The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

A point of order has been raised by the hon. Member for Grand Bank.

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely believe that it is as important to tell the truth outside this House as it is inside. Last night I listened to comments by the Member for Trinity North on the Open Line show, who suggested that when there was a private member's resolution in this House that was introduced - in fact, by the Premier - with respect to the federal government, that I did not stand to speak to that private member's resolution. He went on to suggest that because I did not stand to speak to it that no one knew where I stood on the issue.

Mr. Speaker, it is clearly recorded that it was a unanimous vote in support of that resolution. Everybody knew where I stood. The member was here, he knew we took a vote. In fact, it was the Official Opposition who asked to have that vote taken and to have the vote recorded.

Mr. Speaker, I stood in support of the Premier as a private member in support of that resolution because I sincerely believe we need to have the federal government sit up and take notice of where we are in this Province. I ask for an apology, Mr. Speaker. It was a private member's resolution on March 31, and the hon. member knew the difference.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker will take the point of order under advisement. We will come back and examine the record and come back and report at a later date.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think it is important that proper decorum take place in the House. I did make a comment in the House yesterday, and whether parliamentary or not, is not the matter, Mr. Speaker, I withdraw that comment. I am certainly interested in getting on with the business of the Province. We have many issues out there and I just want to get on with it.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I thank the member for his comments. The Chair will review all these matters pertaining to the point of privilege of yesterday and the points of order raised yesterday and will report back to the House at the appropriate time.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

With respect to the withdrawal given by the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board, I give notice to you the Chair, that I withdraw my point of privilege. I think it has been dealt with adequately and I appreciate the action taken.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair certainly appreciates the comments by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. As members know, from time to time things may get said in this hon. House that members did not intend. I thank all hon. members for the excellent way in which they handled the matters yesterday afternoon, and I thank the members today who have spoken. The Chair now considers these matters resolved and we shall continue on with the business of the day.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Statements by Members. I am sorry. Again, we have a point of order by the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I also raised a point of order yesterday rising out of these matters. In light of the hon. withdrawal of his statement by the hon. member and the respect for the usages and customs of this House, I would also withdraw my point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: Again, the Chair thanks the hon. member for his commentary. We shall continue with Statements by Members. Today we have statements by: the Member for St. John's Centre, the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans, the Member for Humber Valley, the Member for Fortune Bay-Cape la Hune, and the Member for Labrador West.

The hon. the Member for St. John's Centre.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SKINNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to inform this House and all its hon. members of a financial donation made yesterday by the World Under 17 Hockey Organizing Committee to twelve minor hockey associations in this Province.

You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that a world class event for hockey players under the age of seventeen years was held in the St. John's-Mount Pearl area over the Christmas and New Year's holidays. This event gave international exposure to our Province, to our community, and to our facilities. It was a huge success with accolades coming from all participating countries.

The goal of the host committee, Mr. Speaker, was to showcase our Province and to break even financially. Well, Mr. Speaker, they did better than that. Besides being a world class event, the host committee reported a profit of $10,000 and was also able to donate almost $23,000 to twelve minor hockey associations in the Avalon area.

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to the Avalon Convention Visitors' Bureau, who hosted the event and to the over 400 volunteers who helped to ensure that it was a memorable experience for the 250 hockey players from all over the world.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this moment to recognize the efforts of Mr. George Finlay from Grand Falls-Windsor, who is helping to find a cure for Lou Gehrig's disease. Along with eleven other Canadians, Mr. Finlay travelled to Tanzania and climbed Africa's tallest peak, Mount Kilimanjaro. Their fundraising effort is called Climb for the Cure and they hope to be able to raise $1 million for the ALS Society of Canada. While Mr. Finlay had not had any previous mountain climbing experience, he has been very eager to meet this challenge, and to aid the ALS Society of Canada.

On the morning of March 6, the twelve-member team reached the summit of Mount Kilimanjaro and only one can say and imagine what an emotional experience that must have been.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this hon. House to join me in extending congratulations to Mr. Finlay and the rest of his team on their success climbing the expedition as well as their fundraising efforts for ALS disease.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS GOUDIE: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the community of Woody Point on receiving the Manning Award for Excellence in the Public Presentation of Historic Places for their Waterfront Development project.

Woody Point is a small rural community nestled on the east side of Bonne Bay in the Gros Morne National Park.

Several years ago Woody Point was a vibrant fishing community, but after the closure of the cod fishery in the early 1990s it faced many challenges to stay alive.

The community, under the leadership of Mayor, and former MHA Everett Osmond, focused on its beautiful surroundings and rich heritage to develop a plan to restore its waterfront property and many buildings that are more than 100 years old. Over the past few years tourists have come to Woody Point to experience its scenery, culture, and community heritage.

This would not have been possible without the whole community coming together, and bringing to life a town that is struggling to survive.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members here today to join me in congratulating the Town of Woody Point on receiving the Manning Award.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the efforts being made by the Town of St. Alban's to preserve the local history. Recently, the town has hired on Briege Kealey as the new heritage co-ordinator. Ms Kealey and Mayor Gail Hoskins hope to see tourism benefit from the town's preservation of its history and its natural environments.

Moreover, St. Alban's has a very active Youth Heritage Committee, which is co-ordinated by Lisa Willcott. Participants Jodi Skinner, Gail Barnes, Holly Benoit, Tamara Strickland, Cindy Farrell and Felicia MacNeil are very busy collecting old photographs and artifacts to be preserved on DVD. They will also be writing a book on the town's history.

Mr. Speaker, I hope I speak for everyone when I say that it is wonderful not only see the rich history of this Province being preserved, but to see the youth of Newfoundland and Labrador playing a major role in this effort. I would like to extend to the Town of St. Alban's and the Youth Heritage Committee the best of luck with their efforts.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on March 27-28, I had the privilege of accompanying a group of seniors from Labrador West on their third annual overnight excursion to the Myron River Outfitting Lodge. Some of you may have seen last year's show which was filmed and shown on CBS's great show, Land and Sea, shown in recent weeks.

Mr. Speaker, their trip begins by being bussed seventy kilometres to the Ashuanipi River where they board a 1957 twelve-passenger Bombardier skidoo for a thirty-five kilometre journey into the Labrador Wilderness.

Upon arrival at the lodge, Mr. Speaker, they are served lunch. During the afternoon a very serious card game takes place where, if you play the wrong card, you may end up on the menu for supper.

Speaking of supper, Mr. Speaker, our fine chefs prepared a huge meal of turkey, moose, caribou, rabbit and turr with all the trimmings.

Entertainment for that evening was provided by a local band, Pat & Wayne, who play traditional Newfoundland and Labrador and Irish music, setting the stage, Mr. Speaker, for what seniors love to do - dance.

Mr. Speaker, we can learn a lot about life from our seniors. Their attitude towards life, their many experiences, their respect and appreciation of others are all things we can learn from them.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read their names into the record of the House of Assembly: Mrs. Daisy Pelley; Mrs. Becky Squire; Mrs. Marion Walsh; Mrs. Aggie McGrath; Mrs. Myrtle King, who is eighty-one; Mrs. Ella Hoffe, who is eighty-five, was accompanied by her daughter Glynnis Hynes; Mr. Walter Ryan; and finally, Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Edna Loder, our dancing champion, who will be ninety years young in September.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the seniors I would like to thank everyone involved for making that weekend possible and, Mr. Speaker, as we speak, they are at their clubhouse in Labrador City this evening tuned in to the proceedings of the House. On behalf of all of us here, I would like to say a big hello to all of them.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform fellow members in the House of Assembly and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that the House of Assembly will not follow its regular parliamentary calendar at this time and that the House will not be closing for the Easter Break.

This decision was made given the extraordinary circumstances facing the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the people of the Province, and for our public service sector workers who are presently on strike. The government recognizes the importance of the House remaining in session during the current public service job action.

Mr. Speaker, government believes that it is critical for the House to be open at this time so that full debate can not only proceed but be perceived to be debated in the House.

It is our intention, Mr. Speaker, that we will defer the Easter break to a time following the conclusion, hopefully successful conclusion, of the current job action.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the minister for an advance copy of his statement.

We commend the government for this move. In fact, that is the preference, as was expressed by the Opposition earlier also. We, indeed, would agree these are very exceptional circumstances we have in our Province at this time with the ongoing public sector strike. We feel it is most appropriate that the House remain open during this difficult time.

As the minister said, government has committed to being open and accountable by having the people's House open during this time, and it certainly does, as well, allow the Opposition to make sure it is open, as is our responsibility, in terms of keeping them accountable and keeping the people informed as well.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We certainly agree that the House should be kept open as long as the strike is on, but this sort of implies, Mr. Speaker, there being an offer on the table, that this strike is not going to be settled today, not going to be settled tomorrow, not going to be settled Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday of next week. The assumption inherent in this, Mr. Speaker, is this strike will go on and on. Why are we not saying, in the event that the strike continues we won't have our Easter break?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

We in this Legislature know, and the people of the Province understand, that he gives daily updates to the media with respect to issues regarding negotiations on the ongoing strike.

Mr. Speaker, the question is: Could he provide a quick update to the House of Assembly and could he indicate to the members present, and through the media here to the people of the Province, whether or not he is optimistic that a resolution is near at hand?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The intent of having media briefings at 12:30 each day is to enable people to answer any questions on the contingency plan that is going on, in case there are questions within the system they want to ask. Each day, just about every day, they do ask questions on negotiations there. My response to them, basically, today on that was that we received a proposal from the unions and that we will respond today in writing to them. I told them that I did not want to engage in any aspects of that because I think it is only fair that the process is ongoing and we did not want to, in any way, hinder or put out in the media aspects of the negotiation. I have not done that. Prior to midnight on March 31, I had not done that in any way, shape or form. I want to respect the process and to let it work as it is going on now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank him for the answer and commend him on his efforts and wish him well in reaching a solution.

Mr. Speaker, I think, too, that people would know that today would normally be a full payday for the 20,000 people that this government has forced into the streets. Thousands of people across the Province have been negatively impacted over the past week. The question for the Premier is: Is the Premier concerned about the real life negative impacts this strike is having on the 20,000 strikers, their families and the people they serve, or is he still in a fighting mood today?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to acknowledge the presence of our public sector employees in the galleries and welcome them here this afternoon.

I also want to tell the Leader of the Opposition that I am extremely concerned about it; very, very concerned, as we all are concerned, all the members on the government side, our Cabinet, and indeed we are concerned about the public sector workers and indeed the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who have reduced services as a result of this labour dispute that we have presently ongoing.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that we are doing everything we can to try and bring this to a fast and speedy resolution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the 20,000 striking public employees did not cash their full paycheque this week, and those 20,000 people and their families are not making their regular purchases, let alone doing any discretionary spending.

Can the Premier talk about the concern that has been reported to his government with the respect to the impact this strike is having on the thousands of small businesses that provide goods and services in the Province, that are already suffering as a result of this strike being now a week old?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have a duty and a responsibility and a concern for all the small businesses in our Province, as we have a concern for all the residents of the Province, each and every one of them, including our public sector workers. We are doing everything we can to try and reach a settlement. We have to reach a settlement that the Province can afford. Unfortunately, we have been left with a desperate set of financial circumstances which was not our own creation. We are trying to deal with those circumstances.

On March 31, last week, I felt that we did have an offer on the table, that was a good offer. It was an offer that had taken back the concessions that we had indicated that we were looking for. We had also put a very fair offer on the table. That was zero, zero, two, three and three. We subsequently reduced that at the request of the members of the union to a four-year agreement, which was what the members of the union wanted. We brought it back to zero, zero, two and three. We left it outstanding until Sunday evening past. We stayed in our offices. We were here Saturday, we were here Sunday, and we heard nothing back.

We have put our best foot forward to try to alleviate any pain for any of our workers. The last thing we are trying to do is to harm their families and -

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

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - harm the communities and/or the small businesses or anyone else in the Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, union negotiators are publicly stating that concessions that are still being sought by the government are the major stumbling block to reaching an agreement. Can the Premier answer why it is that the government is still insisting on taking benefits that have been gained over the years out of the contract when the government has already imposed 4,000 jobs cuts over the next four years and have the unions expressing a willingness to agree to a two-year wage freeze? Why is it that there is still an insistence on top of those two major items to seek concessions and have the contracts have items and benefits removed that have been gained over the last thirty years of collective bargaining?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as I just indicated, in the offer that was put on the table before the evening that the commenced, we did, in fact, pull all of these major concessions off the table. The concession with regard to sick leave was taken off the table for current employees. The concessions with regard to severance was taken off the table. The concession with regard to pension indexing was taken off the table.

With regard to what is ongoing now, there was an offer presented by the union last night, which was sent to us. We are, in fact, responding to that. That response will go back this afternoon. Because these negotiations are very delicate, it is unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition wants to try and fuel the situation. We are trying to reach a resolution of this dispute. I am not in a position to discuss what was presented by the unions; nor am I in a position to present what will be presented back to them, because they have not, in fact, yet received our counterproposal and it would be improper for me to discuss that in public.

The Leader of the Opposition was looking for a blackout and at the same time he wants me to disclose everything in public. Which way does he want it, Mr. Speaker?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Part of the problem is coming down to trust, when the Premier suggests - maybe he does not understand what a concession is, because they are still looking for major concessions at the bargaining table.

Mr. Speaker, it has become clear after a week that more so than ever the public and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are looking to this government for a solution and a resolution. They have grown tired of the hot rhetoric from the Premier travelling all over the Province to condemn everybody, and the blame game which he plays here again today. It is everybody's fault except mine.

Mr. Speaker, the question for the Premier is this: Will the Premier agree to cease his confrontational approach, stop bashing anyone who dares to disagree with him, and get back to meaningful negotiations so the 20,000 public employees can go back to work with dignity and respect, and provide the services that the people of the Province want, deserve and need?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we are not looking for confrontations. We are now engaged in meaningful negotiations. We have been engaged in meaningful negotiations since March 31, in order to try and reach a resolution. We have come back with a counterproposal. We are following a process which is that the union puts their proposal in writing; we will put our counterproposal in writing to find out exactly where we are.

When it comes to dealing with some of the statements that have been made, as Premier of our Province, I will never, under any circumstances, condone law-breaking and leg breaking in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In case the Premier does not understand the definition of confrontation, 20,000 people forced into the streets, against their will, happens to be a confrontation; just in case he does not know. Maybe that is part of the problem again.

Mr. Speaker, I make the offer again today. Yesterday I offered the Premier the opportunity for politicians, like us, to participate in a media blackout so that the negotiators could do their job and we could stop the rhetoric and let them work towards a resolution. I ask him again today: Would he like to take me up on the offer for us to let the negotiators do their job, to stop the rhetoric, the blame game, the heated passionate statements, the name calling that the Premier has been getting on with -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: - but anyone who would dare say something contrary to his opinion, it happens to be a free country, would he like to take us up on the offer, to leave the negotiations to the negotiators and keep people like himself and myself out of the media so they can get the job done, on behalf of the people who would like to go back to work, and the people who would like to have the services restored?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I find it very ironic that the Leader of the Opposition is the one who is asking me to refrain from name calling and personal attacks. There is some irony in that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, as an elected Premier, what I am prepared to do is to continue to inform the people of this Province, and while there is misleading information being put forth by anyone, I have to counteract that. We are not looking for confrontation. We will continue to follow a proper process. When requested -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Yes, if you would not mind. If I could just give the answer please?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We followed a process. We requested yesterday afternoon to have our negotiators at the table. They were at the table. The proposal was then submitted to us in writing last night. We have taken that proposal. We are analyzing it. We are responding in a proper manner, in writing. That is the right way to do things and that is the way we will conduct this. We want a resolution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Health and Community Services.

Do people of this Province expect accessible health care? Yet, with a massive public sector strike, caused by this government, people are restricted from getting the medical care that they need. Thousands of clinical appointments have been cancelled, surgeries postponed and critical treatments are not available.

I ask the minister: How much pain, suffering and general disruption is she, and her government, willing to accept before they make a reasonable offer of settlement and end this strike?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Providing health care services when there is a strike ongoing, Mr. Speaker, is always very difficult. However, at this point in time the health care boards are coping and we are providing emergency and essential services to the residents of the Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister, how can she sleep at night knowing that people's lives in this Province are in danger and that seniors are going without adequate care? We know that there are residents right now in our institutions, that she is responsible for, who have not even been taken out of their beds in the past week. Mr. Speaker, we know they are only receiving partial care and that their meals are late and cold. All of this because of a strike that her government has caused. Minister, have you no consideration for these people?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS E. MARSHALL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for that question from the hon. member.

As I have indicated before, the employees of the health care corporations are striving to provide the best service they can under very difficult circumstances. We are in ongoing contact with all of the health care boards in the Province, and at this point in time I am confident that the people are being provided with essential and emergency services.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that not all essential services are being provided in the health care system today. She knows there are people out there on lists waiting for treatments and cannot get them because of this strike. She also knows that we have managers who are not trained to be in these long-term care institutions pulling twelve-hour shifts, four days straight, trying to provide care of the residents.

Now, minister I want to ask you: Why are you not focusing on meaningful negotiations? Will you tell me today if you have had any discussions regarding back-to-work legislation, because you certainly are not concentrating on getting these people back to work?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I thank the hon. member for that question. I have not had any discussions whatsoever with regard to back-to-work legislation. With regard to any other collective bargaining issues, I would like for her to refer her questions to my colleague, the Minister of Finance and Minister responsible for Treasury Board.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My questions are for the Minister of Finance and Treasury Board. On March 23, 2003, the Premier, when he was Leader of Opposition, stated, and I quote: The Progressive Conservative Party will honour all collective agreements currently in place with the public sector unions should we form the government. Mr. Speaker, now that his government has slashed the $5 million we put in our Budget last year for janitors and secretaries around this Province, does he feel that he has honoured that commitment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The collective agreement expired on March 31 and we are in the process now of trying to reach a collective agreement. I am not gong to piecemeal every single issue here in the public. We are going to deal with that in the collective bargaining process in a professional manner with the leaders representing and their negotiators there who represent these respective unions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister, if he would take the time to read the general service collective agreement under clause 59.2, he would understand that the agreement is in place until another one is signed or legislated upon those workers out there today.

Mr. Speaker, when these same janitors and secretaries in our schools in the Province were on strike two years ago, the Minister of Finance himself stood in this House and asked us to get these people back to work. We did this by negotiating a fair deal with these individuals. Now this same minister is keeping these individuals on the street and on the picket line by stripping the contracts which the government, I was part of, signed with them. Will the minister now apologize to these workers and stop his attack on some of the most lowest paid and hardest-working individuals in our society?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The items that were referenced in the report he is alluding to, the first date of these items here were budgeted and provided to the school boards for services here in our Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Twillingate & Fogo.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the deal we are talking about, or the clauses we are talking about right now in the House, could be a deal breaker in the negotiations that are happening down at the hotel.

I will switch my questions. I will redirect them to the Minister of Education, because I cannot get a serious answer from the Minister of Finance.

I want to ask the Minister of Education: Will he intervene with the Minister of Finance and the Premier to have those contract-stripping measures stopped so that they can get back to some serious negotiations and put the people like those in the gallery back at their work instead of out on the streets?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not think it would be appropriate, when we are in a negotiating process, to have any particular person intervene in a negotiated process. I think the appropriate thing to do is to try to reach an agreement on all items. There are several items presented and being discussed in proposals here of contention. We want to look at each of these, and every single one is important to the people affected. We want to negotiate a total package. We have to keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, a deal that is negotiated is fair, is of relevance to the time and to the fiscal situation and ability of our Province to negotiate a deal. In good financial times we would expect people to be able to have better opportunity to access a better deal, and when times are more difficult we would have an expectation to have a different type of deal. They are relevant to the time and to the fiscal situation of our Province, and we would follow that on behalf of the people of our Province in a fair, responsible and prudent matter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier. Given his comments here today, Mr. Speaker, am I to take it that the Premier has now changed his tone and is no longer trying to inflame the situation in the public sector strike? Is he prepared to commit here today to stop trying to undermine the leadership of the CUPE and NAPE locals who are trying to get an agreement with this government? Is he prepared to do that as well?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I have never tried to inflame the strike and these negotiations.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: I am trying to reach a settlement in these negotiations. The Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, are the people who are actually inflaming the entire situation. We are working towards a solution. We are trying our best to reach a compromised solution with the unions. We will continue to engage in a fair, collective bargaining process. We will put our comments in writing and we will allow the process to take its course.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: On a supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier said earlier that he took concessions off the table for current employees. If he actually took the concessions off the table, I would say there would be a deal today, Mr. Speaker. Will the Premier not realize and accept that the tactic of having a two-tiered system for current employees and future employees is in fact a divide and conquer tactic? Will he stop this divide and conquer tactic from his government in terms of these negotiations?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have very serious long-term fiscal problems in our Province; very, very serious ones. They have been described as structural; they have been described as systemic. We have to try and improve the fiscal situation in our Province for future generations, for our children and our grandchildren.

What we have said to the employees in the public sector is, we have said there will be no changes in the sick leave and we are asking that future employees who come into the system have reduced sick leave so that we can at least get some relief in the long term, to turn this Province around. That is the reason.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Absolutely.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If the Premier and his government are seriously trying to reach an agreement and a deal with the public sector workers, can he explain to the House why government officials in the Finance Department are actually being asked to calculate the savings to government if various sectors of the public service are in fact ordered back to work separately?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have been asked publicly on several occasions what kind of savings government would effect by keeping our public sector employees out. I have never asked that question. It is not something I want to know. It is not what we are trying to do here. We are not trying to save the money on the backs of these people being out on the picket lines. We do not want to have them out on the picket lines.

There has never, ever been a request to do those calculations on my behalf, and you can feel free to ask the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board because I am certain it has never been asked. We want those people back to work. We are not trying to make savings on their back, believe me.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, my question today is for the Minister of Transportation and Works and the Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, part of the problem in getting a solution to this bungled public sector strike is the anxiety about job security. It appears that the Easter bunny delivered a few surprises in last week's Budget. Can the Minister of Transportation and Works and Minister Responsible for Aboriginal Affairs tell this House if his department plans to close a dozen of highway depots across this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works and Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for his question. I was listening intently and I had difficulty understanding the question. Was the question: Are we planning to close down highway depots across the Province? If that is the question, the answer is no, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ANDERSEN: Mr. Speaker, for good reason public employees are aggravated and distrustful of this government. We receive dozens of phone calls each day; many of these employees have already received their layoffs. Again, I ask the minister: Are you planning to shut down any highway depots or departments across this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Transportation and Works and Aboriginal Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Again, I have to inform the hon. member, whether he likes to hear the answer or not, we are not planning to close down any highway depots across the Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Contract (inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: No, we are not planning to contract out either.

There are people who work in the Department of Transportation and Works. Many of them work on a seasonal basis. Some come on and work during winter maintenance. They will be laid off when winter maintenance is over. There are people who come on and work on summer maintenance, and when that is over in the latter part of the fall they normally get laid off. Those kinds of things happen on a regular basis, but in terms of closing down depots, no, Mr. Speaker, there is no plan for that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment and the Status of Women continues to stand by her word that the workload has been rectified in the district offices and that plans have not been made to finalize which offices will close. When does she anticipate being able to tell the workers who are currently on strike whether or not their offices will close, and will they have a job to return to?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, at this time I am continuing to review how we can modernize the Department of Human Resources, Labour and Employment. I can assure all of the workers who are on strike right now that they will be returning to work once this strike is over.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BUTLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I say to the hon. minister, do not fall into the same trap as the other members of her government and mislead the people of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, steps have been taken to make sure that certain offices are closed, and some of the regions in this Province know how many offices are going to close in that region. Workers on the picket line are devastated, Mr. Speaker.

Will she be honest and remove the concerns and uncertainties? Will she tell this House, will she tell her workers, will she tell the clients of this Province who look for assistance through her office, which offices are going to close?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to assure all recipients of income support that service delivery and efficiencies in that delivery service are paramount in any decisions that will be made in regard to this department.

Secondly, minimum impact to employees is also a very important value that will play a significant role as these decisions are being made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS BURKE: I would also like to let people know, and the hon. members know, that once decisions have been finalized they will be announced. I will not be making any announcements until the decisions have been made.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, the announcement in the Budget that the new health care facility in Grand Bank has been cancelled has left the people on the Burin Peninsula who use the clinic, which is an old cottage hospital, and the residents and employees of the Blue Crest Seniors Home feeling betrayed by this Premier.

Premier, I have to ask: During the election, did you promise that the new health care facility under construction in Grand Bank would be completed if you became Premier? Did you ever give that commitment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, when we conducted the election, when we participated in the election, we were moving forward on the basis of a certain set of facts and figures and our understanding of what the financial situation of this Province was.

MR. REID: You should have asked the Auditor General..

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: We know that over the course of the last two years the Opposition Critic for Finance was trying to find out what the situation was in this Province. We were not fully aware of the desperate, desperate fiscal situation that this Province was in -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: - until we took over government on November 6. At that particular point in time, we discovered that there was going to be $1 billion deficit. That was something we could not forecast, that was something that was unforeseen, and that is something that numerous people, experts around this country, have said is unsustainable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Time for one final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Grand Bank.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS FOOTE: Mr. Speaker, I assume from the Premier's answer that he did make such a commitment. He certainly didn't deny making the commitment.

He sat as the Leader of the Opposition for two years in this House and I don't know if a day went by that the Finance Critic didn't speak about the state of the Province's finances, and he sat right beside the Leader of the Opposition, and, of course, with the Auditor General as one of his star candidates as well.

I have to ask, Premier: Why didn't you qualify that commitment? When you are talking about a $17.5 million facility, why did you not qualify that commitment? The people feel betrayed. You had to know, if you were discussing it at all with the then Finance Critic, the state of the Province's finances. To suggest now you didn't know, I am afraid -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete her question.

MS FOOTE: I feel that the people on the Burin Peninsula feel misled by you. Did you misled them by not qualifying that commitment?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I can only wonder, at the time that the member made the commitment to the people in Grand Bank-Fortune, was she aware that she would be seeking the federal nomination this evening?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Question Period has expired.

AN HON. MEMBER: Here is the man with the (inaudible) attack.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I table the report of the Newfoundland and Labrador Liquor Corporation for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2003.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The House will recess until order can be restored.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

[Technical difficulties]

We certainly want to encourage members of the public to visit their House of Assembly. It is their House, and we want to welcome always visitors who come from the general population to come to this Chamber; however, we want to let them know that they are not to participate or to demonstrate in any way, nor show their approval or disapproval of any proceedings in the House. When these matters happen, the Chair has no choice but to suspend the proceedings and then to commence the proceedings when appropriate order has been restored.

We are now resuming our proceedings for the day.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise again today in the House of Assembly to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Cartwright-L'anse au Clair, my district, with regard to the Labrador marine service.

Mr. Speaker, this is four times since this House sat this session that I have risen to present petitions on behalf of the constituents of my district with regard to the marine service. We are awaiting a response from this government as to what the configuration of service will be for marine operations in Labrador this year.

Mr. Speaker, as I have said twice and maybe four times already in this House, this government commissioned a study by the Policy Division of Memorial University. They asked for recommendations on the most cost-effective way to operate the marine services in Labrador. The minister and the government have had this report since the middle of February, a preliminary report, and then, in addition to that, a subsequent report that came later. Mr. Speaker, I can only ask again for this government to make the appropriate decision, make the right decision, to operate the Sir Robert Bond, the Labrador ferry that is there for the people of Labrador, between Cartwright and Goose Bay and not out of the minister's own District of Lewisporte.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfathomable that in this day and age the people of Labrador would have to come on bent knee, once again, begging to the government to maintain a service that is rightfully theirs, that is rightfully used and operated for their benefit, but yet we still do not have the satisfaction of those kinds of decisions and we have to continue to fight and debate.

I ask the Premier to be true to his own word, his own word that he communicated to the people of my district on a conference call back in November when they were launching a protest to save the Sir Robert Bond and the service in Cartwright, where he told them that he would honour the recommendations of a report that he, himself, would commission; he, his government, would pay for. He told the people of my district, at that time, that he would honour those recommendations and that he would do what was in the best interests of their region and of all the people who were affected in Labrador, not in Lewisporte.

So, I want to ask this government to make a decision to release the document that they have in their possession, which should be a public document, because these marine services affect the people of Labrador. They do not have all the information. They do not know where this government is going with regard to this service, but what we do know, Mr. Speaker, is that this service is due to start in about six weeks. We are pleading. We are desperate. We need a decision.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

It being 3 o'clock on Wednesday afternoon, the Chair is now obliged to call Orders of the Day. I do believe that we now will call the motion put forward by the Member for Bellevue.

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today I rise in my place to, I guess, address a serious situation in this Province today. I have been in House now, it will soon be fifteen years, and I remember participating in a few debates in this hon. House. I remember first when I got elected, I guess, and we were in a very serious debate in terms of the Meech Lake debate and where we were going to go in this country and what was happening in this country.

A year or two ago, I participated in the Voisey's Bay debate, and today I would rank this resolution along with these particular resolutions.

The private member's motion that I put before this House today is a very serious resolution.

WHEREAS there are unfortunately 20,000 public service employees on a legal strike resulting in serious service disruptions; and

WHEREAS there was no consultation with their elected representatives as promised by the Premier in his address to the NAPE convention in September, 2001; and

WHEREAS there has been very little real negotiation between government as the employer and the union negotiators; and

WHEREAS the Premier has made threatening remarks regarding the strikers being punished and left off the job "until the cows come home"; and

WHEREAS the Premier has engaged personally in unfair labour practices by passing the elected leaders and the negotiators in attempting to divide and conquer the unions;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly call upon the government to return to meaningful negotiations with professional negotiators in an attempt to reach a mutually-agreed new contract; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the House of Assembly call upon the Premier to reinstate his commitment to respect the bargaining process and not to use the Legislature to impose an agreement.

Mr. Speaker, after a lot of reflection in terms of where this government is going, and the kind of agenda that this government has, I have been thinking a lot lately in terms of where we are headed in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I guess, on reflection, we go back to November 6. I did not say it at that particular time; I remember saying some other things at that particular time, and I was hoping that it was not true and I had hoped that I was being wrong because when this present Premier put his Cabinet together on November 6, there was one glaring omission in his Cabinet.

When he put his Cabinet together - we can talk about regional representation, we can talk about gender representation and all the other issues that a Premier has to consider when he puts a Cabinet together, but the one obvious omission in this particular government was that there was not a department and a Minister of Labour for this Province. I think that gives us some indication where this particular government was going.

For a while this particular government decided that they would put labour into the Department of Environment, and then they changed their minds after two or three months and they said: Well, now we are going to split the department. We are going to put one section of the department with Human Resources and Employment and we are going to put another section of the department, the occupational health and safety part of the department - I was so proud to be a minister and stand at a conference in Ontario last year when a person got up and said: Why doesn't the rest of this country be as good as Newfoundland and Labrador and lead the country in terms of occupational health and safety regulations? I was proud to be a Newfoundlander and Labradorian, to know that we were getting credit on the national scene for something else: our commitment to the workers in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. When we saw the Cabinet put together this time around, there was no ministry of labour, no Department of Labour. What they have done is set up an agency.

Do you know something? Wherever I went when I was the Minister of Labour, people told me that in Newfoundland and Labrador we had some of the best labour relations people who existed anywhere in North America and existed anywhere in the world. As a matter of fact, over the years, some of our top people have settled many, many work stoppages in the private industry in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. Do you want happened when this government took over? They even got rid of some of them.

On the radio the other day, I heard that some of the private businesses in this Province have their negotiations on hold because they do not have enough conciliation officers. I think that is drastic in terms of where we are going in this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Then, the next big thing, I sat there on January 5, in shock, listening to the address by the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador to the public within the Province. Without any consultation with anybody in his caucus, the people who were elected by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, without any consultation, I am sure, with anybody within the labour relations aspect of Newfoundland, he went on national, or provincial television, in a George Bush type style, and said: We are going to freeze the wages of the public servants in Newfoundland and Labrador. That was the start of the labour relations and negotiations getting off track within this Province.

Right from the beginning, the Premier - not only that, but he did it in a very George Bush type style. At the end of his speech, he said, as the President of the United States says: God guard thee Newfoundland - and, as an afterthought, he said: Labrador.

We all know what this Premier thinks of Labrador and the people in terms of Labrador. We have seen what is happening. We see the hon. member here - but that is an issue for another day. That is an issue for another day, and I will be very proud to take part in the debate when we discuss what is happening in Labrador as a part of this Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Hon. members, I fear very much that we are going back with this government to the fish merchant mentality of Newfoundland and Labrador. Union people and workers in this Province have had a great struggle over their lifetime to get respect, to get benefits, to get the things that they richly deserve.

I remember as a young boy growing up on Woody Island, and the fight that the fishermen had in terms of trying to get a good day's pay for their efforts. I remember when fishermen would get up at 4:00 or 5:00 a.m., before motorized vehicles, and row out to the fishing grounds and haul the nets and trawls, and work like slaves, and come in and cure the fish. I guess one of the things we say is that men of Newfoundland and Labrador - and I say that the women of Newfoundland and Labrador probably worked twice as hard as the men in terms of curing the fish. A quintal of fish was 110 pounds dried. At the end of the fishing season the fish merchant decided that they would give them a paltry sum of money, and not enough to pay the bills.

If we want to go further, most of the working lot of people who grew up and worked in the community that I lived in, worked in the lumber woods and were loggers. We all know hon. members, and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the fight that our loggers had. I remember talking - and living on Woody Island, they would go away and be gone for three or four months and come back. They were living in conditions in the lumber woods that was not fit for a dog. It was not fit for an animal! They had to take on the battle and they had to take on the fight. My father was one of these. He died a very young man of TB because of the conditions in the lumber woods of sleeping on the boughs, and the only thing they had was beans.

I think today we are facing a serious situation in this country and in this Province; not only in this Province but in this country.

Recently, in terms of my research, I found out that the top 5 per cent of the people employed or working within our society, the top 5 per cent of the people in the top echelon of the corporate ladder, the presidents, the vice-presidents and all of these people; over the last ten years these people, the people who made $1 million, $5 million or $10 million a year - hon. members, do you know what they are making? Mr. Speaker, do you know what they are making after ten years? These people in the higher echelon, the 5 per cent in the top echelon, do you know what they are making today? Three times as much! If they were making $1 million ten years ago, do you know what they are making today? They are making $3 million.

It goes even further as we come a little bit down the top echelon of the corporate ladder. This is all searched; this is all actual research and actual.

MR. REID: Factual.

MR. BARRETT: Factual.

The next 15 per cent down on the level, the next 15 per cent of the worker of the employees, and presidents and all these people at the higher echelon. Well, their income in the last ten years has gone up two times. If they were making $500,000, or if they were making $200,000 - because that is what the people were talking about. They are the ones we are talking about. Do you know how much their income went up in the last ten years? Two times. If they were making $200,000 a year, they are making $400,000 a year.

Do you want to know the people at the next level, the ordinary working person in this country and in this Province? Do you know where they are in terms of their economics? They have not kept pace with inflation in the last ten years. I think we are in a social deficit here instead of a fiscal deficit, Mr. Speaker.

How are we going to distribute the economic pie in our society? I think that is the question and debate we should be asking ourselves today because there is no fairness in our system. We cannot even have a Department of Labour within our government to represent these people who have not kept up with inflation. It is nice to know now that at least the officials within the Department of Labour are involved in the negotiations, but I was wondering where they have been all along. I have asked questions in this House of the hon. Minister Responsible for Labour and got no responses.

The other day, to give you a perfect example, I was leaving town. I went to a Petro Canada station and filled up my car, and the young fella who filled up the car - a nice young fella, very courteous, very friendly, a real good worker, a very conscientious individual, a tribute to any company - cleaned the windshield, checked my oil, and did all the other things. Do you know how much that young fellow was making? He was making $6 a hour.

I was driving out over the Trans-Canada and I think I was passing along by Roaches Line and the news came on the radio. There was a report that Petro Canada had done the best it has ever done in years. Its profits were up tremendously. They had done great, hundreds of millions of dollars, Petro Canada made, and there was an interview with the president of the company.

MR. SPEAKER (Fitzgerald): Order, please!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

MR. BARRETT: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that they were very, very happy that they had increased the president's salary and this year he is going to make $3 million. Mr. Speaker, tell me we do not have a social deficit in our Province and in our country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The resolution today is calling upon two things, "...that the House of Assembly call upon the government to return to meaningful negotiations with professional negotiators in an attempt to reach a mutually-agreed new contract."

Secondly it is asking, "...that the House of Assembly call upon the Premier to restate his commitment to respect the bargaining process and not to use the legislature to impose an agreement."

They are the two basic things the resolution is addressing today and I want to say, with reference to the first part, that we are in the process of meaningful negotiations with the union leaders. I want to say it throughout the whole process, and at the conclusion on midnight, or after 10 o'clock, before the deadline that night, Mr. Puddister thanked us for the professional manner in which negotiations occurred. I must say also the same about him, Mr. Lucas and the other four people who were sat at the table with us for about three hours Saturday afternoon and at length - or on Wednesday afternoon, and at length on Wednesday night, that they conducted themselves in a very professional manner, a very respectful manner. Across the table there was not an angry word, shouting or anything of that nature. We respect that, and respect people's opinions and their view to represent their membership. It is their right. I would not expect any better than people to put forward the best possible case they have for their members. If I were in there position, Mr. Speaker, I would do exactly the same thing.

The negotiations were in a very positive and a very meaningful tone. Unfortunately, we did not reach a collective agreement. The reason we did not reach a collective agreement is because, obviously, our positions did not merge on all points. We started with a very lengthy process, a very lengthy process in which you have numerous bargaining units, close to twenty, I think, seventeen overall that met, to my knowledge, out of the whole process. I think there were eleven NAPE and other bargaining units, the majority being NAPE. We went through a whole process of trying to come at least to some fundamental agreement within the respective units. It moved beyond that on the last day and got down to some of the bigger issues.

They presented to us and we responded, back and forth. The process sometimes - I am not blaming anybody for that process. Sometimes, I guess, people have gone through a long process, there is a lot of fatigue, they are working hard, early mornings, late nights. Sometimes things get said that might be misinterpreted and might be said out in the public that were not what happened. I understand that.

We have a responsibility, too, to make sure that we understand things are presented that way - and the union leaders have. I do not take any offence on that particular thing. We want to reach, for this Province, what is considered a reasonable collective agreement. Collective agreements have to be reached in light of our ability to pay, our ability to prioritize and provide basic essential service to the Province. We live in difficult financial times.

I said in this House, and everywhere, and alluded to it today, that we have a serious fiscal situation. The question to the Premier today - that I was aware of the fiscal situation. I am on record as saying that I believe the $666 million they budgeted last year was not realistic, it was more in the three-quarters of a million dollar range, $750 million.

What I found very difficult, Mr. Speaker, was when I looked at the financial situation and saw that over the next four years we are going to be at $989 million, over $1 billion, $1.1 billion and almost $1.2 billion debt. This year closed out, March 31 this year - the Public Accounts will show this fall, the Auditor General will release his report by December, or January at the latest - at a $969 million deficit, and the Budget was $666. That is an horrendous figure. That is $293 million more debt on our Province than we were budgeted or informed when the Budget came down.

I have said $750 million. On the path we were on, we would be $1.2 billion more in debt in one year, incurred in four years' time. From what I said we were, $750 million, that is $450 million more debt at the end of the next four years, in one given year. That is what it would be. That is equivalent to over a 20 per cent increase. If you look at a wage and put it in perspective, that is equivalent to having a 20 per cent increase. If we were that much lower and maintained the same debt, it would be equivalent to 20 per cent. That is a horrendous figure. It is a horrendous figure.

There are a lot of things being said out there, but apart from all that is said, and the rhetoric and whatever goes on in public, we are sincerely committed to dealing with the issue, and nobody out there, whatever they say, is going to deter me from the objectivity in reaching a proper deal, representing the people of this Province. It does not worry me what people say about me. I am going to focus on the issue at hand, and that is representing the people with what I consider to be a fair and a responsible deal, maintaining the fiscal integrity of our Province in the process. If we do not do that, Mr. Speaker, if we do not do that in three or four or five years' time we will pay a huge price. Our system will collapse if we do not take corrective action now. The very people that the Leader of the Opposition referred to, the person with Moody's - Mr. Hawkman - indicated that we are not in bankruptcy. He said the action the government took in this Budget is responsible action that will get us on the path, if we stick to it, where we need to get. That is basically what he said, and we want to do the responsible thing. We do not want, in the future, a massive change in public services because we would not take corrective action. A stitch in time saves nine still has relevance today when we look at dealing with any particular problem. It is important.

Another part of this that was asked was the collective agreement. Are we going to legislate people back, not legislate them back? I was asked a question in the House this week, are we going to legislate, are you planning it? I said no, it has never been discussed. We have not looked at it. Have you prepared legislation? I said, no. The minister was asked today, the Minister of Health and Community Services. She said no, we have not talked about it. We have not discussed it. We have not asked anyone to prepare anything. I do not know what people are talking about. Do they want us to do it or do they not? The resolution says, do not do it. Well, there are times when the Premier of our Province, our leader, has to take responsible action, whatever that is and whatever the circumstance.

I will refer to some comments that were made back in the public service strike on April 4, 2001, when the current Leader of the Opposition was Premier. I respect his statement that he made at the time; I think it was responsible. He said: Every one of them understands that at some point if the health and safety of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians is jeopardized, that at some point we might need them back, we might have to legislate, but we are not contemplating it today. That is a logical, responsible statement that he made when he was Premier of the Province.

It is a lot easier to oppose than to govern, and I have said it in Opposition. It is easy to be in Opposition. The Premier will have to make, and the Cabinet will have to make, a responsible statement on behalf of the Province. We are not discussing it, we are not contemplating it, and I hope it never comes to deal with that. The media asked me at a news conference, one in the past - I hold one every day to update them on things, just about every day except Sunday past - and I have indicated it has not been in our plans. We are not even entertaining it.

The former Premier said, in another response: Premier Roger Grimes said he will consider using legislation to get some striking workers back to their jobs if the health care systems show signs they cannot cope.

The Member for Cartwright-L'anse au Clair asked the Health Minister today - she is saying the system is out there and they are not getting service. Are they asking us to legislate them back because they are not getting service? And a resolution follows it, right on its heels, do not legislate back.

Where are we on the particular issue, Mr. Speaker? I am confused, but what this government does will be responsible on behalf of the people we represent, and we take that responsibility very, very seriously.

We have a deficit that is out of control. Just to give an example: Under our proposal that we laid out in our Budget, in 2007-2008, our deficit will get down, just come below what it was in 2002 if we follow the path we are on. In other words, six years later we will get our deficit down to where it was six years previous. We are fighting to get it down so we can preserve the integrity of services that are out there today.

We have $840 million projected in this particular Budget as a deficit. Just on a cash basis, the cash component alone, $362 million. Never before in our history did we budget any more than one hundred on a current account basis, and it is over two hundred on a current account, not counting our total capital cost. Never in our history did we end up with - I should say end up with, not budget - more than about $100 million on current account. We have an astronomical number, more than double, in our history than we ever projected. We have a very, very serious fiscal situation and the times dictate what you can do.

We would love to be in a position where we could settle with the highest increases, provide all kinds of basic services. Nobody takes pleasure in doing things that the public do not want. That does not give us any pleasure; it does not give me any pleasure. I am going to do what is responsible, while I am here. While labour unrest is occurring and there are people out on strike, I would like to thank the public for their support in dealing with this under stressful times in trying to access public services.

People are prevented from getting certain services they take for granted, whether it is a renewal of a registration or whatever the case may be. There are things that cause some hardships to the public. We understand that, and we do not expect during this to have - essential services are in place for the health and safety and security of people. That is why essential service agreements are put in place, and it is an obligation on government to act and to protect those basic, vital services that everybody should have: health, safety and security. They are the most fundamental services that we can provide to anybody in our Province.

The people who are working lengthy hours, difficult conditions, the managers, even the non-bargaining people who are not managers in the system, and even the bargaining unit people who are there under the essential services agreements, are working today with it, and working co-operatively I might add. There have been little minor glitches and things that develop, and there has been fair co-operation overall from the union in dealing with those glitches. I hear of them every day. I deal with numerous ones of these, as they come to my attention. I do not personally deal with them. There are staff who deal with them and they carry on relationships to deal with it.

We have a responsibility. We are going to act in the best interest of the people of our Province. We are going to act responsibly during this strike and hopefully get a resolution to it. When it is over - and strikes all end - we have to go on with the job of government, to give responsible government, efficient government, and we are going to bring out efficiencies in government so we can maintain services that are out there. If we do not pull back the inefficiencies in government, we are robbing the people of a future use of those services because of that. We are going to do that because it is the right thing to do. We want to protect people out on the lines, on the front lines of our Province. Our goal is to give the best possibe service with the least management system in between to deliver that service effectively. That should be the goal of any government.

A government's job is not to create jobs; it is to give services and to employ people to give those services. We respect people who have jobs in the public service, and we are going to be as accommodating as we possibility can in dealing with any fallout from people who may be displaced from the workplace.

We were up front and we gave numbers to people. We listed numbers in the Budget that we hoped to achieve. I notified union leaders on Saturday before the Budget, called them in and explained to them how many workers were involved. I said: 400 people bargaining, 300 non-bargaining people, 700, and there is a process through attrition of over 600 over that period, and we hope people will be accommodated.

We have worked with the Public Service Commission to put back some integrity into that process, that we are going to look at a matching process to be able to deal with this effectively. There are responsibilities we have. We are concerned about workers. We are concerned about any body losing a job. The question today - we are concerned about the impact it has on business, on the economy, on taxes, on revenue, on access to services.

We are all human. Every single one of us are human and understand what the basic necessities of life are, and what you do on an ongoing basis. We are going to do what is responsible. I am not going to support a resolution that ties the hands of government to act responsibly. It is not the prudent thing to do. The former Premier and the Leader of the Opposition did not consider it the prudent thing to do, and I respect that and I stand and say he was correct in doing that. He had to do what he had to do when he was in the position our Premier is in today and that is what has to occur. I am not going to say that "...return to..." because we have returned to meaningful negotiations. It said to "...professional negotiators...". We have excellent negotiators. The chief negotiator who represents us - of course, as President of Treasury Board, I guess, if you want to take it literally. I am the chief negotiator. When I refer to chief negotiator, it is the head of the team that I have out there on our behalf to deal with people there. We are doing that professionally. I haven't heard any complaints from anybody about these individuals who are there dealing professionally. I haven't had any complaints back from anybody about the negotiators who are sat at the table with NAPE or CUPE, or any of the people at the bargaining table. It is done in a respectful manner. It will continue that way, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: - and we will continue to do what is right for the people of our Province.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased today to stand in this House and support my colleague, the Member for Bellevue, on the resolution that has been read into the Order Paper today.

As other speakers have said, we are in the midst of a very serious strike on our hands. You know, I was thinking of a saying that I have lived with all of my life. It was a saying that I think I grew up with, and that was: The truth will always set you free. The truth will always set you free, but I would say that the truth has been the greatest casualty of the new government. The truth has been the greatest casualty of the new government.

I am proud to stand here today and say that I was the first minister in ten years to be the Minister of a Department of Labour. The last minister to be a Minister of the Department of Labour is currently now the Leader of the Opposition. I must congratulate him, when he was our Premier of the former Administration he had foresight enough to give credence to how important a Department of Labour would be. It was under his Administration that a new Department of Labour came into being, and I was appointed the first Minister of the Department of Labour in 2001. I had that privilege then of working with business, government and labour. We rose that relationship to a whole new level while I was part of that Administration, and my colleague, the Member for Bellevue, who spoke just then a few minutes ago.

We realize that in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, when we are trying to attract big projects to our Province and, indeed, look after the projects that we have and the business that we have in this Province, that we need a better relationship between business, government and labour. It is easy to see, Mr. Speaker, that when you have a good relationship, a good foundation of business, government and labour, we are all singing out of the song book and the end results should be for the good of all.

What are we seeing here with this new government? I think if you look back, the seeds of mistrust were sown. The seeds of mistrust were sown a few months back. I think they have multiplied by the day. That is the reason why we are in the position we are in today, facing down one of the biggest strikes in our history.

The Finance Minister got on his feet a few moments ago and talked about the meeting he had with union leaders prior to the Budget the Saturday before. It is too bad that he and his Premier did not have a meeting with the union leaders before January 5, because that is when the seeds of mistrust were sown. There was no consultation at that point, none whatsoever. You could almost bring it back to November when he wanted to get an external audit of the Province's books. That audit turned out to be a phoney, bogus report done by a political person, Michael Gourley, who had ties to the political party in Ontario. One of the Terms of Reference was that the background was supposed to be checked on the person doing the report. I guess it was checked because they got the right person. They got a political connection, a Tory from Ontario who was kicked out of Ernie Eves' government with a settlement of $1 million.

That bogus report painted the picture of the Province way worse than it is. They took the figures from the Department of Finance and Treasury Board and added on an unnecessary amount of $220 million, and they added on employee benefits that will not be paid out for years to come in the future. They ended up with a ballooned deficit just so they could come across with the agenda we are hearing today. That agenda, I can tell you, is not a pretty one. That is what we are hearing today and that was what caused the mistrust they are now hearing from unions and workers across this Province.

When the Finance Minister started out on January 5, in his news conference, he had Michael Gourley sit to the news conference table with him. They lashed out and talked about the situation in the Province. They fabricated the report. They did everything but say that they did not know what was going on until they got to be the government. Here the Minister of Finance sits next to the Auditor General. He had all that input and he had every piece of information that was there. So that is nothing but rubbish, the highest kind.

The Premier got on television January 5 in his State of the Union Address to the Province. He blurted out that there was going to be a wage freeze without ever calling in the union heads and giving them any kind of heads up on what was going to happen. Ask for their input: What could we do in this situation? No sir, he was going to come out and be the hero, the businessman, the expert. I am going to chop wages and I am going to freeze wages. That was his plan. No cooperation, just confrontation. That is all he wanted. No cooperation.

Well, do you know something? That snowballed. That got out of control, because the next group he picked on were the poor seniors, the pensioners when he wanted to clawback the indexing they got in the last contract of $5 a month. Those seniors were retired then on a wage freeze. They had been around for ten years under Clyde Wells' wage freeze, and they retired on a wage freeze. It was seven years before they even got that little 1 per cent of indexing and the new Premier of our Province wanted to claw that back at $5 a month, but he could not do it. He could not do it because there was too much public pressure which brought him to his knees and he had to haul in his horns and say he was going to take it off the table. That is what he did.

Now, why is there any reason to trust this government? He came out with a wage freeze that unions and workers knew nothing about. First he said there was going to be a wage freeze but he did not say how long the wage freeze was going to last. Then he got caught red-handed. He walked into a crowd and said: Oh, by the way, that wage freeze is on for two years. Yes sir, two years, that will do it. Then he got caught again, because then he came across in his election propaganda when he said: There will be no layoffs in the public service. We will not reduce the public service by 25 per cent, contrary to allegations by our political opponents. Now, what happened there? What happened with that Blue Book promise? By golly, we just learned that there are going to be 4,000 layoffs. But, do you know something? Four thousand layoffs is not that bad because do you know why? The Premier said they are not going to be massive layoffs. Now, that is the cute legal language that the Premier uses. There is not going to be massive layoffs. See, that is the difference in layoffs and massive layoffs.

After that, the Finance Minister was running around and saying that they are really busy and so on. They will not have their Budget until May. No Budget until May. I thought that was unusual, no Budget until May. But, do you know what? There was a series of intimidation tactics that came prior to the strike. The RNC got their money for riot equipment, and they did their parade in front of a television camera. That was intimidation. Now, on the eve of a strike, the Finance Minister brought down his Budget, another form of intimidation, because he said he was going to wait until May. That is what the Finance Minister said he was going to do, and he deliberately painted the picture - he had the Government House Leader here in the House of Assembly running around like someone with their head cut off - they had to get that legislation passed by the end of March. He had to get the legislation passed by the end of March for the students, the Student Loan Assistance Act. That is what he had to do. All of a sudden, when the Budget was coming down, he ran in and said: No, scratch that date. I have to get it done by the twenty-ninth, and he was under considerable pressure because the Budget contained a ballooned deficit that would include those phony figures from the Student Loan Act.

Yesterday, I had a young woman call me wanting to make a payment on her student loan. Do you think she could make a payment on her student loan at the bank? No, siree. He was bursting all barrels trying to get that legislation passed by the end of the month because it was going to be a wonderful thing for students. Do you know what? There was no benefit, no difference, for students. They still had to pay their loan, but what is unfortunate about it today, he made this legislation go through unnecessarily so he could pad the books, increase the deficit, and now students are out there today - this is April 7 - and they cannot even go to a chartered bank and make their loan payment because there is absolutely nothing in place for students to go out and make their loan payments.

So there has been a series, one after the other, of innuendo, intimidation and mistrust from start to finish, and if the people opposite are having trouble getting a settlement, I would ask them to review what happened over the past two or three months.

What kind of a message is that sending to the nurses who are out there? Nurses are out there, and their contract is going to be up in June. Teachers are out there, and their contract is going to be up in August. Now, is this the kind of relationship the new government are going to have with the other members of our public sector? I can tell you that they have definitely started out on the wrong foot. What kind of trust, what kind of relationship, can any member of the public service have with this government? I do not think there is any trust there, and they have to do a lot of things in the next few months to improve their image, I can tell you.

The Finance Minister stands in his place and talks about the deficit and, do you know something? He conveniently picks the numbers, because he talks about cash deficits in his Budget and today he hops on his feet and talks about accrual deficits that he can never pay off until the cows come home. That is about the size of it. So, he conveniently picks his figures.

I can tell you one thing: Based on the Budget they have here this time, they have absolutely no confidence in growing the economy. They have done everything they could do to put a wet blanket over it and forget about it, because they haven't had anything in this Budget that gives any reason that they are going to grow the economy.

I can tell you another thing: Moody's do not give out A ratings needlessly and recklessly. Moody's do not do that. I was proud to be part of a government that had the highest credit rating of any other government in the history of this Province, and we did not get there by reckless spending. We did not get there by reckless spending. We got there by doing all the right things, and we got the best credit rating in our history. We had the most people working, we had a buoyant economy, and we had eliminated out-migration.

What have we seen from this government? Doom and gloom and a feeling of mistrust. We witnessed that in our public galleries today when the people of this Province came into the public House and they could not take it any longer - the mistrust, the deceit and the maneuvering and the legalese in order to avoid giving a straight answer and letting the people know what is really happening.

What we are asking for in this House today is that the people who are now elected to be the government of this Province, the people who are elected to be the government of this Province, do what they are supposed to be, be elected. If they got a majority vote on October 21, let them do what they are supposed to do, and that means going back to the bargaining table and acting responsibly and acting like they should act. All we have seen in the past two or three weeks, prior to the strike and even now, has been nothing but name-calling and pushing the blame on somebody else. The Finance Minister conveniently hides all the time behind the so-called deficit. What he neglects to tell to the people of this Province, there was another report done. There was another report done and it was done by Mr. Hugh Mackenzie, and it was a very reputable report. It said in that report that the statements that were made by PricewaterhouseCoopers says that neither the public spending nor the public sector employees compensation can legitimately be said to have caused the Province's current fiscal situation. It says: Newfoundland and Labrador does, indeed, face a fiscal problem although by no means as significant as that forecast in the PWC report.

What this new government has done, it has painted the gloomiest picture of all for the people of this Province without any thought to what it is doing to people. They have come out with half statements. They have given notice of hospital integration. They have given notice of consolidation of school boards, closures of HRE offices, and they have not -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that her time - unlike yesterday, she is on limited time and it has now expired.

MS THISTLE: By leave, just a moment or two? Am I finished?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

MS THISTLE: No by leave?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave granted.

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know the members opposite don't want to hear what I am saying because the truth hurts. I would say to you, get at the job at hand and get a settlement for the people who are out there on strike today and do the job that you were elected to do.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Education.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I, too, Mr. Speaker, would like to participate, for a few minutes, on this important subject matter. We are obviously dealing with an issue presently before the people of the Province. It is a very serious issue and one that is not exclusive to members opposite in this Chamber as an issue of concern and a matter of great importance. I say, Mr. Speaker, that members on both sides of this hon. House share, and jointly share, in the genuine concern and well-being of the issue that is now confronting the population of Newfoundland and Labrador.

As one government member, and I feel I can say this on behalf of all members, in fact, Mr. Speaker, I feel I can say this on behalf of all Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, that we hope that the collective bargaining process is not only successful but is successful in very short order. When that is arrived at and when we have a resolution to this ongoing dispute, Mr. Speaker, when this dispute is concluded and when we can say that the collective bargaining process has been successful and when there is a resolution to all outstanding issues, at that time we can all, in our Province, say that all the people of Newfoundland and Labrador are winners.

Obviously, a resolution, an agreement, by its very nature, implies that the parties to the dispute have come to realize that an agreement was appropriate at that particular time. Government will have been satisfied. Our union leaders and the membership of our unions that are presently on strike will be able to say, Mr. Speaker, that there is agreement and satisfaction and accord once a dispute is resolved. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, ultimately the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, all of the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador, can share in and can join in the fact that the resolution is at hand and, therefore, they too can celebrate that this outstanding dispute is once and for all concluded.

Mr. Speaker, that is what we are all striving for. It is not exclusive to members opposite. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House, all of us in this hon. Chamber, want to reach a mutually agreed upon contract and resolution to a dispute that right now is difficult. It is difficult on all parties. There are no winners, as we speak, Mr. Speaker. All the people of the Province, as represented by all forty-eight members in the House of Assembly, want to see an expeditious conclusion and resolution to this outstanding dispute.

Mr. Speaker, let's hope that as this process is ongoing today, and let's hope as the union has submitted its offer today and a counter-offer is being returned to the union leadership, let's hope that process will be successful, or at least will be a part of the road to success in hopefully, what we can all say in this Province, will be a timely and successful resolution to this outstanding issue.

Mr. Speaker, obviously in the Department of Education, the department that I represent, we are monitoring very closely what is happening within our education system. I can say, Mr. Speaker, and I can say this with some pride, that the parties who are involved on a day-to-day basis in the maintaining and the operations of our schools are cooperating with one another to ensure that the disruptions - and the disruptions in our K to 12 systems are minimal.

I want to recognize the good work of our school boards. I want to recognize the good work of the governing body, the Newfoundland and Labrador School Boards' Association. I want to recognize, Mr. Speaker, the good work - and at times - the intervention of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers' Association. I want to recognize officials in my own department who are in contact with these very individuals on a day-to-day basis to monitor what is taking place in our school system, to ensure, Mr. Speaker, that disruptions are minimal, to ensure that delays are minimal and to ensure that the security and the safety of our students - whether they are five or six, in Kindergarten or Grade 1, or seventeen or eighteen in Level II or Level III, to ensure that their safety and that security is intact.

Ultimately, Mr. Speaker, it appears to me that despite a difficult situation that we now face in the Province, despite that, despite that reality, the agencies, the departments, the individuals, the essential employees, the board representatives, all parties are working towards attempting to protect the security and safety of our students. I congratulate all parties in that regard, Mr. Speaker, because our schools, as we speak today - and this is now the beginning of what, the second week -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Pretty soon, the beginning of the second week of this work disruption. I can say that our schools are open. Yes, we have had some minimal delays, Mr. Speaker. Yes, we have had some difficulties - very minimally - where a school bus may have had some difficulty in parking a bus, for example, on a school parking lot. There has been that sort of minimal disruption. But, I can say that our schools are open and that is a tribute to all parties who are prepared to work within, what we can only describe as, a difficult work environment at the present time.

At the post- secondary level, Mr. Speaker, all campuses of the College of the North Atlantic are open. Again, there have been some minor disruptions. Again, Mr. Speaker, from time to time we have heard certain circumstances where there have been delays and where there may have been some minimal difficulty in crossing a picket line but our colleges are open, our campuses are open and the post-secondary system continues to operate on what can only be described as a close to normal day-to-day work environment.

Mr. Speaker, that I believe is a tribute to those in our communities throughout Newfoundland and Labrador who, despite the difficult circumstances in which we now find ourselves in on a day-to-day basis, despite that reality, there is an ultimate willingness by parties in the educational milieu to ensure that there is protection for our students, there is security for our students and the day-to-day educational experiences continues, whether it is at the Kindergarten to Level III level or the post-secondary level throughout the Province.

I feel it is important, Mr. Speaker, that that information be shared with the people of the Province. I admit and acknowledge there are some delays. There are some inconveniences but that, unfortunately, has to be anticipated and expected. Let's hope, Mr. Speaker - because really I want to get back to my beginning comment. Let's hope, Mr. Speaker, that through a genuine attempt by all parties who are participating in the collective bargaining process, let's hope that this uncertainty on a day-to-day basis will end very quickly. Let's hope that through genuine efforts by parties on both sides, we can see an expeditious resolution to this difficult situation because when that happens, Mr. Speaker, it is not only the unions and their membership and government who will be able to say with a degree of satisfaction that the matter is resolved, but ultimately, Mr. Speaker, it is every single resident of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for whom our public servants serve. I think it is fair to say and equal to say, Mr. Speaker, for whom our government serves.

Ultimately, when the parties to this dispute can enter into an arrangement that is agreed upon and therefore binding, ultimately the potential winners are the residents of Newfoundland and Labrador. That is what we are striving towards, Mr. Speaker, and that is what we are seeking. We certainly hope that through the good efforts of all individuals who are clearly genuine and well-meaning and well-intentioned to have an expeditious resolution, hopefully the people of this Province can say, in very short order, that it has concluded and, to put it simply, Mr. Speaker, lets get on with our lives.

Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to rise today and take part in the debate that is on the motion, moved by the Member for Bellevue, which addresses a very serious situation, Mr. Speaker, and a very serious issue.

The mover of the motion talked about the importance of a Department of Labour. I want to remind the minister, that as Minister of Labour it is the only minister in this government that working people have to ensure that their rights are protected. Lots of other organizations in this Province have a multitude of ministers responsible for areas that they deal with, but for working people in this Province, the Minister of Labour is their sole representative in this Cabinet.

The Member for Bellevue in this opening remarks, Mr. Speaker, raised some good points. One of the things that he raised, he talked about a social deficit. Well, that is quite true, because there is a total social deficit, not only in this Province, but in this country as well. He quoted some figures about corporations and CEOs. Another figure that I can put forward is that more an 90 per cent of the wealth in this country today, and for the longest time, has been controlled and is controlled by less than 10 per cent of the people. A very inequitable distribution of wealth that leads to situations like we have today, because that wealth is created on the backs of working people and by inadequate policies of governments throughout the years. That wealth, Mr. Speaker, in this Province, in our own particular case, is a lack of our ability to get what we deserve and what we should be getting from our natural resources, in terms of our offshore oil, in terms of Voisey's Bay, in terms of other developments, like Churchill Falls, and other natural resource developments that we have which we are not getting the benefit from. But there are many people in New York, in Las Angeles, in London who are getting the benefit, and that is not right and that has led to a large part of the problem that we experience in this Province and in this country today.

There was some reference to George Bush, when we talk about today's labour relations situation we have here and how it sort of intertwines with that. Well, Mr. Speaker, we can look at Ronald Regan and his response to the air traffic controllers' strike, when he fired 25,000 air traffic controllers in one shot.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance, when he was talking on this resolution, talked about the deficit of the Province and the hard financial position that we find ourselves in here today. I want to remind the Minister of Finance that the financial crunch that he was referring to has already been met at the negotiating table. Union members in this Province, public sector workers in this Province have agreed to give up two years without any wage increase so that this government can put the plans into action that they promised during the last provincial election, and that should be adequate time to get their financial house in order, so that people of the Province can benefit. If they had faith, if they had any conviction in what they were saying, then that two-year period should have been satisfactory.

This strike is about much more than that, Mr. Speaker. It is about much more than finances, as we have seen in recent days. We have 20,000 public service employees on strike and every single aspect of our life is affected by that. There is hardly one thing that a person can mention that has not been affected by this strike, and today's episode, the outburst that we have seen in the gallery today, is a sign of things to come if this strike does not end soon.

Today is the turning point, in my opinion, in this strike. Today, members who are on the picket line are taking a different look at what they are facing in trying to deal with this government and, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, things will not be nice in the days and weeks to come if a resolve is not met soon.

Talking about strikes, Mr. Speaker, it is a subject that I know a little about because I have been through a number of strikes myself, anywhere from a two-hour period to a four-month period. I have been on probably more strikes - not probably - I have been on more strikes than anybody else in this House of Assembly. There is no question about that, unless they worked in Labrador during the 1970s and 1980s.

I can tell you, Madam Speaker, that when workers are on strike for a prolong period, feelings get heated, particularly when they are being forced into a strike that they did not want in the first place. This all started on January 5, when the Premier of the Province clearly fired a shot across the bow of the union. That was when things started to do downhill.

Last week, the things that we saw happen on the picket line with the Premier of the Province and the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board going directly to the workers is a direct contravention of the labour laws of this Province. It is not something that is acceptable and it certainly does not lead to the resolution of a dispute. As a matter of fact, it entrenches people in their positions because that is not the right thing to do and it is not what should be done by any Premier or any minister of this government. Now the Premier's remarks themselves, too, are not doing anything to quell the situation.

People in Labrador, people in Burgeo, people in Corner Brook, Grand Falls, Marystown, all across this Province, were threatened by an extended strike by the Premier if certain things happened to family members of his caucus, whether or not they had anything to do with it. That is not appropriate action by this government either.

The two-tier benefit that is proposed by government is an old method used by companies for many, many years to divide and conquer the membership, but it is a losing battle. It is a losing battle because union members today are educated enough; they know what the repercussions of that lead to in the future and they are not about to go down that road from which there is no return.

Madam Speaker, this resolution today talks about and calls upon government not to introduce back-to-work legislation. Madam Speaker, I say to this government that they can do what they like. They have the numbers, they have the majority in this House, and they can do pretty much as they please, but one thing they cannot do, one thing they cannot do, is they cannot legislate good will. They cannot legislate co-operation. They cannot legislate peace and harmony in the work place and, most importantly, they cannot legislate away the bitter feelings that are created when you have employees on the picket line who want to be at work but are being for forced to stay on the streets.

None of these things can they legislate, Madam Speaker, and I think that government would be wise to pay close attention to that, because eventually, one way or the other, this strike will be over, people will be returning to work, and this government will then need the co-operation and good will of all the employees who are returning. For them to do that, legislation will not be conducive to having that happen.

Madam Speaker, people involved in this dispute have been caught up in recent weeks, in the recent week that the strike has taken place, and there has been some confusion, and that confusion has been fuelled and played on by the government, but I believe that the vast majority of union members in this Province trust the people they have elected to represent them at the negotiating table.

This is not about personalities, or it should not be. We have heard the names of Leo Puddister with NAPE, and with CUPE, Wayne Lucas, but let us not forget that this is not between Wayne Lucas, Leo Puddister and government negotiators. At the hotel here in this city they have seventy to eighty to ninety negotiators representing people from all around this Province, and that is who they are putting their trust in. That is who they have elected to represent them. They did not elect the Premier or the Minister of Finance or anyone else to represent them in this negotiation, and the people they elected will do right by them. They have always done right, and there is no reason to suspect that they will not this time.

Madam Speaker, I would say to government to very carefully weigh their options. I would encourage them to bring a resolve to this dispute, because in the end, while the workers may lose temporarily, the government is going to be the big loser in the long run. If they can do anything, today or tomorrow, prior to this Easter weekend, they should put all their efforts and resources into bringing an end to this dispute, but not by way of legislation, Madam Speaker. That won't work, that will not create any situation that will be conducive to or improve the work environment within the offices of government, within the schools around the Province, the school boards, the health care facilities or anywhere else. They have to use their imaginations, they have to be creative and they have to find a way to end this dispute. The responsibility for the most part, Madam Speaker, is entirely on the shoulders of this government.

Madam Speaker, I will conclude my remarks by saying this: I am empathizing with them, I am talking to people on the picket lines each and every day. They want to return to work. What they are looking for from this government, Madam Speaker, is to be able to do that in a way that adds dignity and respect to them as workers, to their collective agreements, to their unions as institutions and most of all to their families.

With that, Madam Speaker, I will conclude my remarks and caution the government that, if they decide, if they choose, to use this Legislature to get their own way in this strike, they will pay a heavy price for it in the weeks and months to come.

Thank you.

MR. HARRIS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Again, I have no intention of prolonging the debate, other than to spend a few minutes with respect to the Private Member's Motion that calls upon the government to do a couple of things: One being to return to meaningful negotiations in an attempt to reach a mutually agreed upon new contract.

I do understand, and I did listen intently to the presentation and comments made by the Minister of Finance and the President of Treasury Board, that they feel that is what they are doing now. Unfortunately, a little late, a week into a strike, when it probably should have been done a couple of months ago when there was no sign of it. In any event, I would take it that means he is saying, on behalf of government, they plan to vote for that particular part of the resolution because they are already doing it. It wouldn't make a lot of sense to me, in terms of following the logic, that if you are saying that you are already doing that, as the government, therefore you would vote against it. I can't imagine why the government would not support the first part of the resolution, that we would return to meaningful negotiations.

I do believe that the record of the House of Assembly, Hansard, would show, Madam Speaker, that the President of Treasury Board, the chief negotiator, has said they feel they are doing that. Therefore, I expect that when the vote is called within the next hour, that we would see the government standing to support that part of the resolution. The second part of it might be a little different, and we will find out when the vote is held.

It is on that basis, Madam Speaker, that I would like to talk a little bit, for a few minutes, about the history of it. The problem that we have that leaves us in a circumstance today with 20,000 public employees forced into the streets against their will - nobody wants to be out there, make that clear. I think every one of them has said that they would rather not be on strike but they feel they were left with no choice. The problem dates back to some issues that we have addressed here in the House over the last couple of weeks. One being first and foremost the Premier's address and speech to the NAPE convention when he was Leader of the Opposition, where he talked about mutual respect and integrity for the bargaining process, the promise to consult. If he ever came across a circumstance that was other than what he thought, he would consult with the unions if it involved them so that they could work out a meaningful resolution together.

That was the tone and tenor of the speech that they took at face value and said: This is a good man. This is a man we can trust. As a matter of fact, this is a man that we will likely vote for - and the record shows that they did, including their president, who voted for him because they believed him. They believed what he said. He said it with such sincerity that they did believe him.

Following that, there was an issue as well that came up during the election, in the Blue Book, in the platform, talking about reducing the size of the public service through attrition, that there might be an opportunity to reduce the public service by up to 25 per cent. Madam Speaker, the leader of the party then, who was the Opposition Leader, the Premier today, did not highlight that in any of their documents - it was in there - but when we discovered it, as the government, and when the NDP discovered it, we raised concerns to the people of the Province suggesting that you had better be careful because this group is saying in their platform that if they get elected they see an opportunity to actually downsize the public service, and that the opportunity is as big as 25 per cent, because 25 per cent of the people might be going to retire, are going to retire, in the next few years, and that would leave an opportunity.

We suggested that, and in response to it the now Premier took out full-page ads. We said it would be attrition or by layoff. The ads were put out. Then they were focused, because he wanted people not to talk about the possibility of job loss. He wanted to talk about setting the record straight, growing job opportunities and growing the economy, to the point, Madam Speaker, that there was an actual - these ads appeared all over Newfoundland and Labrador saying: If we form the government, there will be no layoffs in the public service.

Madam Speaker, people believed that because now that it was profiled in the election they received a mandate. Today he is trying to say: We received a mandate. We told people we were going to downsize the public service. What they did when it was profiled, Madam Speaker, was to say: We promise no layoffs.

They have seen him wiggle since then about - oh, no, I said no massive layoffs. Well, I guess maybe the printer made a mistake because the word massive is not in here. It says, no layoffs - period.

So what you have, Madam Speaker, is this: You have a circumstance where these people who trusted and believed the then Leader of the Opposition, the now Premier, took him at face value on these issues and then what did they find? On January 5 - he was answering questions in the Legislature today saying - he admitted that he had made commitments that he is now not honouring. He admitted it today.

With respect to the circumstance of the hospital in Grand Bank, he reverted to his real self and showed that, if anybody dared say anything, he attacks the person, because, when asked a serious question about: Did you make the commitment in Grand Bank - which he absolutely did, and he admitted that he did - he said: Well, back then I did not know the extent of the finances. I did not know the problem.

When he was asked: Did you just forget to qualify it and say, well, what I really meant to say was that we will build the hospital if we have the money - because he forgot to say that, just like he forgot to put the word massive in the ads. There is the problem with the circumstance, Madam Speaker.

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member that he may hold notes in his hands but he may not use papers or any other exhibit with his remarks.

Thank you.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

The circumstance today was, when asked a serious question: Well, did you just forget to add the words? Did you just forget to qualify the statement and say, well, we promise to build the facility unless I find out we do not have the money? None of that second part was in it. When asked that question - now he goes on the attack - he says: Oh, did the member know when she was running that she was going to be thinking about running federally today? What does that have to do with anything? It shows the nature of the beast that is causing the problem, Madam Speaker.

Anyone who dares say anything in Opposition to the Premier of the Province today can rest assured that they will be personally attacked by him. We saw it in this Legislature today, and that is what is causing the biggest problem in the negotiations, because the second part of it is another commitment that he made which has been reaffirmed in this Legislature by the Government House Leader, the Minister of Natural Resources. It says: Will the House now ask the government to call upon the Premier to restate his commitment to respect the bargaining process and to not use the Legislature to impose an agreement? Because that is what he said. That is what they believed he meant. Last week, he said: Well, I will use the Legislature if I have to. I do not want to.

That is not what he said to NAPE either. He did not go down to the NAPE convention and say: I will only use the Legislature if I have to. So, I do not expect they will vote for that one today because they will probably use the Premier's excuse that: Well, the circumstance is different than I thought.

There is no reason not to vote for the first one, but I think they will vote against the second one for sure and break another commitment. We are seeing a consistent pattern. It is just a matter of breaking the commitment and finding an excuse, finding a hook to hang your hat on so you can try to explain to people why you did not really mean what you said to them when you wanted them to vote for you.

Madam Speaker, there are circumstances today where we talk about mutual respect and integrity. Instead of that, you have a Premier out telling people they can stay out until the cows come home. You can see him talking about the President of the Federation of Labour for Newfoundland and Labrador, who is out there trying to be helpful. He happens to disagree with the Premier, but he is trying to be helpful and the Premier is on television saying, he is two-faced, because he is saying we should get together and try to fix this. He has been around labour negotiations for thirty-five years. He has fixed a few things. He is trying to be helpful, to suggest how it is fixed, but because he is also saying, I do not agree with the Premier, the Premier says, you are two-faced.

You are not allowed, you see, to say you do not agree with the Premier. So, where is the mutual respect and the integrity that will be in bargaining that was promised in the same NAPE convention? It is not there. It has never been there. That is what the people are seeing and finding out. What happened instead? Because someone said something that they disagreed with, the Premier, unfortunately, gets angry and lashes out at them. He has been talking about personal attacks himself. The kind of language he has been using in the Province has not been uttered by a Premier since Confederation - the kind of language that he has been using as a Premier. The man who decries and bemoans the personal attack is the master at it. The mutual respect for the leaders - what does he do with the leaders? He goes out to the picket line and tries to bypass them and go right to the members. Let me ask the question: What does he plan to do if he goes to a leader like Paul Martin and does not get the answer that he wants? Who is he going to bypass then? Is he going to say Paul Martin does not speak for the people? That is what he is trying to say now. He did not get the answer he wanted from the union leaders so he said they do not speak for the members. Is that what he is going to say to everybody?

If he does not get the answer that he wants, if he does not get someone to agree exactly with him then there is something wrong with the other person. There is something wrong with the Leader of the NDP he said today. He said the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, the Leader of the NDP, is a part of the problem. He said the Leader of the Opposition, the Member for Exploits, which happens to be me, is a part of the problem. The President of the Federation of Labour is a part of the problem. The President of NAPE is a part of the problem. The President of CUPE is a part of the problem. He went outside the Legislature today in a scrum. They were asking those questions and they said: Why are you blaming those guys? He said: Well, they are part of the problem just like you people, because you keep asking the wrong questions. Now the media is part of the problem too. Everybody is part of the problem except the Premier who promised mutual respect and integrity in the bargaining process. Maybe he should look in the mirror and acknowledge that the blame game which he plays can be shared, I say to the Member for Mount Pearl. It can be shared.

I have taken my fair blame for lots of things in life, everything I have been a part of, because everything I have done is not perfect. I can guarantee you, there is nobody in Newfoundland and Labrador who thinks what is happening today is perfect. I can guarantee you that! The blame can be shared by a whole lot of people, by a bunch of yes people on the other side who do not ever stand up to the Premier and the caucus; afraid to say anything. Kowtowing to the four-legged man who said they can stay out until the cows come home. That is what we have. Their own members are asking him to stand up and speak for us.

Today, Madam Speaker, I am not here to inflame things. I offered to stop talking about this. As a matter of fact, let me say this, we had the other motions on the Order Paper for a very deliberate purpose and the purpose was this - unlike the government, which had no motions on the paper last week and had to get permission to put one there because they went about it wrong, but we agreed with them and facilitated them. We had three motions on the Order Paper today and if the Premier had wanted to be diplomatic, if he had wanted to be a statesman, if he had wanted to solve this and let the negotiators do their job, we would never have called this motion. We would now be talking about ferry rates. That was our plan for today, I will have you know. What I expect is this - I do not know why, I thought I heard the Minister of Finance, when he spoke, saying they are going to vote against it.

Now, I could understand them voting against the second part, which I expect them to do, and then that will show they are going to break another commitment and they have an excuse for it. I call it an excuse. They will say it is a good reason. That is just debate. That is my point of view; their point of view. I see no reason not to vote for the first part because the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board got up and said: That is what we are doing. His logic was: We are doing that, so we are voting against it. I went to university and did logic 101, and 202 and 303 and 404, and the logic of saying: We are doing that, so I am going to ask the members to vote against it. Now, it does not make a lot of sense to me, but I guess that is the way that government operates. Madam Speaker, that is the way they seem to operate.

I will not prolong it, other than say I think that the motion is clear. They have said that the first part reflects what they are doing. I expect them to vote for it. I am sure they are looking for an excuse, I will call it - they will say that it is good reason not to vote for the second part because things have changed. I look forward to the vote, and I hope that the rest of the debate will provide opportunities for people to give their points of view, just as I have had the privilege to do in the last few minutes.

Thank you, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MADAM SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that I am certainly pleased to hear him say that he is not trying to inflame the situation here this afternoon.

Before I get into the bulk of my commentary, I just want for the public to understand the process. He has just talked about all of the logic courses that he did at university. While I appreciate that, I have to question what sort of results he got from those courses. Simply because of this, Madam Speaker, he knows that when a private member's resolution is put before the House we do not vote - again, I say to the Member for Twillingate & Fogo, every time I am on my feet - I listen intently to every member, I listened for twelve minutes to the Leader of the Opposition without interruption, every time I stand up in this Legislature you start to heckle and scream. I am going to ask you again: Leave me with my time. I will not interrupt you. I do not interrupt anybody else, and I expect the same courtesy from you, if that's okay?

Madam Speaker, with respect to the Leader of the Opposition, he knows that in this House we do not - when it comes to a private member's resolution we do not pick the first WHEREAS and say: Okay, we are going to vote on that. And then the second WHEREAS, and then vote on that, and then the third WHEREAS and vote on that separately. This is not a government bill. It is not a bill before the Legislature. It is not in committee state where you vote clause by clause and make amendments. We either accept the spirit and intention of what is in the private member's motion or we do not. If we do not, we have the opportunity to amend it or just vote against it.

I spent ten years in the Opposition, and they were ten good years. I appreciate the role that members opposite play, must play, and have to play in order for our system to work. I would like to think that over those ten years that the role I played, and members who served with me in the Opposition at the time, that the function we played on many debates - whether it be on Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro; whether it was on Sunday shopping issues; whether it was on dealing with collective bargaining issues; whether it was dealing with privatization of provincial parks, which members opposite agreed with; whether it was on the privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador computer services, which members opposite put forward and agreed with. We provided an alternate point of view, and outside of the personalities in the Legislature, the people of the Province ultimately need and must have that alternate point of view. But there are things that bother me in the Legislature and having been here for some time - it is interesting when you can recall points in time over the last ten years, where members, all of us, must stand to be accountable for the things that we said. If there is some change in our view of the world, or some change in how we must deal with things, then I guess it is ultimately on us to explain why.

Today, the issue in this Province is, unfortunately, that there are 20,000 public servants who are on the street. Does anybody truly believe that members in this House want 20,000 people out on the street? Do people honestly believe that as a member who was elected in the District of Kilbride, or any other district, we have some malicious intention, as a government, that we sat around in a backroom somewhere unannounced and unaccountable and laugh at the fact that 20,000 people are on the street? Are members seriously suggesting that is what we are about?

A question was asked in Question Period today: you have been doing calculations on how much you are going to save while people are out there. Leaving the inference that for some reason we want everyone out there so we can save a buck. I mean, come on! If people really believe in this House, or are making those assertions, then it speaks more about the individuals who are making those assertions than it does about us.

Members opposite: For example, earlier today the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans stood in her place as the Critic for Treasury Board and Finance Critic and proceeded with, we don't want to listen to her, we don't want to hear the truth, and talked about how we are potentially going to treat nurses in the upcoming collective bargaining.

Let me remind the member - and I will read her own words back to her. On March 30, 1999, I was sitting where the Opposition House Leader is sitting. Actually, no, I was Leader of the Opposition at that time. Here is what the then President of Treasury Board said in this House on March 30, 1999. How she forgets or would like people to forget.

"Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of great urgency to the people of our Province. Government has been informed by the Newfoundland and Labrador Health and Community Services Association - the health care professionals who manage our hospitals, nursing homes and provide community nursing - that unless nurses return to work as soon as possible, the health care system will not be able to adequately care for patients and the public. They have formerly requested "...that government take the necessary steps to ensure that nurses have ceased their work stoppage and return to the workplace as soon as possible."

I won't quote all of it. I will go on to quote some other things.

"Government has been seeking to negotiate intensively with the nurses' union - as we have been with our public sector unions right now - since March 16. We have had the assistance of a conciliator - which we have right now - but we were not able to meet face to face with nurses' union representatives since last Wednesday morning. The nurses' union has been unwilling to move on compensation issues." This is where it really gets interesting. "On Sunday evening, the nurses' union demanded 14 per cent; that is double the 7 per cent being given to all other public employees. When we said we could not agree, the nurses' union withdrew from conciliation."

"Later on Sunday evening, the nurses' union indicated publicly that they want the 7 per cent increase, plus a $2 per hour premium equivalent to a further 10 per cent. In other words, the nurses' union said that they want a 17 per cent increase." That would mean in the vicinity, I think it says somewhere here, of $170 million.

Now, there would be much more credibility if the member had stood up and said, I remember when we had to do that as a government, that we had no choice, that we went as far as we could, that we were being accountable as a government, which we are trying to be with the public sector's finances, as you, I suppose, as members opposite when they were here also tried to be. I would hope you did.

The fact of the matter is this: While you have a role to play and I appreciate it, and while I may not agree with it, I will defend your right to play it no matter where I am in this Province, but I will say this to you: that neither are we prepared to stand and listen to a member's private member's motion which is aimed directly at the intentions of hon. members on this side that somehow we are, amongst ourselves as a group, as a government, behind closed doors planning and prodding to keep 20,000 people on the street, because that is not the truth. Our intention today, when asked about legislation - and you were asked it, I say to the critic for Finance and President of Treasury Board: Where are the plans for legislating people back to work? The Member for Cartwright- L'anse au Clair asked that today, and we can answer honestly and boldfaced to everybody that we have not even talked about it because our interest and pursuit to this day, to this minute, is to try to achieve a collective agreement with our public sector unions.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. E. BYRNE: Like you, when you were in government, if it ever comes to a point in time where public safety is compromised, then we will have to deal with that kettle of fish when we come to it, but not until then. Every effort and every stone will be unturned and overturned, like we are today in responding to a proposal that was given to us, as a government, responding back in writing, through the assistance and the help of a conciliator, for one objective only: to reach a collective agreement. That is what our intentions are.

No, it may not be what everybody wants. No, it may not be what we want, as a government. We will try our best to reach it, but we are not going to sell the heritage or inheritance of sons and daughters like mine - a ten-year-old and a seven-year-old - and other children in the Province as the cost of doing it. That is that balance. That is the balance that we have been faced with. That is the equation that has been presented to us. So, this is where we are at this point in time. This is where we wanted to be, I guess, and people in the Province have provided us the opportunity to be here on their behalf.

We are not going to do things for the sake of being politically popular. I know that there were people in the gallery today who are friends of mine, who are probably - definitely; I should not say probably - definitely at odds with me as being the House Leader and a member of the Cabinet and a member of the government; but, in all honesty, I will say this to anybody who is willing to listen or is willing to hear: As a group of people who have been charged with the responsibility of governing the Province, we are doing the best that we can, looking at the balance that we can provide today and trying to ultimately protect what we pass on to the next generation, my children and everyone else's children, that it is not the situation that we have found ourselves in today, because we have to be equally responsible from that point of view.

We will not be supporting the member's resolution today. W will not be voting for the member's resolution today. I will not even attempt, and we will not even attempt, to amend it, because the spirit and intent of a resolution speaks for itself. It draws, from your point of view, to suggest mine, but it draws attention to facts that, as you see them but we do not necessarily see them that way.

So, when you clue up this evening's debate on this private member's resolution, I suspect what happens many times here, for the most part - there have been rare occasions - that you will vote for it and we will not. The fact of the matter is this: I appreciate the opportunity that you have provided as a private member in this House today in dealing with this very important and timely issue, this critical issue. I appreciate having the opportunity to represent people in the Legislature to debate the importance of public issues like this, but I will not ever stand in my place and be accused, or members who are with me, when I know the difference of the people I am serving with, and I believe it to be true of everybody, to stand in here and listen to people indicate that for some reason we want people out on the street, that we do not want them to work, that we are busy with our calculators calculating how much we are going to save and should we keep them out there for another week? Those inferences are wrong. They are not right, and they will not stand unchecked or unaccounted for because it is not true.

Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

I am pleased to join in the debate on the private member's motion raised by the Member for Bellevue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MADAM SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: I did not really intend to speak to this motion. My colleague from Labrador West did an excellent job in talking about the issues and concerns that we have about the fact that we have 20,000 people on the streets in a very serious strike, members of the public sector who take very seriously their right to strike and the fact that they have to exercise that right in order to keep it. If they do not, Madam Speaker, if all they do is listen to the Budget and do what the government wants, they may as well not have a union at all. They may as well not have collective bargaining. They may as well not exercise their democratic right to withdraw their labour and their services to enforce their collective bargaining rights. They have chosen to do that.

The situation we have in the Province today, Madam Speaker, comes from the actions of the Premier starting January 5, saying, without consultation not only with the people of the Province but no consultation with the public sector workers, and we are told - we were not there, of course - no consultation with the full Cabinet, no consultation with the caucus, and essentially dictating from his position as Premier of the Province that there will be a two-year wage freeze.

I assumed, Madam Speaker, that when negotiations finally started, in terms of the big issues, on the last day, closing in on the deadline, that when the union leadership walked in and said to the Premier and to the Minister of Finance: Here, we are prepared to give you a two-year wage freeze - then they had certain other conditions and expectations - that this was a done deal, that there had been an acceptance of the Province's position that they needed a couple of years to get their program to work, to generate the prosperity, to raise the revenues, to turn around, in their view - this is what they campaigned on - the Province, that there would be room for a settlement based on the prosperity, the revenue and the good work that this government and its party offered the people and the people accepted, including many members of the union and indeed the President of NAPE, accepted by voting for the Premier and his government.

Unfortunately, that did not happen. There was no deal. There was no agreement. Unfortunately, what happened after that was extremely, extremely negative. I am not going to give a big, long elaborate speech today; I actually only have a few minutes. I am not going to use the fifteen minutes that is normally allotted for Private Member's Day because we are approaching the time when the member who brought forth the resolution has an opportunity to clue up and give his concluding remarks.

I do want to say that I hope the approach and the attitude that was displayed by the leadership of the government, by the Premier outside this House for the last number of days and by the President of Treasury Board yesterday in this House making comments, which he honorably took back today - that really only served to make things worse, to suggest that there was something going on, on the union side, other than the leadership of that union taking the mandate that they had from their members, working with their bargaining team of seventy or eighty delegates who are all members of various units who are a part of the provincial public sector, who are involved in these negotiations, taking their direction from that group, and involved in good faith negotiations on their behalf. What appalled me, Mr. Speaker was, the way these negotiations were going, the way the whole scenario was going, it seemed to me the only motivation I could discern for this type of behaviour is that there was no desire on the part of government to settle this strike; no desire.

I made that comment publicly because I believed it to be true based on my observations of the public statements made by the Premier and by the President of Treasury Board and also the public statements made by Wayne Lucas as Leader of CUPE, and Leo Puddister as President of NAPE. It seemed very clear to me that the leadership of the unions wanted a deal, but it seemed clear to me that this government did not want a deal.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know who is given direction inside the public service or public sector, but I do know that calculations are being made as to the savings to be gained depending on how long the strike goes on and what sectors would be on strike, and that to me is something that deserves to be raised in this House of Assembly.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that public opinion has actually bounced back to this government, because I think the public out there want to see an end to this strike. They do not want to see the things that the school board workers were on strike for, for eight or ten weeks a couple of years ago, being ripped away from them based on a resolution that was done after that in the Warren Report. They do not want to see divisions created within the public sector that are going to undermine collective bargaining in the future, that are still on the table. They want to see that this government is prepared to sit down with its public sector workers and come to a reasonable deal on issues such as wages, with reasonable compromises being made on the issues with respect to language or other outstanding matters.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this government will, in fact, be flexible, compromise, come to a reasonable conclusion, negotiate a deal, because I believe -

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

Under Standing Order 63(6), at 4:45 p.m. the member who introduced the motion has the right to close the debate, and the Chair would have to now recognize that member, unless there is some leave granted by the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: Leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave I do believe has been granted.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Member for Bellevue and I had discussed this earlier and he has kindly consented to granting me a couple of minutes of his time to conclude my brief remarks.

I do say, Mr. Speaker, that I do hope the tone has changed. There seemed to be a small change of tone today, and I acknowledge that. The tone of the House was different today than it was yesterday. It may well be that this government is prepared to extend the kind of flexibility and compromise and leadership that is required to get a good deal for the people of this Province and a good deal for the public sector workers.

I said this this morning on Open Line, Mr. Speaker, and I will say it here again today: I know the Premier for a very long period of time and I know him to be a very, very good negotiator. So I do know that if this government wants to reach an agreement and a deal, it can be done. I urge them to use everything at their disposal and every bit of flexibility, compromise, ability and resources that they can muster to ensure that we do not have a prolonged public sector strike, and that whatever has been done to fan the flames in the past can be put aside to come up with a solution that is in the best interests of the public sector workers and the people of this Province.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I conclude my remarks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank all of the members who participated in the debate.

It has been a long tradition in this House, and other parliamentary jurisdictions, that in our parliaments there is a day set aside for Private Members' Resolutions in terms of being able to present an area of public policy so that ordinary members, or private members, in this House of Assembly can debate and to vote on. It is has been a long standing tradition of parliamentary procedures that in Private Members' Resolutions that we normally include in them a lot of whereases in terms of the resolution itself.

The hon. Government House Leader is well aware that in our legislative framework and the way that our democracy works, only the Cabinet, I guess, will have to abide by the government policies as set out and that private members have the authority and ability to be able to speak their mind and vote the way they want to vote in the Legislature.

For new members in the House of Assembly, I want to point out something that is very, very clear. What we are voting on here today is not the whereas statements in this particular resolution. When you stand to vote today, to the new members in the House of Assembly, ignore the WHEREASes in this resolution, because we are voting on a resolution and the resolution here is, "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly call upon the government to return to meaningful negotiations with professional negotiators in an attempt to reach a mutually-agreed new contract; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the House of Assembly call upon the Premier to restate his commitment to respect the bargaining process and not to use the legislature to impose an agreement."

Those are the two resolutions that we are voting on here today. Each individual member sitting in their seat in this House of Assembly, who was elected by the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, has to make a decision whether they are going to vote for these particular resolutions.

AN HON. MEMBER: And you are not bound by party lines (inaudible).

MR. BARRETT: And you are not bound by party lines in terms of how you have to vote. It is an individual decision.

AN HON. MEMBER: It is Private Members' Day.

MR. BARRETT: Private Members' Day is what it says. It is Private Members' Day, and what we have here is a resolution proposed by a private member and it is up to you, as individuals, how you will stand or how you will vote for this particular resolution.

In my earlier comments, I indicated that I have some -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Bellevue.

MR. BARRETT: My time is up?

MR. SPEAKER: No. In calling order, the Chair was having difficulty hearing the hon. member. I thank members for their co-operation. You time is not up yet, for another nine minutes.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your protection.

There are some times, in terms of hon. members, that they do kick up a bit of a racket in this House of Assembly, but I have been here for fifteen years so I have gotten sort of used to it.

In my earlier comments I said, I think what we need to look at, and I saw the way that this government was going, I have great concerns about the direction in which the government is going in terms of the rights of the workers in this Province, in terms of the workers in terms of being able to negotiate, being able to get a fair collective agreement. I indicated earlier that, over the last ten years, the people in bargaining units and people who are the ordinary working force within this country have not kept up with inflation.

The other evening I was at home and I was looking at television, looking at the news, and I got the shock of my life when I looked on television and saw the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, the person in this Province that people put their confidence in for leadership and to take a great role in running the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador. When I saw him, out on the picket line, negotiating with the workers on the picket line, I said: We have reached the bottom in terms of labour relations and negotiations in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: Never in the history of a democracy - never in the history of a democracy - has the Premier or a Prime Minister of a democracy left his office, his perch on the eighth floor of the Confederation Building, and gone out on the picket lines to negotiate with the workers.

The protocol in terms of collective bargaining and labour laws in this country, this country we call Canada, this great country we call a democracy, where every person in this country has rights and privileges, our laws are very, very specific in terms of labour and negotiations. The protocol is, Mr. Speaker, that you elect your executives, you elect your leaders, you elect your negotiating teams, and they represent you. What did we have last week? We had the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador out bargaining and negotiating with the workers on the picket line.

AN HON. MEMBER: The new approach.

MR. BARRETT: The new approach, yes, the new approach that we have.

I was in a restaurant last week, and I did get some hope about what is happening in this Province. There were two business people sitting at a table, in their discussion in terms of what is happening in Newfoundland and Labrador. These two individuals, in terms of their commitment to Newfoundland and Labrador, said, with shock: I was watching television and I saw the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador going out on the picket line and negotiating with the workers. Do you know what they said? We voted for that man. I voted for that man, and I wish I had not, because something is happening here in Newfoundland and Labrador, Mr. Speaker. We have something happening in terms of the rights of workers in the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador. The right to be able to be comfortable, peaceful, and negotiate a fair-working agreement. And we have the Premier on the picket line negotiating.

Hon. members, I plea with you today - you private members on the other side, I plea with you today to stand up for the people who elected you to the House of Assembly and say: We cannot put up with that kind of nonsense happening to the working people of Newfoundland and Labrador and stand in your place today and vote for this particular resolution.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Is the House now ready for the question?

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

All those in favour of the motion please say ‘aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Contra-minded say ‘nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay

MR. SPEAKER: The motion is defeated.

Division has been called. Call in the members.

MR. SPEAKER: By agreement, we can now proceed with the Division.

Those in favour of the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Grimes, Mr. Parsons, Mr. Butler, Mr. Barrett, Mr. Langdon, Ms Jones, Ms Thistle, Mr. Reid, Mr. Andersen, Mr. Sweeney, Mr. Joyce, Mr. Harris, Mr. Collins.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against the motion, please rise.

CLERK: Mr. Williams, Mr. Edward Byrne, Mr. Ottenheimer, Ms Dunderdale, Mr. Rideout, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Tom Marshall, Mr. Jack Byrne, Ms Elizabeth Marshall, Mr. Shelley, Mr. Fitzgerald, Ms Sheila Osborne, Mr. French, Ms Burke, Ms Whalen, Mr. Hedderson, Mr. Hickey, Mr. Denine, Mr. Manning, Mr. Harding, Mr. Young, Mr. Hunter, Mr. Jackman, Ms Johnson, Mr. Jim Hodder, Ms Goudie, Mr. Skinner, Mr. O'Brien, Mr. Ridgley.

CLERK: Mr. Speaker, 13 ayes , 29 nays.

MR. SPEAKER: I declare the motion lost.

It being Wednesday the House stands adjourned until Thursday, tomorrow, April 8 at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, April 8 at 1:30 p.m.