Sullivan; Mr. Rideout; Mr. Shelley; Mr. Ottenheimer; Mr. Jack Byrne; Mr. Hodder; Mr. Fitzgerald; Ms Osborne; Mr. Hedderson; Mr. Osborne; Mr. Manning; Mr Hunter; Mr. French; Mr. Harris; Mr. Collins.
Mr. Speaker, twenty-seven ayes and sixteen nays.
MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion carried.
On motion, a bill, "An Act To Provide For The Resumption And Continuation of Health and Community Services," read a second time, ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill 3)
MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.
MR. FUREY: I ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the bill to Committee.
AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.
MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!
The hon. the Opposition House Leader.
MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
This being Private Members' Day, we agreed to forego it on the condition that it would terminate at second reading. We are not extending any leave on that point.
MR. SPEAKER: No leave.
MR. FUREY: Thank you for your magnanimous gesture.
Mr. Speaker, I move that the House adjourn until 2:00 p.m. on Thursday.
On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, at 2:00 p.m.