The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Hodder): Order, please!

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair has two statements today, the hon. Member for Bonavista South and the hon. Member for Labrador West.

The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to again offer my congratulations to Michael Ryder, a native of Bonavista in the great District of Bonavista South.

Mr. Speaker, when the National Hockey League announced the three finalists for each of its major awards last week, Michael Ryder was named as a finalist for the Calder Trophy, an award given to the leagues top rookie of the year.

Michael is a forward with the Montreal Canadiens who finished the season with twenty-five goals and thirty-eight assists in eighty-one games, putting him in first place overall, Mr. Speaker, in rookie scoring.

Michael played in an integral role in the Canadiens success this season and continues to do so in the playoffs. In fact, he scored his first playoff goal last night. Even amidst the excitement, Mr. Speaker, Michael's focus remains on helping his team advance.

Mr. Speaker, it is a tremendous accomplishment to become a player in the NHL and to be nominated as a top Rookie of the Year in this league is an honour beyond compare. I ask all members of the Legislature to join me today in offering congratulations to Michael Ryder.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, April 28, is National Day of Mourning. A day when we remember all workers who have been killed, injured, or died or became disabled by disease from exposure to hazzards in the workplace. This afternoon, Mr. Speaker, in my district, there will be a ceremony held at 4:30 p.m. at the Union Centre in Labrador City.

Throughout our history, workers were considered dispensable with little or no regard for their health or their lives. This becomes quite evident, Mr. Speaker, when we consider the following facts: Throughout the life of the mines on Bell Island, 104 workers were killed; mines in Labrador West had more than twenty deaths; Buchans had their tragedies, and untold numbers of deaths, Mr. Speaker, occurred from disease in Baie Verte and St. Lawrence, in particular.

We have also seen disasters in our fishing industry, the loss of the Ocean Ranger and many other places where workers went to earn a living for their families but ended up dying instead.

Behind all of this, Mr. Speaker, are countless numbers of people left behind whose lives will never be the same again.

In 1978 the longest strike in Canadian history took place in Baie Verte on the sole issue of health and safety, four months long. I am sure the current Member for Lewisporte will remember that.

Health and safety was not something that was bestowed on workers. It was not given to them by any employer or government, workers fought for it and they paid a huge price, many times with their lives and their health and left their families in destitution and defenseless.

It is a appropriate, Mr. Speaker, that we have a day set aside each year to remember all workers who have been killed, injured, or suffer from illnesses and disease caused by the workplace.

I am pleased to say, Mr. Speaker, that we have some of the best health and safety legislation in this country. But, Mr. Speaker, if I recall correctly, we were the first to have the right to refuse unsafe work in this Province. That came about, Mr. Speaker, as a result of three deaths in Labrador West in a period of nine days.

Mr. Speaker, education is a key in this process and it is only due through the co-operation of workers, governments and employers and continuing education programs that we will be able to eliminate accidents and industrial disease in the workplace.

Earlier today, myself and the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi and the Member for Bellevue attended the ceremony here in St. John's at the CLB Armoury. Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I rise today to speak on this because of the price that was paid but I certainly hope that all members will observe this day.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Other member's statements.

The hon. the Member for Grand Falls-Buchans.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS THISTLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize Mr. Wade Thompson, a valued public service worker and member of the Grand Falls-Windsor Volunteer Fire Department, who has been named Atlantic Firefighter of the Year by the Muscular Dystrophy Association of Canada.

Wade's involvement with Muscular Dystrophy has spanned many years and his commitment to promoting this worthy cause has been outstanding.

He has been the driving force behind many fund-raising events and has recruited schools and businesses in the central area to become involved. He has heightened the profile of the Muscular Dystrophy Association of Canada in our area and has significantly increased fire department participation.

Wade has recently been appointed to the prestigious position of Fire Fighter Advisor in our area, for the Muscular Dystrophy Association of Canada, and his acceptance and determination in this role has provided the Muscular Dystrophy Association with a valuable team player in the Central Newfoundland area. His efforts have no doubt heightened the awareness of this disease, and his hard work and dedication over the years have raised substantial funds to help find a cure for this disease.

Mr. Speaker, I ask all members of this House to join me in congratulating Mr. Wade Thompson on being recognized for his dedication to Muscular Dystrophy and wish him well, in his nomination for the National Muscular Dystrophy Association - Firefighter of the Year.

Thank you.

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, as my hon. colleagues are aware, today, April 28, is designated as a National Day of Mourning for workers killed or injured on the job. I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to recognize the victims of workplace accidents and remember their sacrifice.

In 1984, the Canadian Labour of Congress officially designated a day every year in observance of people killed or hurt at work. April 28 was chosen because this was the day that third reading took place for the first comprehensive Workers' Compensation Act in Canada back in 1914.

Since 1984, the labour movement in our Province and across the country has made great strides in raising awareness of the importance of safety on the job. Mr. Speaker, the numbers speak for themselves and reflect the need to draw attention to this issue. It is estimated there are about one million workplace injuries a year in Canada. Deaths from workplace injuries average nearly 1,000 a year. Through the work of the CLC and other members of the labour movement, provincial and federal governments now officially recognize the Day of Mourning. Their work has led to improvements in health and safety standards at many work sites, resulting in a decrease in new injuries and incident rates. However, we must continue to build on the improvements that have been made.

According to the CLC, the aim of the Day of Mourning is to remember the commitment to fight for the living and, as well, mourn the dead. Mr. Speaker, I ask that my hon. colleagues join me in a moment of silence to observe this very significant day for the labour movement.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The regular routine would be that other members from the Official Opposition, the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi, get an opportunity to response to the member's statement. I am wondering if you would like to do that before we move to the moment of silence, if that is agreeable to all members of the House.

Responding to the member's statement, the hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all, I would like to thank the minister for her statement and, as well, thank my colleague, the Member for Bellevue, for the opportunity to respond today. The member attended - and he did not think he was going to be back in time - a wreath-laying ceremony at the National Day of Mourning at the CLB Armoury.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the labour movement in our Province and our country are making great strides in the workplace to promote safety, but as we speak today we find that there are still people being injured or killed, so it evermore important that we, as a government and as a society, continue to strive to make the workplace a better and safer place for all our workers.

The reason I am standing today is that I would like to take this opportunity to mention my brother-in-law - I make special mention of him - the late Jim Mercer, who was accidently killed a few years ago at a refinery explosion. From that, I can fully understand and relate to others the devastating effect that such an incident - and other incidents, I am sure, that are happening throughout our country - can have on one's family and on society as a whole.

I join with the minister, on behalf of the Official Opposition here, to fully support this day, in observing this moment of silence.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a National Day of Mourning, but it has also been recognized by this Province and by this House since 1992 on the basis of a private member's resolution moved by me, as the Member for St. John's East at the time, as a Day of Mourning for persons killed or injured in the workplace, or the Province has recognized this as an official Day of Mourning, and we do that in recognition, as the Member for Labrador West has indicated, for all people killed, injured or hurt on the job, or who have suffered from industrial disease.

There have been strides made, Mr. Speaker, but there are a couple of outstanding matters that are significant political matters that I will just put on the table for people to consider while we are having our moment of silence.

There are currently about 100 outstanding cancer cases from the Baie Verte area, related to asbestos, which have not yet been resolved. One-third of all deaths related to industry come from industrial disease, and we have to do more to recognize and acknowledge that and see that this gets looked after.

The second issue is something - we will be raising it in the days and weeks to come - that has to do with offshore health and safety, and the role that this Province ought to be playing in offshore health and safety, as the other Atlantic Provinces are seeking to do. It is something that we have raised in this House in the past, and we will be doing again, so there are still current outstanding important issues that have to be resolved to ensure that our workplaces are safe and that industrial disease is eliminated or compensated for when they occur, and that in fact we do everything we possibly can to ensure that workplace health and safety is forefront of consideration for government and the ministries of labour and the departments of government.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair invites members to stand and observe a moment of silence, and also for visitors in the gallery, if they would join the House in this particular moment.

[The House observes a moment of silence]

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Premier, in this House of Assembly, the purpose of the back-to-work legislation, and he responded that it was to ensure the resumption and continuation of public services in the Province. I further asked if there was any other agenda. He responded: No, definitely not.

If this is the case, Mr. Speaker, why, I ask again, won't the Premier agree to withdraw the back-to-work legislation now that the purpose that he described it is here for definitely no longer exists?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador has to have stability in its public sector services. We cannot proceed without a collective agreement. We have made every effort possible. We are now into twenty-nine days of trying to negotiate a collective agreement. We worked until very, very late last night in an attempt to advance this. We did, in fact, make progress, I am delighted to report; however, again we hit a point where we could not make any further progress and we agreed to shut down for the evening.

We are still going through a process over the course of today and tomorrow. We are still open to negotiation. We are prepared to sit down and try and bring this to a satisfactory conclusion; however, I have to make it very, very clear to all members present, and to the people of the Province, that we have now negotiated for nearly a month in an attempt to get a final agreement, and we seem to be unable to do so at this point. We are still optimistic that we can bring it to a conclusion, but in the event that we are unable to reach an agreement, then we will have to have a legislated agreement according to this legislation.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I appreciate the answer. We finally get the same answer inside the House as has been given outside the House, and we expected the answer for consistency purposes.

Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the back-to-work legislation was needed and was necessary for health and safety reasons. With the resumption of those services last evening, that reason no longer exists. Now the Premier stands today and says the legislation is needed to provide stability. That is the new buzz word today. The Premier's changing of excuses and reasons reminds me, at least, of a frog jumping from a lily pad to another lily pad. When one lily pad does not support him and starts to sink, jump to another one and try that one for awhile. Well, the Premier's excuses have sunk once again, just like the last lily pad he was on. Would he mind telling the people of the Province: What is the real reason for this legislation?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: Is it to strip the contracts and just get his own way, from a month ago?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It has never been this government's intention to strip contracts. As I have indicated - I stand here every single day in the House - the major concessions were all removed from the table, and they were removed very, very early in negotiation. Sick leave for current employees was taken away. Pension indexing was taken away. Severance was taken away. Job evaluation was agreed upon. Other pension issues were agreed upon. So, the concession issues are gone. The only issue that is even being termed a concession by the union now is a provision for sick leave for people who have not yet been employed by this government. It has absolutely nothing to do with current employees.

We have made every effort to try and reach solutions. Even last night, as we were trying to come up with creative solutions on the other outstanding issues, we put several alternatives to the union. They entertained some of those. They accepted some of those. They rejected some of those. There is an ongoing process and we are doing everything we can to reach an agreement.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I ask how the Premier expects this repressive legislation to provide the stability that he now suggests is the reason for it. Workers have already returned to work and the Premier is suggesting, through the media, that he has no trust in our valued public sector workers, and that they might walk out again next week. Early next week they might hit the streets again, and we cannot allow that to happen.

The question for the Premier, Mr. Speaker: How does taking away benefits like sick leave and now removing the right to strike - in other words, now that the workers are in, he wants to pass the legislation to lock them in, to make sure they cannot dare exercise their democratic right to ever leave again no matter how much they disagree with this government. How does he expect that to help repair and rebuild the tattering relationship with our public sector workers and provide stability, or does he think it can all be done with a slice of pizza?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it is most unfortunate that the Leader of the Opposition tends to try and cherry-pick words and try and taint our perception of our public sector employees. If he was being quite forthright with this House, he would indicate that in all the interviews I have done I have indicated that they are very fair and reasonable and rationale and law-abiding people. I have said it time and time and time again.

I thank him for this question, and the reason I thank him for it is because it give me an opportunity, and gives the government and all caucus members an opportunity, to thank our public sector employees for coming back to work and restoring services to the people of the Province. That is a heartfelt thanks, believe me.

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 am sure they appreciate the chicken and chips and the fish and chips and the pizza from the bankrupt government today, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very serious issue. This legislation, if the Premier insists on proceeding, which it seems he does, for stability now - that is the buzzword today, stability, whatever that is - it will do nothing more than ensure that our workers feel oppressed, disrespected, not valued at all, and is creating, already, a somber mood in the public sector. Morale is at an all time low - the Premier must know that - and productivity will certainly suffer.

How does any of that contribute to the stability that the Premier wants? Doesn't he understand and recognize that it is mutual respect that has to be earned that creates stability and productivity, and that what he is talking about cannot be legislated.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the member now to complete his question.

MR. GRIMES: It has to be earned through mutual respect; real, genuine, mutual respect.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In this bill, in Schedule C, there are close to 200 pages of items agreed around the seventeen different units at the bargaining table. Numerous ones. On some of these, Mr. Speaker, I could refer to a few key ones: red circle on bumping, improved provisions for meals onboard vessels. There is overall - employees have to use vehicles, conditions of employment. There are close to 200 pages of agreed to things. The Leader of the Opposition and everybody on that side of the House stood last night and voted against every one of these 200 pages from going forward and enacting them and putting them into law. That is what they did last night. They voted against it. We want to see -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, if they do not want an answer, I do not mind sitting down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. minister has about twenty seconds left, if he wishes to take advantage of it.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

There is close to 200 pages of very productive work done around the bargaining table by all bargaining units. Many items they wanted to get in and get changed. We do not intend to throw 200 pages of work and numerous items that employees wanted, we have agreed to. They are in Schedule C, every member has it. What I cannot see, Mr. Speaker, is why every single person on that side of the House would stand and vote against every single thing that was agreed to at the bargaining table by members.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to see the Premier answering again about the stability issue that he talked about in the public. Mr. Speaker, I will say again, for the public record, the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board has as much credibility with the Official Opposition as he has with the caricature and the cartoon writer for The Telegram. Rest assured, everybody believes every word he says, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition now to get to his question and to refrain from too long of preambles.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I was provoked, sorry for that. I apologize, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. GRIMES: No, of course. Mr. Speaker, he is babbling now. The babbler from Ferryland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

While the Chair recognizes that these are very difficult times for people in this House and for the Province, I would ask the hon. Leader of the Opposition now to get to his question so Question Period could proceed in a normal manner.

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe I will ask a question of a different minister since the Premier does not want to answer any more and we really do not believe anything that minister says.

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Premier said if two parties cannot reach an agreement you do not have an agreement. He nodded, Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what he said. He said be careful, that is exactly what he said.

His Justice Minister, in giving a wonderful brilliant answer to a question that was not even asked, contradicted him yesterday and said: Workers, go back to work under the existing collective agreement. There are still collective agreements in place. Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Minister of Labour, who knows all about labour law on behalf of the people in the Province, can she tell the people of the Province, and will she tell the people of the Province that there is in fact an existing collective agreement in place today as we speak?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The question has been asked and it is up to the government to decide who will respond. The Chair recognized the Minister of Finance and President of Treasury Board.

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My department is responsible for collective bargaining. That question was asked here in the House before and the answer will be the same, Mr. Speaker: Is that this government reserves the right to decide what checks the issue, and they do not intent to turn it over to anybody else, the responsibilities we were elected to perform.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

On a supplementary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, we understand that anyone can answer for the government but we are not getting any answers from anybody, and that was a completely different question.

Let me ask the question again. I will ask the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for labour relations in the Province and understands the law. I did not ask who was responsible for collective bargaining, that has been a mess. We know who has made the mess in that. The question again. Let me ask the question this way, very simply put so we can get a straightforward answer. Let me ask the question this way: For the workers who worked last night, some of them outside those doors as early as 8:00 p.m., for the workers who are working all day today saying thank you to the government for the free pizza, fish and chips, and chicken and chips, that is supposed to buy them off after a month of being left on the streets without their money -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I am asking the member now to complete his question immediately.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

For the workers who will work tomorrow before we get back to this crazy, insane debate of trying to send people back to work who have been working for two days, are they covered by a collective agreement today (inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS BURKE: Mr. Speaker, the workers who are working today are covered by the collective agreement that was previously negotiated, and until the present legislation that is before the House is passed, with all the negotiated items set out in Schedule C, those newly negotiated items will not come into force until this new legislation has been passed.

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

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Just for clarity, Mr. Speaker, to make it really basic and simple, the Minister of Labour just said that the people who are working today are covered by an existing collective agreement, which completely contradicts what the Premier said yesterday, yes or no?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition knows, as well as anybody who follows the legislation in this Province knows, that the current collective agreement carries forward until a new collective agreement is in place. He knows that. He was the Minister of Labour; he knows that. He is trying to play on words. He knows that. That was never said, Mr. Speaker. He is trying to put a whole new twist on something that he fully knows and people on both sides of this House know.

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

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, one last time now, so the record is clear - there is no twist here, except by Little Napoleon, Mr. Speaker - the President of Treasury Board just said, and he acknowledged again, and he contradicted the Premier's statement yesterday and to the media: Everybody knows that there is an agreement in place today, and it stays in place until there is a new one signed or a new one imposed.

It does not matter how it gets there. Is there an agreement in place today, yes or no? Contradict your Premier again!

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if he understands or if he is just trying to grandstand. The answer is y-e-s.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[Noise from the gallery]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair wishes to remind all visitors in the galleries, they should not show any approval or disapproval of any comments made. I ask all hon. members here for their co-operation so Question Period can proceed in an orderly manner.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Justice. Minister, did you receive any legal advice from within your department or external sources regarding the content of Bill 18? If so, would you name those lawyers who advised you, internal or external, and provide the House with copies of any written opinions rendered, and can you tell the House if the advice has changed now that the urgency has ended?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. T. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, as the Attorney General of this Province I have read Bill 18 myself and I form my own opinions.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a supplementary.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am sure the people of the Province take great comfort in knowing that the Minister of Justice has read Bill 18 and he concurs with what is in it. It did not do much to answer the question, but I guess it is a bit better than stay tuned, because so far all we have been getting is a blank signal.

Anyway, I will ask the minister again, and this is the third time I have asked the minister this question and I think he should at least give some acknowledgment to the people of this Province that he at least understands the question, even if he does not have an answer.

A labour relations expert professor from Carleton University is quoted in The Telegram today Mr. Minister, saying that Bill 18 is the most regressive piece of legislation in Canadian labour history. I ask the minister: Is the minister worried about the validity and enforceability of this legislation under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

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

MR. T. MARSHALL: No, Mr. Speaker, this is nonsense. There is no charter argument in here. There is no constitutional issue here. If the hon. Member for Burgeo & LaPoile feels otherwise, he is more than welcome to take whatever legal remedies he considers appropriate.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Minister, are you in the process of restoring -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair cannot hear the hon. member. Colleagues on both sides are preventing the member from being heard.

The hon. the Member for Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair.

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister: Are you in the process of restoring full complement of staff to the Hoyles-Escasoni and other long-term care facilities in the Province? Can our elderly residents expect to have full care, including: hot meals, baths, required physical therapy and so on after suffering without these services for the past month?

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

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

Yes, we have had discussions with our officials in all of the health care boards, and we have been advised that all services are now resuming their normal levels.

With regard to the hospital boards, there is a backlog of services with regard to appointments, different types of procedures and they will be coming back with a plan as to how we are going to clear up that backlog.

Also, in the area of Community Services, there is a backlog in certain areas of community services and there is also a plan being put in place as to how we are going to address that backlog.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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 Aboriginal Affairs. Minister, now that the public sector workers have voluntarily returned to work, can the minister inform the House and this Province as to how soon the ferry services throughout the Province will return to their normal schedules?

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for his question. As far as I know, all of the provincial ferry services returned on schedule this morning.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. ANDERSEN: Minister, with the annual spring runoff, many roads in the Province are still washed out, making safety and road conditions very dangerous. Can the minister confirm to the people of this Province that his department is doing everything possible to complete this emergency work as quickly as possible?

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

MR. RIDEOUT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, now that it is pretty clear that the monetary issues between the parties can be resolved and that the Young-Warren Report seems to have had some resolution, will the Premier acknowledge that the only matter between the parties here is twelve days of sick leave which will require an add-on down the road of short-term disability at a cost to the government? Will he acknowledge that is all that is there? Will he say, in this House, that is important enough for him and his government to sully their reputation with what has been called the most regressive piece of labour legislation in Canadian history? Is it worth that to this Premier and this government to do that, to their reputation and the reputation of this Province for twelve days of sick leave which will have to be added on by short-term disability down the road?

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I sat at the table and had discussions there. I spoke to the media last night and again today, and I have not indicated anything that was discussed at the table. If the member has information that occurred at that table, it certainly did not come from me and I would like to know what he is talking about. There has not been a resolution on the issues there. We have made progress on issues, but we haven't settled any issues there. We came to agreement and certain levels of understanding on things and we moved on for discussion on them, but there has been nothing finalized and agreed, I might add, on these specific issues. We are open and available and so on, to hopefully get a resolution to this by tomorrow before the legislation will pass.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The minister is very good at obfuscation and confusing the Premier's previous statements today.

I want to ask the Premier, who just used the term legislated agreement, he is going to have to legislate an agreement - he knows, of course, that a legislated agreement is not an agreement at all, it is an imposition of terms on people - given the fact that he has taken the position today and yesterday, that what he really needs is stability in this Province, will he not then agree to an amendment to his legislation to remove Clause 5, which is the clause that imposes terms and conditions of employment on public sector workers, and go back to the bargaining table to try to reach a settlement? If he cannot, do what is there for Royal Newfoundland Constabulary members, who aren't allowed to strike, if he doesn't want the public sector to strike. Why not do the same thing for them, if they cannot reach an agreement, and go to binding arbitration?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the commitment I will make to the hon. member is the commitment I have made time and time again, that we will continue to pursue an agreement at the bargaining table. That is what we are trying to do. Now, obviously the Leader of the Opposition and all his friends there do not want to see us get an agreement. That is quite obvious. You are doing absolutely everything you can to try and prevent us from getting an agreement, because you are taking great satisfaction in the fact that we are making decisions that have to be made for the people of this Province.

The editorial in the Telegram today said, "Bitter medicine for a healthy future". This is not fun, we are not enjoying this, we don't like to have to do this, but unfortunately we are looking out for the future of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

In answer to your question, what we will do is we will continue to negotiate and we will attempt to reach a proper agreement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

Again, I ask members for their co-operation.

A supplementary, the hon. the Member for Signal Hill-Quidi Vidi.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Premier answer the real question which is: Will he continue negotiations beyond tomorrow by removing Section 5 of this bill, continue negotiations beyond tomorrow knowing that employees are back to work, the strike is over, and public services have been restored?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have to bring stability and certainty to this Province. By tomorrow this will have gone on for thirty days. We have sat at the table, we have exchanged offers, we have conversed by phone and we have done absolutely everything we can. Over thirty days, if you cannot reach an agreement, then you obviously you will not be able to reach an agreement. We still have about thirty-six hours left to try and reach an agreement. We are available, I am available, the minister is available, our officials are available, we are open to suggestions on how we can possibly resolve this, we are doing everything we can, but we just cannot leave this open-ended forever. The Province has to get back to work, has to get back to normal, and we have to provide stability to the people of the Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WILLIAMS: God knows we have tried very, very hard to reach an agreement, and we will continue to do so.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Again, we are asking members for their co-operation.

The hon. the Member for Carbonear-Harbour Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I ask the Minister of Government Services, can she tell me if the food inspectors are back to work today around the Province, Minister?

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

MS WHALEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for his question. As far as I know, all workers have been returning to work today, so I am assuming that they are there today. I have not been fully informed. Essential services are in place as well, but I understand from the union leadership that last night on the news they were asking all workers to return to work.

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

MR. SWEENEY: So, Minister, you have not checked to be sure.

Minister, I ask the next question: Are the highway safety inspectors and the weigh scale operators back to work around this Province?

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

MS WHALEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have not been informed that they are not back on their jobs, by my officials this morning. They have reported to me this morning, and they have not reported that they are not on their jobs.

Thank you.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, my questions are for the Minister of Education.

I ask the minister: Are school bus drivers, janitors and secretaries back to work in our Province today?

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the hon. member for his question. I can say that things - and we are very thankful about this, obviously - are returning quickly to normal in our school system throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, both at the K to 12 level and at our post-secondary level, at our public college system. Obviously, in the last few days, Mr. Speaker, there have been a number of inconveniences and delays; however, I am pleased to say that things are returning to normal as quickly as possible.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank our many managers and our essential workers for dealing with a difficult situation over the last number of days. Having said that, Mr. Speaker, we are grateful for the fact that our workers, our employees, are back on a full-time basis attending to the needs of our students.

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.

So much, I guess, for short questions and short answers in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I will ask the minister another very short question. Can he tell me if students with special needs are back to school today as a result of student assistants returning to the workplace?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. OTTENHEIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to say, as well, that the needs of our students with special needs are being addressed as quickly as possible today. Our student assistants are back on the job. I am aware of one case in particular, where again there was some delay this morning, for adjustment purposes; however, things are carrying along as smoothly as ever.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Mr. Premier, while you were in Opposition, you said that you would not use government money for political advertising. I ask you now: Have you given up your new approach? Have you thrown out your Blue Book promise? Can you tell this House today how much money your government spent on radio, newspaper and television ads, public relation consultants, image consultants, public opinion polling, and media monitoring, during the public service strike? Premier, how much did this propaganda campaign cost the taxpayers of this Province, and will you undertake to table this information?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, unlike the previous government, we have not spent several millions of dollars to promote our own image for advertising programs.

What we have done, though, Mr. Speaker - and we waited a long while to do it - when misleading information was put out in the public domain, we had an obligation to the people of the Province to set the record straight, and that is exactly what we did. So we did when we felt it was necessary, and there were ads that were distorting, in fact, the truth. We felt that we owed it to the people of the Province to present the facts as they were.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

What we did was, we did the responsible thing and we decided to put these ads in place. As you can see, they were not glitzy ads, they were not expensive ads. They were very, very simple ads, very straightforward, that basically told the people what -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Premier now to complete his answer.

PREMIER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

- that basically told the people of the Province exactly what the accurate facts are.

That is what we have done throughout this whole process, and that is what we will continue to do.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The time for Question Period has expired.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS JONES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise in the House today to present a petition on behalf of the people in my District of Cartwright-L'Anse au Clair, with regard to the Labrador Marine Services. The people in my district are not at all pleased with how government has handled the affairs when it comes to Labrador marine transportation in our district and in other parts of Labrador.

This government, we feel, has violated the wishes of the people. They have not followed the commitments that they have made. They have not upheld those commitments to people, and this is what has certainly gotten people outraged.

Mr. Speaker, the people of my district put their trust and their confidence in this government and in the minister when they went out and hired a consultant to look at Labrador Marine Services. Then, when the Premier made a commitment to these people that he would do what the report recommended, that he would honour the recommendations of the consultant, well, they trusted his word, and when the consultant's report was filed with the government, it indeed recommended that the Sir Robert Bond, the Labrador ferry, be based out of Cartwright to service the people from Cartwright to Goose Bay.

Mr. Speaker, that did not happen and government chose, instead, to put this vessel in Lewisporte, in the minister's own district, to provide a passenger service to the people of Labrador. Do you know what the result of this is, Mr. Speaker? This is what has people outraged in parts of Labrador. It is going to cost the government $1.7 million a year to run this passenger vessel out of the minister's own district, to provide a service to the people of Labrador, when they could have put this ferry boat in Cartwright, this passenger vessel, to service the people of Southern Labrador and the people of Central Labrador, but that did not happen. Now the taxpayers of this Province will have to pay to be able to look after the political agenda of one minister in that Cabinet, and that is not right.

All people will pay, I say to the minister. All of the people will pay because there will be twenty-seven less trips out of Happy Valley-Goose Bay next summer, and twenty-seven less trips out of Cartwright. That is the result of what this minister has done. He has downgraded the services to the people who depend upon them in order to put a boat in his own district, to create a couple of jobs in his own district, at a cost of a loss of service to the people of Upper Lake Melville, to the people of Southern Labrador, and a cost of $1.7 million to the coffers of this Province.

Mr. Speaker, there is no justice in that particular initiative, especially at a time when you have a government who pays $150,000 for a consultant's advice, tells you they are going to honour the advice in the report, and what do they do?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS JONES: The complete opposite, Mr. Speaker. That is why I tabled this petition here today, because people are not happy with that -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The member's time has expired.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

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

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

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today being Private Members' Day, which is dealt with by Standing Orders 63 and 64 of our Standing Orders, we were advised yesterday by the Government House Leader, and subsequently through the comments of the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, that it was their intent to proceed today - today being government's day, normally, for Private Members' Day - to debate a certain motion which is in the Orders of the Day.

We would point out, Mr. Speaker, that, pursuant to Standing Order 63.(3), the notice of such a motion ought to be given on Monday and not on Tuesday, as was done yesterday. Of course, in the past in this House there have been situations where, if all parties consent, notwithstanding that the orders are not complied with, that such a motion, albeit contrary to the Standing Orders, could proceed.

No such leave was sought of the Official Opposition, nor consent requested of that private member's motion by government. The Official Opposition are not providing, and will not provide, any consent or leave if requested today by the Government House Leader to proceed. It is our position that the notice was not proper under our Standing Orders, and that there is no motion properly on the Order Paper today for debate.

We would, however, state that, if the government is prepared, rather than not use this afternoon's time, we are prepared to proceed - if the Government House Leader would undertake not to invoke closure - with third reading on Bill 18, if he wishes to do that this afternoon.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I just listened carefully to the Opposition House Leader with respect to Private Members' Day today. I understand that there is a motion on the Order Paper for Private Members' Day and, without commenting on the merits of the private member's motion - which I would do if we went ahead with it, and I would have a lot to say about it, if that were - normally, we do not really strictly adhere to the rules, and there have been discussions between the parties about Private Members' Day, so I would have no problem consenting to Private Members' Day going ahead.

On the other hand, I do not see any assistance whatsoever in proceeding with third reading of what has been described as the most regressive labour legislation in Canadian history, so I certainly would not consent to that if unanimous consent is required. I would be prepared to consent to the private member's resolution that is there, because it is customary in this House to - notwithstanding the strict rules of when you introduce them or when you give notice - it is pretty customary that we allow each side of the House to go ahead with a private member's resolution on Private Members' Day. It is also customary for one or the other House Leaders to designate which of their private member's resolutions is going to go forward. I certainly consent to that, but I certainly would not consent to the suggestion by the Opposition House Leader that we proceed to third reading of the most regressive labour legislation in Canadian history.

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

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

This is a pretty interesting parliamentary move this afternoon. All day Monday afternoon I had discussions with the Opposition House Leader and the Leader of the NDP about: was there a parliamentary framework in which we could move Bill 18 through. Not taking or asking, and never requested, not even once, for the members opposite to take any of their time away or to limit or inhibit their time under the rules that we offer.

The suggestion was made that maybe we could do it on Wednesday. Guess what? The Opposition said: No, we will not be doing that on Wednesday. I was informed on Tuesday that we have to proceed with Private Members' Day because there was no agreement to debate Bill 18 on Wednesday. So, because discussions were ongoing on Monday we introduced a private member's motion at the earliest opportunity, the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's, dealing with the amounting debt in the Province with respect to our children and grandchildren, which is an important debate that will take place. If it does not take place today, I can assure members opposite and members who may be interested in the public about it, that this debate will occur.

Now, let's forward ourselves to today. I normally speak with the Opposition House Leader everyday and the Leader of the NDP, the Member for Signal Hill-Quid Vidi everyday, and I appreciate his comment that he will allow consent to go through. About 1:45 p.m. today, I was advised of this. So, I think it is a bit disingenuous, to be honest with you, that on Tuesday the Official Opposition said to us: No, we are not going to give consent to debate Bill 18. We will have to proceed with Private Members' Day, which we did, and then at 1:45 this afternoon, fifteen minutes before the House opens, I am told: No, we are not going to let private member's motion go through because you did not agree, technically. I said to the Opposition House Leader at the time: You do recall our conversations on Monday. The reason I did not introduce it on Monday was because of discussions we were having.

Having said that, if that is the position of the Official Opposition, then we will be adjourning the House and coming back tomorrow to debate third reading of Bill 18.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind all members when the Chair is speaking, the Chair must be heard in silence.

The rules of our House are governed by the Standing Orders of the House of Assembly which were adopted on May 18, 1951, with amendments to and including December 14, 1999. Rule 1.(1) says, "The proceedings in the House of Assembly and in all committees of the House shall be conducted in accordance with the following Standing Orders..."

Rule 63, it is relative to private member's motions. I refer specifically to 63.(3), it reads as follows, "On the Monday before the Wednesday of the week in which a Private Member's motion is to be debated, the Government House Leader or the Opposition House Leader, as the case may be, shall announce to the House the Private Member's motion to be debated on that Wednesday."

Over the years we have had many exceptions to this, but they have all been given by consent of the members in the House, by leave. The House can do anything it wishes, by leave. However, it appears to the Chair that there is no desire on behalf of the Official Opposition to give leave for this afternoon. Therefore, the Chair rules that when the Orders of the Day are called, the Chair will listen carefully and ask members to reflect, because when the Chair calls the Orders of the Day then the Chair will listen and if an order is not forthcoming, which can be debated this afternoon, then the Chair will have no choice but to adjourn the House until tomorrow afternoon at 1:30 of the clock.

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

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

Again, this is the parliamentary dance that we all do, I suppose, and must do. That is the nature of the place we operate in and work in. So, let's go through it.

The Orders of the Day, I am asking for leave, I guess, technically, so that we can debate the important private member's motion put forward by the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Does the Member for Placentia & St. Mary's have leave to introduce a private member's resolution this afternoon?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave has been denied.

Therefore, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow, Thursday, April 29, at 1:30 of the clock in the afternoon.

On motion, the House at its rising adjourned until tomorrow, April 29, at 1:30 p.m.