May 11,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 40

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am taking this opportunity to comment on the

recent decision of a provincial court judge on the matter of the Shops Closing

Act.

We have reviewed the decision in conjunction with the

Department of Justice and we will be appealing the decision to the Supreme Court

of the Province on several grounds. As a matter of fact I think the appeal

actually was registered and launched today.

The Shops Closing Act is legislation that is in force in the

Province. Accordingly, I would remind shop owners of this when they consider the

implications of the recent court decision. As hon. members are aware, the

legislation has been the subject of recent review and discussion. The act raises

several policy questions that are currently under consideration in light of the

regulatory review process that government is conducting.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to advise hon. members

that the recent court decision on the Shops Closing Act is being appealed and

that from government's perspective the Shops Closing Act is currently in full

force in the Province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Minister of Employment and Labour Relations seems to be

embarking on a make work program for lawyers. He's having the Human Rights

Commission use public funds to go to court to rectify deficiencies in the Human

Rights Code and now he's appealing the Shops Closing Act when all that has to be

done in each case is for corrections to legislation which can be done simply at

no additional public cost by the Legislature in the case of the Human Rights

Code and by the Cabinet in the case of the Shops Closing Act.

The Shops Closing Act was struck down last week by a

provincial court judge -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave? No leave.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, today I wish to inform the House of recent

actions by government to prevent a liquidation of the fluorspar mining assets at

St. Lawrence and regain provincial ownership of the mineral rights, the milling

facilities and the other fixed assets formerly owned by St. Lawrence Fluorspar

Ltd.

Fluorspar mining operations at St. Lawrence shut down in

November, 1991 during depressed market conditions resulting from the aggressive

marketing of Chinese Fluorspar considerably below world market prices. Because

of the weak financial status of the company, St. Lawrence Fluorspar was declared

bankrupt at that time and the firm of Ernst Young was appointed the receiver.

The receiver's effort to sell the mining operation was

unsuccessful chiefly due to the continued depressed markets for fluorspar as a

result of the recession and the continued availability of cheap Chinese product.

Therefore in January of this year the receiver proposed to liquidate the

remaining mining assets at St. Lawrence.

Today, I am pleased to announce that this will not happen.

These mining assets have been sold to the Greater Lamaline Area Development

Association for the sum of one dollar. In essence they have been passed over to

the association by the receiver and the banks for $1.00. My colleague, the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations has kindly provided a grant of

$35,000 to the association to enable it to provide security and maintenance at

the mine site.

I have cancelled all the mineral rights previously held by

the company and my department will now renew its efforts to find a new owner for

the St. Lawrence Fluorspar deposits.

Fluorspar prices are expected to increase in 1995 and 1996

and I hope that we are able to find a reputable mining company to recognize the

longer term opportunity for mineral development in this area, and to develop the

high quality reserves that are remaining at St. Lawrence.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Back for now, I say to the Minister of

Works, Services and Transportation, but to a very serious matter and an

important statement, I say to the Minister of Mines and Energy.

This is a situation that has been very close to me for a

number of years. After becoming elected first in 1982 in a process to reactivate

the St. Lawrence Fluorspar mines, and through the Burin Peninsula Development

Fund we were able to that when we attracted Minworth into St. Lawrence, build a

new mill, did mine work, and employed 120 people at peak, so it was a success

story for a few years, until, as the minister so rightly outlined there were

problems that developed with the depressed fluorspar market conditions, due

mainly to the dumping of cheap fluorspar into the states by the Chinese.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: I just want to say, Mr. Speaker, I

support the efforts of the minister. I know the people of St. Lawrence wanted

this situation resolved the way the minister has resolved it. They support it.

The Greater Lamaline Area Development Association has done tremendous work in

communities from Point May to St. Lawrence, so I commend the minister. I

consider it to be positive action, but I just hope that market conditions

improve enough where, before too much longer we will see some mining activity

again in St. Lawrence.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, the

Premier led a round of cheers from the government benches for the bill presented

in the Parliament of Canada by Mr. Tobin to deal with foreign overfishing.

Now that we have had an opportunity to review the legislation

we are quite concerned there is really no teeth in it and from reading the

legislation, if you read it, it simply empowers the federal Cabinet to make

regulations, so the suggestion that the House Leader made yesterday that before

we cheer and give standing ovations surely we should wait to read the

regulations, but what we do know, Mr. Speaker, is that in his statement to the

press outside, Mr. Tobin said: the only regulations being prepared now, were

those to deal with stateless vessels and vessels flying flags of convenience.

In other words, the regulations that they are now talking

about in this legislation will only deal with the ten or twelve of the

seventy-five or eighty draggers that are out there on the Nose and Tail of the

Grand Banks, so I want to ask the Premier: Is the Premier satisfied with that,

and was he telling us yesterday afternoon that this bill represents a firm

enough commitment to deal effectively with foreign overfishing?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I don't have the statement that I read in

the House, but I think I made it very clear that this is an empowering piece of

legislation that enables the federal government to take whatever action it deems

at any time to be necessary to deal with foreign overfishing. It has the right

to prescribe what vessels can or cannot catch fish, where they can or cannot

catch it and it can apply to any vessel; it is not confined to the flags of

convenience vessels.

I am aware, as I told the news media outside the House, Mr.

Speaker - I don't know whether I said it inside the House but I certainly told

the news media outside - I am aware that the federal government intended to

start its application with the flags of convenience vessels. Where it goes from

there will depend on what's necessary to deal with the problem. I have every

confidence that the federal government, having the power that Parliament will

give them assuming this bill is passed, and when you bear in mind that it is a

it has the support of the Bloc Qubcois - and the Progressive Conservatives, in

that circumstance at least, don't count.

So in that situation, Mr. Speaker, I have every confidence

that the bill will be passed. That being so, then the federal government has it

within its power, because it has the power under this bill to pass regulations

to regulate the fishery in such manner that it sees fit, and the bill

specifically gives the right to use force if that is necessary. It authorizes

the use of force.

So, yes, Mr. Speaker, I am quite satisfied with this

legislation, but this legislation is not, alone, enough to solve the problem.

The Federal Government must, of course, act to enact the regulations that the

legislation empowers it to do.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

We agree with the flags of convenience vessels. That is not

what we are talking about, but you wouldn't know here yesterday but it was all

over. You wouldn't know but it was all over yesterday, with the standing ovation

and the cheering. That was the impression.

AN HON. MEMBER: They all didn't stand.

MR. SIMMS: They didn't all stand, either. Mr. Speaker,

now we know why they didn't all stand yesterday.

Mr. Speaker, the position of this government, the Provincial

Government in the past, has always been that Canadian conservation and

management standards must be applied to the entire foreign fleets, which we

agree with, by the way, but this legislation, however, as the Premier knows,

proposes only to enforce NAFO conservation rules.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. SIMMS: It does so - NAFO conservation rules.

Now, we all know what NAFO is like, because we have all

ridiculed them, on both sides of the House over the years, for not having very

meaningful conservation rules at all, so the question is: Has the government

here changed its position, and is it now content to accept the enforcement of

NAFO rules? Is that what he was saying here yesterday, in accepting Mr. Tobin's

statement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, and the hon. member's

interpretation of the legislation is not correct. The legislation, in

section 3

provides for the amendment of

section 6 of the existing statute that sets out

section 5.(2) -and 5.(2) is the means of enforcement - any stock of fish that

occurs, both within Canadian fisheries waters and an area beyond and adjacent to

Canadian fisheries waters, for prescribing any class of foreign fishing vessels

for the purposes of 5.(2), for prescribing for the purposes of

section 5.(2),

any measure for the conservation and management of any straddling stock to be

complied with by persons aboard a foreign fishing vessel of a prescribed class

in order to ensure that the foreign fishing vessel does not engage in any

activity that undermines the effectiveness of conservation and management

measures for any straddling stock that are taken under the NAFO agreement... -

so that only identifies the stock. Then they go on to say, in

Part II of that:

...any other measure for the conservation and management of any straddling stock

to be complied with by persons aboard.

So they can establish any measure they want. They can

prescribe any measure that is necessary. They are not confined to enforcing NAFO

regulations.

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

Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Premier, there are

many who differ with his

interpretation of the legislation as well, by the way.

It is not my

interpretation; it is what others have said.

During his cheer leading exercise here yesterday in the House

of Assembly the Premier said, and I quote: "Overfishing by foreign vessels, most

notably vessels from... Spain and Portugal - is thought to have exceeded 100,000

tonnes in 1993, and all indications are that foreign efforts and catches have"

really "remained high thus far in 1994." In fact, I'm told that the level of

fishing by these NAFO countries is actually higher this year than it was last

year, and higher than it was previous to that.

But, as I said, these same offending countries are themselves

members of NAFO. The regulations being drafted now that Mr. Tobin told us about

yesterday won't even touch those NAFO members. They won't even be affected by

it. In view of that, how can the Premier stand in his place and say as he did

yesterday "that the Federal Government has fully understood and responded to our

concerns" when clearly this isn't so?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, anybody who expects that the

Federal Government is going to be able to go out and immediately take control of

ninety vessels is not being realistic. Nobody has ever suggested that they would

do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Ninety days! Ninety days!

PREMIER WELLS: Nobody has ever suggested that they would

do that. I don't know what Mr. Tobin said.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: Well, ask Mr. Tobin about his ninety days,

I can't answer for that. Mr. Speaker, I am quite satisfied that the Federal

Government is moving and will move to exercise the power granted under this act

to first deal with the stateless vessels and then deal with any other vessels

that are fishing the prohibited stocks and affecting the conservation and

preservation of those fish stocks.

Now, Mr. Speaker, if they don't - I can't guarantee that they

will; but any Prime Minister who has to political courage to bring that

legislation before Parliament, I am satisfied will have the political courage to

act under it. I have no doubt about it, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier

as well. During the Leaders' debate on Province-wide TV on March 24, the Premier

stated and I quote: No government has the right to proceed and ask the majority

that it commands in the House of Assembly to put through laws that it can't

maintain adequate public support for, and by adequate I mean essentially

majority support in the Province. And if the majority of the people in this

Province end up, in the end, being opposed to Hydro, I will not ask the members

of the Legislature to proceed with legislation privatizing Hydro. Because I

don't think any government, no matter how strongly it feels about the issue,

should use its majority in the Legislature to cause something to be done that is

contrary to the wishes of the people of this Province, and I won't ask the

members of the Legislature to do that.

My question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker, is: Premier, were

you telling the truth?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was telling the truth

then, I'm telling the truth now and I always intend to tell the truth. Now,

maybe the hon. members opposite have difficulty identifying it. I meant what I

said. I believe that it's not right for a government to seek to pressure the use

of the Legislature to achieve unacceptable objectives.

Mr. Speaker, I also know that the government of which the

hon. member was a member, virtually destroyed the financial integrity of this

Province and we have been struggling for four years to cope with the economic

and financial disaster that they've created. Now, Mr. Speaker, we had to take

some difficult and extreme measures to do that. They created such a god-awful

mess that it is a real challenge, particularly, in these difficult economic

times, to resolve this problem.

Now, Mr. Speaker, we have to take measures, like the

privatization of Hydro, that may well be contrary to the mood that was generated

largely by the fabricated and totally unfounded comments and allegations of

members opposite - like the suggestion that somehow we should learn from the

terrible circumstances that occurred in Nova Scotia. The privatization of Nova

Scotia Power has been nothing but a positive for Nova Scotia. It has enabled

them to save millions of dollars in interest costs, it has enabled them to

relieve their financial burden, it has been done without any increase in rates,

it has been done without any loss of jobs. So, Mr. Speaker, we have to take -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Not true!

PREMIER WELLS: Well, I can tell you with certainty, I

accept the word of Mr. Comeau for that. I accept it without doubt.

MR. SIMMS: He said there were 400 jobs -

PREMIER WELLS: No, he said 400 people took voluntary

retirement -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: - but not one person was laid-off or lost

his job because of it, not one.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Here's the Nova Scotia Power annual

report; in ten months, without layoffs - not one; 400 people retired.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Four hundred people retired because they

wanted to retire. Now, Mr. Speaker, this government intends to salvage this

Province from the unacceptable mess that the government created and we will do

whatever is necessary in the public interest to achieve that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Premier, nothing has changed in this Province since March

24. You knew the financial position of this Province on March 24 when you made

that pledge to the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Standard and Poor's knew he was going to

privatize Hydro when they downgraded, too.

MR. TOBIN: Let me read another quotation, Mr. Speaker,

from the transcript of the television debate when the Premier said, `The

government will make sure that before we proceed with a vote in the House of

Assembly, we have the support of the people of the Province to proceed.

Otherwise, we will not proceed.' Premier, were you telling the truth when you

made that statement?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I'm satisfied that

the government has an adequate level of support to justify its proceeding. As to

the hon. member's suggestion that nothing has changed since March 24, I ask him

if he considers Standard and Poor's downgrading our credit rating from A minus

to BBB, nothing?

MR. SIMMS: (Inaudible) last week.

PREMIER WELLS: The people of this Province don't consider

it nothing. The people of this Province consider it important to our future, and

so, Mr. Speaker, does the government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Burin -

Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the Premier that

you knew what the bond agency would do. Standard and Poor's had already told you

a year before. They told you then the outlook was negative. A negative outlook

always signals a downgrading, so there was no surprise. You knew it when you

made the pledge to the people of this Province on March 24. I say, when you made

that pledge, you were not simply saying that government would not proceed, you

were saying government did not have the right to proceed. You said it a third

time during the debate, during the last thirty seconds of debate, so that it

would be the last thing the people -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member if he could come to the question,

please.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I really feel bad that I am

irritating the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. I really want to

apologize to that gentleman for irritating him.

Mr. Speaker, the last thing the Premier of this Province said

that night, so it would last in the minds of the people of this Province, was:

`I have said here tonight very clearly, and I have said, not here - I said it on

CBC radio yesterday, and I have said it in other places - no government has the

right to proceed with the implementation of major policy that it cannot sustain

public support for, and if we cannot sustain public support for this proposition

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: `- we have no right to ask the House of

Assembly to proceed with it, and I won't.'

The Premier said that, Mr. Speaker. Let me ask you, Mr.

Premier: Were you telling the truth when you made that statement as well?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: When he asks the question better, in

accordance with parliamentary rules, I will answer him.

MR. SULLIVAN: You are not recognized.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to

the President of Treasury Board.

The budget this year has announced $1.2 million to be spent

on enforcement of regulations in the illegal importation of tobacco and alcohol

products. Can the minister tell me how much of this $1.2 million has been spent

in Western Labrador to counter the cross-border shopping?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the money during this year will

be spent to combat illegal activity throughout the Province. I don't know how

much of the money has been spent to enforce the tobacco regulations in Western

Labrador, but I will certainly attempt to find out.

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

Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: I wonder if the minister could also let us

know how much provincial tax - tobacco tax revenue, has slipped since your

federal cousins announced their new tobacco tax regime on February 8?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I could get the exact numbers for

the hon. gentleman, but since February, the numbers we have to date indicate

that our revenues, in fact, have not slipped and are perhaps a little bit above

what we had projected.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

A final supplementary, the hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, will the minister finally admit

that the refusal to lower taxes and his commitment to harassing cross-border

shoppers in Western Labrador and in other parts of the Province isn't working,

is unfair, and should be discontinued immediately?

MR. EFFORD: What!

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, one of the sources of revenue

that we have is the tobacco tax. It amounts to about $70 million a year. We must

enforce those rules and regulations for the sake of the people who are obeying

the law. We must enforce those regulations for the sake of the people who need

to be dealt with in our hospitals. We must enforce those regulations for the

sake of the people who need to be deal with through our Social Services

Department and through the other departments of government. We owe it to the

people of the Province to ensure that the support for these services is spread

fairly and equitably throughout the Province and that all people, that all

residents, all taxpayers of the Province should pay their fair share of taxes to

support those services.

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

Extern.

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

My question is for the Minister of Environment and Lands.

Madam Minister, over two weeks ago I asked you a question regarding the PCB

storage at the Baie Verte mine site and the Rambler mine site. Two weeks

previous to that, you had been sent a letter from the Baie Verte Economic

Development Association regarding that issue, and you were not aware of what was

going on at those sites. Seeing that you have had time to check now, could you

tell me how many PCBs are stored at both sites?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I actually have an answer to his

question that I intended to table yesterday, but with all the points of order

and so on that were raised, I didn't get a chance to do it. I will be only too

happy to do that on this occasion. I think it answers all the questions of the

hon. critic of mine, the Member for St. John's East Extern. If it doesn't, I

will be glad to address any further questions he might have.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Social Services. The social

assistance caseload has gone from 19,600 in 1989 to an estimated 35,000 this

year, an 80 per cent increase in just five years. The cost of increase: from

$104 million to an estimated $204 million for this year. For the past five

years, the department has underestimated expenditure on social assistance by an

average of 10 per cent each year. If you have the same here this year, Mr.

Minister, your expenditures will reach $225 million. Given the changes in U.I.

and the fisheries compensation package, why is the minister so confident that

social assistance costs will increase at a lower rate this year than they have

over an average of the past five years?

MR. SIMMS: A good question.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, the member's question is really

hypothetical. When the government is doing up the estimates for a particular

year, all of the factors in the global economy are recognized and taken into

account, and as far as these factors can be determined, we have no reason to

believe that the figures for social assistance are going to be what the hon.

member suggests.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Minister, those are your figures.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) by $16 million last year.

MR. FITZGERALD: Missed it by approximately $16 million

last year. Mr. Minister, for the first time ever, social assistance costs this

year will equal or exceed the total amount government will spend in all five

resource departments: Environment and Lands, Fisheries, Forestry and

Agriculture, Industry, Trade and Technology, Mines and Energy, Tourism and

Culture - more cost than those five departments combined. Surely, there is

meaningful work that needs to be done in these resource sectors. Isn't it better

to spend at least some of the money to create useful jobs and improve the value

of our resources and contribute to the economy of this Province?

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, the employment enhancement

initiatives of the Department of Social Services are quite substantial. Though

we've not used the same kinds of programs that we have in the past that were

U.I.-generated, in the last couple of years we have had programs that are geared

towards training and more gainful employment, and along those lines the

government is very proud of its achievement. I think, last year, we created

somewhere in the area of just about 5,000 jobs. This year it is going to be in

the same area. That doesn't count job creation that will done in other

departments. The hon. member could address other departments, but that is just

for the Department of Social Services which, in essence, is not a job creation

department at all, doing this, Mr. Speaker, out of care, sympathy and empathy

for the caseload that we have and wanting to make these people self-sufficient.

That is the initiative by this government: 5,000 jobs this year.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Final supplementary, the hon. Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Minister, the number of able-bodied

people on social assistance has gone from 4,000 in 1989 to an estimated 11,000

this year, that's an increase of nearly 200 per cent. Nearly 200 per cent, Mr.

Speaker, and it will likely be higher; yet in 1989, $19 million was spent on

employment opportunities, this year you plan on spending $15 million. Isn't it

better to spend some of the money to create jobs for people who can work and

want to work rather than to keep them home on welfare, I ask the minister?

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I suppose if the hon. member's

theory was correct, I suppose the government could get into spending millions

and millions of dollars so that we have no people unemployed. The hon. member

knows that that is not accurate, he knows that but, Mr. Speaker, in terms of

efficiency and effectiveness this department is very proud, the government is

very proud of the job creation initiatives that we have taken this year, we are

going to create 5,000 jobs and we are also going to have training for in excess

of 2,000 people.

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

MR. WOODFORD: My question is to the Minister responsible

for Municipal and Provincial Affairs.

In last year's Budget, Mr. Speaker, there was a $70,000 cut

to Sports Newfoundland and Labrador; this year, there is another $10,000 cut to

the same Sports Newfoundland and Labrador.

Mr. Speaker, this year's cut combined with last year's will

result in no permanent staff and the lay off of the general manager there now,

and for an organization that is controlling or answerable to forty sports

organizations around the Province, Mr. Speaker, would the minister now tell the

House if he would reconsider his actions and seriously look at the possibility

of reinstating some funding so that they could have a full-time manager and have

at least one permanent, full-time staff at Sports Newfoundland and Labrador?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, Sports Newfoundland and Labrador

was one of a group, I believe of thirty-five organizations around the Province

that were basically cut 10 per cent across the board. My budget this year, my

recreation budget this year was basically cut overall by 10 per cent; the travel

commitment that we made to some adults in Labrador was cut as well. We had no

choice but to cut 10 per cent in that particular department and we felt that by

cutting the organizations such as Sports Newfoundland, but then you have to

think about all the other groups and organizations as well whom these people

represent, they were also cut 10 per cent.

It was a question of money, it is as simple as that and I

couldn't find the extra money to maintain at least the programs at the levels

they were last year; and, Mr. Speaker, as you know, I have said on numerous

occasions in this House, that when I have to sit around the Cabinet table

looking for sports and recreation money and the hon. Minister of Social

Services, and the hon. Minister of Education, and the hon. Minister of Health

are there looking, with their hands out, for money from the same pot as I am

looking from, I have to take fourth place to those three gentlemen; so that is

basically answered.

The answer: no sir, I cannot re-institute that money for

Sports Newfoundland; I will try to do everything I possibly can; I have a

meeting scheduled in the next week or so with them, I will try to accommodate

them where I possibly can, but in regards to reinstating the money for them, I

can't do it this year.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. Member for Humber

Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I think it was in 1992 the minister set up an advisory

committee, I think it was called a review advisory committee, to look into

fitness sports and recreation in his department. That committee report I think

was submitted to the minister in February of this year, '94. The review advisory

committee was called Reaching For Diversity. Would the minister care to table a

copy of that particular report and furthermore, would he probably tell the

House, if he could, when he would be implementing some of the recommendations of

that report?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The member is absolutely correct. It was my predecessor who

appointed a review committee; the report was presented to me some five weeks

ago. I have met with a number of other groups of sports organizations around the

Province. I have given the report to every group and asked all the groups to

look at the committee report and make some further recommendations as the report

relates to them individually. I am hoping that I can have their comments back to

me in the next couple of weeks. In fact one group are meeting with me, I think,

on Monday.

When I get those reports back I will hopefully be making a

statement in the House. I will certainly provide the committee report to the

hon. member if that is what he desires. I have no problem with giving the first

report to him.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member

for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: In view of the fact of what has happened in

the last few years pertaining to the fiscal, I suppose, cuts to Sports

Newfoundland and Labrador, would the minister now care to tell the House what

plans he has, and what future role his government has for sports in the Province

as a whole?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. REID: Mr. Speaker, the whole question of sport and

recreation in Newfoundland is almost to the point now where it is an ongoing

type thing within my department, and certainly within Cabinet. We discussed it

on a number of occasions and recently made a decision to continue with the 1996

Summer Games in CBS. That has already been announced so that is a commitment we

made there.

We have also said, and I said publicly, that after the games

in 1996 in CBS, we will have to take a serious look at future Winter and Summer

Games. We have made the commitment for the Labrador Games next winter of

something in the vicinity of $400,000, and that has been announced.

I do not think it is right for the hon. member to leave the

impression that we are neglecting, or forgetting about sports and recreation,

because we are not. We are continuing on the best we can with the dollars that

are provided to us, and I can assure you personally that I have taken a personal

interest. Of course, as minister I have to, but I do take a personal interest.

If the hon. member could have been in Clarenville with me

this winter, with a number of other members here, and seen what came out of the

Clarenville Winter Games, the comradeship, and those kids that were out there,

we feel, and I think I can say this on behalf of all my colleagues, that we will

do everything we possibly can within our financial ability to keep amateur

sports and fitness alive in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Trinity North.

MR. OLDFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present the report of the

Government Services Committee. The committee have considered and approved,

without amendment, the estimates of expenditure for the following departments

and agencies of government: Finance, the Public Service Commission, the

Department of Works, Services and Transportation, the Department of Employment

and Labour Relations, the Department of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, and

Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

On motion, report received.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I table the answer to a question from the Leader of the

Opposition on Thursday past. I apologize. We had the information on Friday; it

was here on my desk. I appreciate the fact that you reminded me yesterday.

The questions basically related to the chair and vice-chairs

of the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal, and a breakdown of the monies they

receive for the duties rendered, services rendered. Were they receiving any

other departmental funding from any other department of government? And there

was a particular question about Mr. Seabright, as chair, and his position with

Newfoundland Capital.

The numbers I will table with respect to the amounts that

were billed by the chairperson and the four vice-chairs, and also the

information is that the above noted individuals are not receiving funding from

the department other than through the Workers' Compensation Appeal Tribunal.

As far as Mr. Seabright is concerned, to my knowledge he is

no longer Vice-President of Newfoundland Capital. In any event, all of these

individuals were paid on the basis of billings for service, and this was the

money to which they were entitled on that basis.

Petitions

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad to present a petition from residents of the Corner

Brook area, constituents of the Premier, Your Honour, and my own constituents,

people who are numbered among the 80 per cent of the population opposed to the

privatization of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

These petitioners are praying, and calling upon the House of

Assembly to demand the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador not privatize and

sell Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, and ensure that Newfoundland and Labrador

Hydro remains a Crown corporation.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier is trying to deny public opposition

to the privatization of Hydro, yet independent polls have shown that about 80

per cent of citizens of the Province are against privatizing Hydro. People are

against the privatization of Hydro for very good, clear and logical reasons.

Number one, privatization is going to drive the price of

electricity through the roof, and most of the extra costs will go out of the

Province to non-resident shareholders.

Memorial economics professor Wade Locke has estimated that

Hydro privatization would cost the economy of this Province about $70 million

every year, each year, every year forevermore. Worse than that, divestiture by

government of Hydro will leave the government without either the expertise or

the financial strength needed to develop the Lower Churchill.

Now the Premier is doing all of this to test his pet legal

theory which is set out in the Electrical Power Control Act, a bill that was

forced to a vote on second reading here late last night. That involves setting

up the Public Utilities Board to reallocate Upper Churchill power, to take power

away from that which has to go to Hydro Quebec under the existing contract. That

will trigger a new court case which will be long, drawn out and expensive.

Meanwhile, CF(L)Co will be going broke; there will be no chance of negotiating

with Hydro Quebec. Of course, we won't have in-house capability to do that

anyway, so this is going to be a lose, lose, lose proposition. We will lose

Hydro's assets on the Island, and pay forevermore higher electricity rates. The

economy, thereby, will be weakened. We will lose what we have now in the Upper

Churchill.

Our position in the Upper Churchill is very vulnerable and

we'll lose an opportunity in the next decade, maybe we'll lose it forever, to

have a beneficial development of the Lower Churchill for the people of

Newfoundland and Labrador. Mr. Speaker, 80 per cent of the people of the

Province are against Hydro privatization. Volunteer groups of citizens have been

springing up all across the Province to mobilize opposition to Hydro

privatization. There's a group in the Corner Brook - Bay of Islands area called,

Save Our Hydro and those people have gone door to door in the Premier's own

riding and they are getting more than a 90 per cent response rate. More then 90

per cent of the people they've approached in the Bay of Island's District have

signed the petition opposing Hydro privatization.

Mr. Speaker, if the Premier had any intention of honouring

the promise he made the people of this Province, on the provincewide live TV

debate, March 24, he would acknowledge that the majority of the people were

against him then, they're still against him and they'll always be against

privatising Hydro. The only honourable course for the Premier to take is to

withdraw the legislation, both Bill's 1 and 2, and respect the wishes of his

constituents. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to rise in

support of the petition presented by my colleague. Mr. Speaker, I don't know how

many names were on the petition but that doesn't matter. In any case you can

have as few as three names on a petition in order to present it in the House on

behalf of your constituents or otherwise and I don't have it in my area, don't

have to get a petition signed or anything else. All I have to do is go around

the area, walk through the airport, walk through a store, go in a restaurant,

anywhere and not only in my area, my area encompasses down around the Premier's

district, the Speaker's district and so on. You're all over the place and you

can hear the comments, Mr. Speaker, and the comments are all - pretty well 98

per cent of what I'm hearing are against the privatization of Hydro, for

whatever reason.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned it before - one of the things

that I could not understand is why government would now sell Newfoundland Hydro

- to privatize Newfoundland Hydro. I can see it with regards to raising money to

help with the deficit if the return - if the sale - if you could get a good

dollar for the asset you got but some of the figures that I've heard bandied

about - I know they're all hypothetical but still if you can get a good dollar

for your asset - an asset then you might have to have another look at it. Mr.

Speaker, the government today has the right, and every right, to charge

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro anything above 1 per cent. They are charging

them 1 per cent now to float their bonds. One per cent and picking up $9 or $10

million a year to do so.

Now, Mr. Speaker, what is stopping this administration from

charging them 2, 3 or 4 per cent and still bring in $25, $30, $40, $50 million a

year and at the same time hold on to your asset because the government has

admitted in the statement they sent around the Province that rates are going to

go up. So if they charge 2, 3, 4 or 5 per cent in the guarantees naturally the

rates are going to go up but nothing's changed because in the privatization bill

the Premier and the administration opposite has stated in all the advertising

that's gone around the Province that rates will go up. So why not, if rates are

going to go up, hold on to your asset and keep that asset that belongs to the

people of Newfoundland and Labrador and still have an income? You can control

the income. The irony in it, Mr. Speaker, is this, one of the reasons that it

will be sold is to collect $300, $400 or $500 million which will be good for

about one year when you won't have to borrow, that's about it. In the economic

times we have today I say the government is going to get one year out of the

sale of Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro without having to go into the markets

again.

Mr. Speaker, the other thing about this is that they will

guarantee, they are still going to guarantee, the debt. Although this is going

to be sold, although the people of the Province are going to give up

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro now, which they own, and which they can collect

$10 million, $12 million or $20 million on a year, they are still going to

guarantee the debt. The people of Newfoundland and Labrador are going to buy 5

per cent or 10 per cent of the shares and guarantee the debt for a bunch of

investors in Upper Canada and outside of Canada. That is what we are going to

do. We are going to pick up the tab. On the books we will guarantee the debt for

whatever shareholders, and this is a private concern.

Not only is it a business, it is a monopoly, but yet the

people of this Province are going to pick up and sign on the bottom line for

every investor who takes out a share. The people who are going to buy shares in

the new Hydro after Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro is privatized, they won't

have any problem going to the store and picking up whatever they want for the

weekend. They won't have any problem taking a trip to Florida every year. They

will be able to do it very easily, and they will be able to do it on the backs

of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians, because we will sign on the bottom line for

the investors in Upper Canada and outside this country.

That is what we are going to do. The asset will be gone. The

income will be gone and then they will be collecting the guaranteed income from

their shares. They will come back to the PUB, another bunch of Newfoundlanders

and Labradorians, that will guarantee a rate of 13.74 per cent return. How many

businesses in this Province today can -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Is this a new petition?

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes.

MR. MANNING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm happy today to

stand and present a petition on behalf of people from my District of St. Mary's

- The Capes and some from the District of Ferryland, which is adjacent to my own

District. Thirteen names on the petition that have once again joined the chorus

of people across this Island who have been speaking out against the

privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. The polls show that the people are against

the privatization of Newfoundland Hydro. The letters to the editor, the calls to

the open line, telegrams, and the calls to MHAs in this House of Assembly show

that the people of this Province are against the privatization of Newfoundland

Hydro. The Premier in his own way intends to keep on with his attempt to

privatize Newfoundland Hydro and the question is why.

The purpose of the legislation Mr. Premier, from what I can

gather, is to try to gain back control of some of the rights that were lost in

the famous Upper Churchill deal of the late 1960s. That this Premier now who we

have today, along with the Government House Leader, were part of the team that

put together the plans that sold us out in the 1960s. We stand here today

prepared to sell out, to continue, or I should say, to finish off the plan that

started back in the 1960s and to continue on with it today to make sure that

Newfoundland Hydro belongs to somebody else except the people of Newfoundland

and Labrador.

It is not in the best interest of the people of this

Province, and many people know that and many people are speaking out on the

plans that the government has to privatize Newfoundland Hydro. I can understand

where the Premier is coming from in the case that he is trying to right the

wrongs that were done in the past. More power to him. If he had thought that

there was a chance or a possible chance that that may be done I would be 100 per

cent in favour of what his plans are. Some of the best lawyers and the best

advice that the Premier has got is that this cannot be done in the court of law,

that our chance of winning back the power that was given away is nil. The

Premier was hoping to go down in history as the person who salvaged the deal of

the 1960s, when he will go down in history as the person who was part of the

deal of the 1960s and was part of the deal of the 1990s that will give away and

sell off what we have.

The changes to education in this Province, and the changes to

ATV regulations, and all those other regulations that come before this House on

a continuous basis, are regulations that can be changed, that can be brought

back to this House once again if the people of this Province don't agree with

them. If Newfoundland Hydro is privatized, Mr. Speaker, it is a done deal. It is

finished. There is no way we can ever retain once again what we own today if

Hydro privatization is continued. I say that is a shame, Mr. Speaker, and Hydro

privatization should be stopped.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: I know I have only a couple of minutes, Mr.

Speaker, to contribute to this debate and time doesn't permit me to say a lot.

But I want to say, we have been hearing stories these past few days about the

Premier and all the reasons why he has to privatize Hydro, why it was costing so

much, why the bond rating agencies were in here, and what was taking place, and

that government had to make moves because -

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Financially strapped.

MR. TOBIN: - because we have been financially strapped,

Mr. Speaker. They couldn't give $70,000 today, to recreation, to

sports-governing bodies in this Province.

Well, Mr. Speaker, do you want to know what they gave to

Gordon Seabright in the last year? They gave Gordon Seabright $98,207.50 in the

last year. What about Jeff Brace, the city councillor? How about $83,580.25?

Then they talk about why they have to privatize Hydro. Mr. Speaker, is it any

wonder they have to privatize Hydro?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Is it any wonder they have to privatize Hydro

when they throw around that kind of money? It was $98,000 for Mr. Seabright -

for what? a part-time job; and Jeff Brace, appointed months ago. As a matter of

fact, I believe he is the city councillor who supported the privatization -

$83,580.25! No wonder he supported it. What is going on? You should hang your

heads in shame. You should resign. You should walk out en masse, rather than be

controlled by this Premier.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount is getting

anxious as it is now 3:00 p.m. and it is Private Members' Day.

AN HON. MEMBER: By leave.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Private Members' Day

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 10.

The hon. the Member for Waterford - Kenmount.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, I can't think of

a better tone on which to introduce the private members' resolution that our

party has proposed and which I will now place before the House.

The text of the private members' motion is as follows:

WHEREAS the government announced in the Budget Speech its

fiscal plan to further reduce the compensation of public sector employees by an

additional $50 million; and

WHEREAS the President of Treasury Board and the government

have poisoned the collective bargaining process through the use of ultimatums;

and

WHEREAS honour and trust have disappeared from the collective

bargaining process for public employees in this Province; and

WHEREAS the government of the Province have displayed a

confrontational, dictatorial and mean-minded attitude towards collective

bargaining in recent months; and

WHEREAS the current threats to disruptions in public services

are causing severe anxieties for many citizens; and

WHEREAS the threat of public sector strikes is having a

profound and negative effect on the Newfoundland economy;

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that this House deplore the

confrontational approach of the government in its negotiations with the public

sector unions and that this House direct the President of Treasury Board to

immediately begin meaningful and constructive negotiations with all public

sector unions.

Now, Mr. Speaker, the current situation in this Province

between government on the one hand, and its public sector unions on the other,

goes back several years.

In 1989, when the Liberal Government was elected under the

premiership of the current Premier, public sector unions at that time had many

of their contracts in place. The government negotiated several contracts but

then very quickly into their mandate, they introduced bills which had the effect

of changing those contracts, and so the milieu in which we find ourselves today

started back some years ago.

When this government introduced Bills 16 and 17, it indicated

a dramatic change in the government's attitude towards collective bargaining,

and that, in turn, evoked a dramatic change in the response of the members in

the public sector unions. Employees who used to view their collective agreements

with some sense of security, some sense of knowing what the future would hold,

suddenly became fully aware that their collective agreement did not give them

the kind of protection and the kind of security that they had thought they would

enjoy; because, Mr. Speaker, this government at that time signed its agreements

in disappearing ink.

In some cases, agreements were signed and not months later,

not a quarter of a year later - in some cases, weeks later, the government said:

We cannot live up to the contracts that we have entered into with our public

sector unions. So, Mr. Speaker, there is a very deep-seated and profound belief

that this government gets what it wants. They have no regard, Mr. Speaker, for

signed, collective agreements; there is this atmosphere that the government does

what it wants to do. They have shown a willingness to introduce legislation that

would impose its will on its employees and that has resulted in a profound lack

of trust. We have lost all of the dignity that goes with the collective

bargaining process, therefore, many people today who are members of public

sector unions do not believe in the process, itself. There has been some falling

away, you might say, in belief that a collective agreement gives the kind of

protection that should come from a duly negotiated contract between an employer

and an employee, because the government has said over the years, that it `may'

live up to its signed contracts.

Now, Mr. Speaker, on the one hand, the government will say

that contracts with outside agencies, contracts it has with business people,

contracts it has with Hydro Quebec, cannot be changed, and we understand that;

but when we have a contract signed with our own people, our own employees, then

that becomes a `maybe'. Maybe we will live up to it, maybe we won't - therefore,

there is no faith. Faith has been lost in the collective bargaining processes in

this Province, thus, Mr. Speaker, the government today must face the

consequences of the poisoning that has occurred in the collective bargaining

process between its employees and the government itself.

Mr. Speaker, we know that this government will say to its

employees, we will get what we want when we want it, and if you don't agree, we

will legislate; we will use an ultimatum, we will legislate.

Mr. Speaker, we only have to go back to the recent past to

find evidence of legislation, but we can go back, in the Premier's case, to 1967

when he was Minister of Labour in the Smallwood Government, and when the

hospital workers in Grand Falls dared to go on strike. As Minister of Labour,

the Premier of this Province had no hesitation in introducing legislation to

force the strike to stop, and not only that, to decertify that particular

bargaining unit. That is the kind of attitude which we have as an historical

background to the present situation in this Province today. We have the same

person, we have the same attitude, and we have some of the same players in the

government of today.

Mr. Speaker, on April 5, 1993, the Premier - the Minister of

Labour in 1967 - called an election, and he called that election on the backs of

the public employees. He said at that time that he was not able to continue to

govern, and he said that he was willing to take on the public sector unions, and

very specifically he said: I will take on the Newfoundland and Labrador

Teachers' Association.

While he targeted all public sector employees, he

specifically pointed his finger at the teachers, and the teachers, in their

turn, responded. This government today sets out to settle its score with

teachers. This government sets out to isolate teachers, and it is, in the

government's opinion, payback time. There is, in this Province today, a

well-thought-out strategy, a planned strategy, to isolate members of the

teaching profession to make sure that they are targeted, and as much as members

may deny it, there is evidence even in the negotiating process to support that

statement. Mr. Speaker, it is no wonder that honour and trust and dignity and

respect have been lost in the processes of collective bargaining.

Mr. Speaker, on Valentine's Day, February 14, the President

of Treasury Board, as his Valentine gift to his workers, showing his deeply felt

love and respect, presented NAPE and CUPE with the government's proposals, their

opening proposals, for their contract for the next number of months or years. On

Wednesday, April 23, the President of Treasury Board presented the government's

opening proposals to the NLTA.

All of these employees have had three years of roll-backs,

years of cancelled contracts, zero increases. They have given concessions. They

have helped balance the budget, and they feel they have done their share.

Therefore, it was with some shock that the members of CUPE, members of NAPE, the

nurses' union, the police association, the NLTA, and all other employees paid

through the public purse - it was with some sense of shock that they observed

and read the proposals put forward by the government.

Then, on Budget day, March 17, the government announced its

plans to strip $50 million from the compensation paid to public employees. Now,

Mr. Speaker, we are quite prepared to admit, since that time, that has been

modified to $44 million. Six million dollars has been taken from other people

paid out of the public treasury: The University, the colleges, and including the

House of Assembly and its staff. So there has been $6 million. There is still

$44 million needed.

Mr. Speaker, shortly after that, the Department of Education

ordered superintendents to issue layoff notices to all teachers who were covered

under the 2 per cent savings clause or protected under the three-year protection

letter.

The effect was an order. In essence, what the Minister of

Education said was: I am assigning seven thousand two hundred-and-so-many people

to the teaching profession. That had the effect for the superintendents to say:

You must lay off people who are protected. And the President of Treasury Board,

in no uncertain terms - clear language - wrote the President of the NTA and

said: This government has no intention of signing a collective agreement in

which the 2 per cent savings clause is included or the three-year protection

letter.

Mr. Speaker, that was a clear message to the Association.

That meant that program co-ordinators would be laid off - two program

co-ordinators for every school board, that is, fifty-four program co-ordinators

would be laid off. It meant that 363 teachers who are protected either under the

three-year protection letter or the 2 per cent savings clause, would have to be

laid off, or these positions would have to be declared redundant.

So, you see, Mr. Speaker, when the President of Treasury

Board issues these kinds of ultimatums, there can be no question that the tone

for collective bargaining is seriously compromised. You can't expect people to

come in and say: Let's bargain, let's negotiate a collective agreement, but

first of all I want you to know that I am saying, government is going to cancel

these provisions that you have had for some time.

In addition to that, in the proposals put forward, proposal

number one was that Treasury Board would cut severance to all public employees

and, in this particular case, since I'm talking about teachers in particular

this time, this meant that severance for people who were going to leave the

teaching profession, that it was identified by the President of Treasury Board

that this was their number one item, that this was their priority, and the

government gave the effective date as April 1 1994.

Now, Mr. Speaker, understand, my point is that if these are

going to be changed items, they have to be bargained. You can't come in and say

unilaterally this is what is going to happen. And, Mr. Speaker, panic and

anxiety set into the teaching profession. There were letters requesting

clarification. I tabled those letters in the House, letters dated March 3rd,

4th, 7th, 24th and 25th.

Mr. Speaker, teachers responded the only way they could. They

responded by resigning. Nearly 300 senior teachers in this Province took the

only course of action they could take. Mr. Speaker, the stories of anxieties,

the stories of feelings of helplessness, hopelessness, the tears that were shed

and the students who were inconvenienced is a blight on the record of this

government.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you today, identify the teacher who

is still in school today - two months and more then that - two-and-a-half months

after she had taken her severance and resigned. She is still in school this

afternoon and still there now in fact. She goes in every single day because she

said I don't want to be paid but I told these students I'd be their teacher for

this year and I will be. Mr. Speaker, that's the kind of thing that's going on

in this Province today. Teachers who are working in classrooms day after day and

not being paid because they lived up to their commitment to their students. I

only wish that the government would live up to its commitment to teachers.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately these teachers unwittingly fell

into the government's trap. It is indeed unfortunate that when those 300 people

left they presented to the government its solution. These people have left and

unfortunately that is a sad, sad, commentary. Mr. Speaker, this government is

known for its confrontational take it or leave it dictatorial approach to

collective bargaining. I don't blame them for being firm. I do criticize them

for ultimatums and I do criticize them for saying it's our way or no way. Mr.

Speaker, then we have the charade that's gone on in the past several weeks,

something I'm sure that I will get a chance to talk about in the second set of

comments I will make later in the afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, teachers have been intimidated, superintendents

have been intimated, graduating students have been compromised, the Minister of

Education and President of Treasury Board, they must accept -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HODDER: - absolute responsibility for the situation

and a poor state of collective bargaining in this Province today. Thank you very

much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I thank the Member for Waterford - Kenmount for giving me the

opportunity to respond to an issue that is very serious. An issue in the

Province today that's very serious. I had read the resolution and intend to deal

with it but I should make a couple of comments about some things the hon. member

said before I get into the text of what I want to say.

Mr. Speaker, the resolution refers to the collective

bargaining process for public employees, the public sector employees, the public

services of the Province and so on. I thought that this was going to be a

reasoned debate about what's happened in the public sector of this Province. The

hon. gentleman, I believe, refers almost totally to teachers and the teacher

situation, so I guess we know, Mr. Speaker, where his impetus is coming from. I

don't want to spend much time dealing with the puffery and the misstatements

that we've just heard. An example of one of them, Mr. Speaker, is a direct quote

and he indicates we've ordered a layoff of all teachers protected by the 2 per

cent clause and the three year protection rule, Mr. Speaker, obviously false.

The rest of his speech was sprinkled with statements that were of the same kind.

It would take my full twenty minutes to deal with these, and

I don't intend to respond. I intend to respond to the resolution, which

unfortunately does contain much that is inflammatory and is probably designed to

disrupt the process rather than to have a reasoned debate about the process.

That is really unfortunate.

When we formed the government in 1989 we inherited a

situation that had it continued, I suppose, would have created some tremendous

difficulties that we can't even envision today. During the first year revenues

were increasing, during the first year that we formed the government. Revenues

were increasing but the debt of the Province was extremely high. But because

revenues were increasing and we were in the process of immediately getting down

to collective bargaining with our public employees, and we could see that if

this trend continues - the increasing in revenue - that there was some

flexibility, we started the collective bargaining process. I might point out

that that very first year, because of the increase in revenues, we found that we

were a bit better off than we expected, and we took $22 million that came in,

that was over and above what we had projected, what was projected in the Budget,

and we put to start to help solve the problem in one of the pension plans, the

teachers' pension plan. That was a time of increasing revenues.

Then during that year, the latter end of that year and the

beginning of the second year, we started to experience some other things. First

of all there was the general downturn in the world economy and the Canadian

economy that tended to hit us harder here at the beginning and was more obvious

to us. The second was a change in federal transfer payments which over the next

three years amounted to us receiving about $600 million less than we would have

had the situation remained as it was just before we took over. A loss of about

$600 million. This is something that the federal government did, and I'm at this

point in time not criticizing them for it, but that happened, and this was a

loss in projected revenues.

At the same time there were some other problems. It became

obvious to us very quickly that the ever-increasing growth of the 1980s was

coming to a stop and would no longer continue. As a matter of fact, the growth

would not simply slow down but in actual fact it came to a halt. We recognized

that we were in serious trouble financially. Under normal conditions, if after a

boom period there was a downturn, under normal conditions we could say: Let's go

to the markets and borrow to get us over the hump. We found ourselves in the

position where we couldn't do that because our debt was already so high that we

couldn't have big increases in our borrowing. We borrowed too much during that

period of time. In spite of it all, in spite of our attempts, we still borrowed

too much, but we couldn't go to the markets to get us over that time.

We called our public sector union leadership together and

explained the situation, explained in great detail what was happening. We

carried on some discussions and I suspect that the response received at that

time indicated that they didn't really think we were serious about what was

going to happen over the next couple of years. We were forced to take some

serious actions. We had just negotiated some contracts and were in the process

of negotiating other contracts.

With some of our bargaining units, particularly NAPE, CUPE

and the nurses, we had already signed agreements. In the case of the teachers we

were still in the process and had not signed an agreement. So, Mr. Speaker, we

brought in legislation because we simply could not handle the extra hundreds of

millions of dollars over the next three years that we knew were coming, we

simply could not handle it because, Mr. Speaker, it would have meant massive

reductions in service. We went ahead and did a lot of lay offs in the public

service, I believe the final total came to about 1,700; 1,700 people lost their

jobs and that's not nice. That's not nice.

Contracts were broken and that's not nice. We would have

preferred to do it by agreement because of the very serious financial condition

of the Province, we could not, and we couldn't go through a year or two's

process to get the agreement because time is of the essence, so we did some

things that were not nice but, Mr. Speaker, were they not done, instead of 1,700

layoffs, there would have been 10,000 layoffs and we could not provide the

service to the people in this Province.

We raised taxes, we have raised taxes an awful lot, personal

income tax during that two-year period. We have raised taxes, we have had a lot

of extra money from the people of this Province; we have cut back on spending

tremendously, and we have stopped providing some of the services that ordinarily

would have been provided; we have cut services and unfortunately people lost

their jobs. The recession continued and what we have predicted came about. As a

matter of fact, it became much worse than anybody, anywhere in North America or

the world for that matter had projected. It was very serious and at every step

of the way, as we would get new projections from the federal government and some

of our own projections and these projections would change, we always said: we

must share that with the leadership of the public sector unions, this

information, and again, Mr. Speaker, I suspect that there was a lot of

skepticism, but, Mr. Speaker, we told the truth every step of the way.

Mr. Speaker, in that period of time there have been wage

freezes. In that period of time there have been concessions primarily last year

through the pension option in the public service, and even though our object was

to not lay off anymore people and to not use layoffs as a method of retaining

our fiscal balance, and not to affect the normal take-home pay of employees, we

used an option that didn't have an immediate effect on the take-home pay but it

had a very serious effect, Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it. The pension

option was sound financially in terms of the pension plan, but it had a

tremendous effect on the public servants of this Province, because it increased

the length of time they would have to work in order to achieve a comparable

level of pension, and, Mr. Speaker, that was a sacrifice.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. BAKER: Well I will repeat again, Mr. Speaker, that

every step of the way, every time the projections changed and came in, we sat

down with the leadership of the public sector unions.

Now, Mr. Speaker, some may say that that was a wasted effort.

We have been publicly accused of doing everything on our own, of a dictatorial

attitude, confrontational and so on and yet we always sat down with the

leadership of the public sector unions and opened the books to them to indicate

exactly what we needed. There are also those, Mr. Speaker, who might say that we

got no co-operation from the public sector unions. Mr. Speaker, that also is not

true, because if you think back over the three years, and I think perhaps as a

response to the fact that we have been open and provided the figures whenever

our projections changed - provided to them and so on - I think that the public

sector unions perhaps could have gotten together and closed this Province down.

They always have that threat. They could have done that, I suppose, but they

chose not to. For whatever reason, they chose not to, and the last three years

have happened without major disruption.

Last year, with every one of our public sector unions,

agreements were signed. Understandings were signed, if you want to call them

that. In some cases it extended agreements; in other cases it didn't.

Understandings were signed last year with all of our public sector unions, so

there has been a degree of understanding.

Now, let's get to this year. I would like to simply outline

what has happened. Again, when we had a fairly good handle on where we would be

going this year, which happened to be last November, some time - I believe it

was the first week in November, actually, that I had a meeting with the leaders

of all the public sector unions, and I laid out for them what our projections

were - it indicated that perhaps the deterioration was perhaps slowing down. In

the previous year - and you will remember, that was the year that there was what

was called a mini-Budget brought in in the fall - the problem we were facing in

the fall was about $300 million. Last year, looking ahead to this year, the

problem we were facing was perhaps $120 million, and that was in spite of the

fact that we did some temporary measures last year. So the problem was less of a

problem, and we laid this out.

In our budget we took care of some of that $125 million - as

a matter of fact, about $25 million - through extra borrowing, which we did not

like to do, but we had to do the extra borrowing. We cut back significantly on a

number of areas of expenditure in government that did not have significant or

large numbers of layoffs associated with them. We cut back on service, in other

words, to the people. We raised some revenues, not directly through the tax

system but through the licensing system primarily - raised some revenues - and

we targeted $50 million to come from the total public sector compensation, which

was less than the year before, which was a hopeful sign.

That $50 million worked out to be, as the member explained,

perhaps more like $44 million. It worked out, I suppose, in terms of the general

compensation package, to be 2.5 per cent. That is what it boils down to be, and

we started negotiations because the year was coming to an end. I will just

briefly outline, without making any comments on it, what has happened in that

process.

I will deal with NAPE/CUPE first. We started negotiations

with NAPE/CUPE. They were negotiating together, and they have a rather complex

structure, and the nitty-gritty of negotiations occur in a large room with a

large number of people. We tried that process and did not make a great deal of

headway. NAPE/CUPE chose to go through the conciliation process and got their

strike vote. Since then we have been carrying on discussions at a different

level, but they have been discussions aimed at reaching a solution that was

acceptable to both sides, and these discussions are ongoing.

In that process, our opening position as a government was

tabled, NAPE/CUPE's opening position was tabled, and right now what is left

bears no resemblance to these opening positions, except in a few minor ways.

There has been give and take, and we will continue that process. Now that is not

to say that is not going to end up in trouble. These discussions could fall

apart. I am not saying that we are close to an agreement. Don't mistake what I

am saying. We are not, but we are still talking and there is some give and take

on both sides.

The Royal Newfoundland Constabulary recently indicated they

wanted to break off negotiations. These have been ongoing for some time and

there has again been a lot of give and take on both sides, but there are still a

couple of issues outstanding that they feel must be dealt with, and they have

broken off negotiations. We are still ready to discuss. They have the option,

Mr. Speaker, because there is no such thing as a strike option for them; they

didn't go for a strike vote because that is not possible, they have binding

arbitration as a possibility. We will see where that goes.

With the nurses, Mr. Speaker, we went through a process

similar to NAPE and CUPE. They recently got their strike vote and we are now

starting negotiations, sometime within the next week. There has already been one

talk and negotiations start sometime during the week.

With the teachers, Mr. Speaker, there has been no willingness

to get to the collective bargaining stage, as they refer to it, and I am not

going to comment on the reasons for that. There have been meetings between

myself, some of my officials, the President of the NLTA and some of their

officials, but at some point in time I said, We have to get negotiations

started, so I prepared an opening position and they prepared an opening

position, which were exchanged, but there hasn't been five minutes of collective

bargaining on these opening positions.

We went through the conciliation process, Mr. Speaker. The

Conciliation Board unanimously said: start negotiations, but that was rejected

by a 91 per cent vote. The direction that the executive has is to not start

these types of negotiations. Yet, there have been talks and there will be at

least one further meeting. A strike vote has been held and quite some time ago,

I believe it was during the Easter break, the executive announced the date for

the strike vote and the date for the strike.

There will be at least one more meeting - let's hope there

will be more meetings. Mr. Speaker, this is an indication that government is

trying to work this out. We have a difficult financial situation to solve that

everybody should be aware of. There is, with some of the unions, some

understanding that it is a serious problem that must be solved, and let's hope

that understanding spreads through the other bargaining units as well.

It is not an approach of a government that is dictatorial. It

is an approach of a government that started four years ago in an attempt to

develop the true social contract where employers and employees sit down, look at

the numbers, verify the numbers, bring in all kinds of experts to verify the

numbers, and once you agree on the numbers then to mutually reach a solution.

That is the action of a government interested in that type of process, that

gives the employees access to the decision-making.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. BAKER: I would indicate, that obviously, because of

the inflammatory nature of this resolution, of the total, absolute,

misstatements that are in here, we can't support it.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, the President of Treasury Board concluded his

remarks by suggesting that they wanted to enter a true social contract. Now,

after what we have seen this minister and this government do over the past two

or three months, to conclude his twenty-minute speech here and suggest that he

wants a true social contract - you have to have one heck of an imagination to

swallow that.

MR. FLIGHT: Why?

MR. A. SNOW: The Minister of Forestry and Agriculture

asks, why?

Mr. Speaker, if you were an employee of this government,

whether you were a teacher, a nurse, a wildlife officer, a policeman, or a

social worker and you were the lowest paid in your scale, in the country, and

you heard this coming from a minister, about entering a true social contract -

coming from the highest paid Cabinet minister in the country, would you call

that fairness and balance? when this Province has a history of having the

highest paid Premier, the lowest paid nurses, the lowest paid teachers -

MR. GRIMES: That is not true.

MR. A. SNOW: - the lowest paid wildlife officers, the

lowest paid social workers. That's what is occurring in this Province, Mr.

Speaker, and then they say: We want to enter a true social contract.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. SNOW: I hit a raw nerve, I know, on some of the

front benches there, because there is a lot of guilt on the front benches. The

hon. the Member for Exploits sits there and says: My god, don't say that about

teachers: sure, look, I cried for them when I was on the steps. The problem is,

Mr. Speaker, he didn't plead for them in the Cabinet room - there lies the

problem. He has to stand up for them when it is necessary, that's what he has to

do, and that's part of the problem out there now.

Here is another one. The Minister of Environment and Lands

who got to the Cabinet room on the backs of the teachers of this Province. What

did she do? from the classroom to the Cabinet room, and then she forgot them -

that's what she did - and that's the problem. The only thing they remembered

when they got in there was how to improve their own style of life with an $8,000

car allowance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. SNOW: They - Mr. Speaker, I would -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. A. SNOW: Order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, could I

have order? I am speaking to the ministers over there and it hurts, but it also

hurts those people out on the streets. I know wildlife officers in my district

who are making less take-home-pay now than they were in 1989. Now, do you tell

me that is success? What were the Cabinet ministers being paid in 1989?

How can anybody, in all honesty, stand up and say: We are

entering into a true social contract? That's why people are angry, because they

don't trust this government. The only people who got rewarded by electing this

Liberal Government were the people who have huge salaries.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you mad (inaudible)?

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, I'm mad. I'm angry, I'm disappointed,

I'm disgusted with what is going on in this Province. I'm just like the 90 per

cent. I'm just like the people who responded to this Environics poll, that's

what I am. I am a member; I am a citizen of this Province. I'm disappointed; I'm

disgusted with this government. I'm disgusted with the leadership of this

government.

Mr. Speaker, my history in collective bargaining - I haven't

been a leader in unions. I was a member of a steelworkers, and I'm proud to say,

a member of 5795. And I know what it's like to be on strike, I've been there. I

also know what it's like to be living in a community when the single industry is

shut down because of a strike. I know the trauma that occurs in the families and

the homes. I know the financial burdens that people go through to get respect.

That is what we are talking about, because that is what a lot of strikes are

over, attempting to regain respect, because of what the employer does. Quite

often that is what causes a lot of strikes.

I also know, as a small businessman, an operator of a family

business for some twenty years, of the burden that this work stoppage or strikes

- what happens in the community, itself. I know what happens - I've been there,

I've seen it, I've witnessed it. So nobody over there has to give me any

lectures on what life is like down in the trenches or on the bricks, I know,

I've been there. I've received cheques and had to sign them on the back. I've

also gone through the history of work stoppages and recessions and had to sign

the cheques on the front with a responsibility to my employees, and paying my

creditors and the banks. So I've seen both sides of it. Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) as an employer? As an

employer you (inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Exactly, that's what I mean by signing the

front of the cheques.

MR. TOBIN: You didn't starve them either.

MR. A. SNOW: I've seen both sides of it and I've learned,

Mr. Speaker, that you have to treat people with respect.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it angers me and, as I said, it angers and

disgusts a lot of people in this Province, what is occurring and what has

occurred over the last year. In reality, since 1989, since you people have been

elected, the collective bargaining process has taken a kicking. I would use

another expression ahead of the `kicking', Mr. Speaker, but I'm sure it would be

unparliamentary and I might be asked, as some of my colleagues were recently, to

be kicked out of the House. But, Mr. Speaker, the collective bargaining process

has taken a kicking. This government has attempted to solve the problem

uni-dimensionally, one way, looking at it one side only, looking at the side of

expenses, Mr. Speaker, and you can't do that.

MR. EFFORD: Can't do what?

MR. A. SNOW: You recognize you can't solve a problem, Mr.

Speaker, by looking at it and saying all we have to do is cut costs.

MR. EFFORD: How much do you pay your employees

(inaudible) five dollars an hour?

MR. A. SNOW: Now, Mr. Speaker - the Minister responsible

for Works, Services and Transportation would probably contribute a lot more to

this debate if he were to go back to Ottawa, sit down and negotiate with Doug

Young and get some more money into the funding of the Trans-Labrador Highway,

put some of the provincial dollars into it, accelerate the construction of the

Trans-Labrador Highway and develop the economy of Labrador instead of just

trying to take things out. Don't think one way. Don't think because you didn't

participate in building the road across Labrador that you're saving money. That

was federal money, you know it and I know it.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that's what got this Province in trouble

since 1989. We saved $4 million - we won't participate in building a road in

Labrador, it's not necessary. I can remember when the argument against the road

in Labrador was: Why would we build a road when there are no service stations

there? Nobody will drive on it without the service stations. We can't build

highways where people don't go driving because they can't drive, I mean, that

would be silly.

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

of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the House if I've

missed something. I was out to a meeting with some constituents in Conception

Bay South. Is this on the motion put by the Member for Mount Pearl or is it on

building roads in Labrador? I thought this was Private Members' Day.

AN HON. MEMBER: You should apologize for interrupting.

MR. EFFORD: No but seriously, there has to be relevance

to the motion put by the Member for Mount Pearl or if we're going building roads

then I'll get the equipment.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation has a point. We're just debating a private member's resolution.

So I ask the hon. member to -

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, there is no point of order and

everybody is very well aware. All the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation wants to do is disrupt the debate that we are continuing here in

the House. Now, Mr. Speaker, the idea of mentioning the Trans-Labrador Highway -

and I'll try to keep the minister down in his seat and out of the argument. If

he wants to participate in the debate he should get up and participate in the

fashion that he is supposed to.

What I'm saying is that this government looks at the expense

side and never, ever looked at increasing the gross domestic product of this

Province.

MR. EFFORD: That's not true.

MR. A. SNOW: That's what's necessary, that's what they

have to do. Never mind giving Doug House millions of dollars to study this,

study that, do another study, give a study to go out and see if there should be

hot towels or towels and hot water and b-and-bs, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where have you been?

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, we know where you haven't been,

I say to the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, and that is

out meeting people in this Province. You haven't been out there. You've been

busy on the golf course and the cocktail circuit but you haven't been meeting

the real people of this Province. Now, it hurts. The truth hurts, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations to

withdraw the remark.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, certainly, if I used

unparliamentary language, because I still have difficulty in finding the right

language to address the issue when you think someone is telling something other

than the truth. But I understand the language I used is unparliamentary and I do

withdraw that remark because it is unparliamentary.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, this government, since they

have been elected, have been behaving like a receiver administering a small

enterprise, if you will, when it is into financial problems. That's what they

have been doing. They have been managing decline - that's all they have been

doing, managing decline. That is what a receiver - and they don't even manage it

well. What do they do? All you have to do is look around you. Look at the forced

sales in the newspapers, look at the bankruptcies. They are managing the decline

of an economy. They have done nothing, absolutely nothing, to create more

economic activity in this Province, absolutely nothing of any merit.

They are only now, after five years in office, finally

turning to look up to New Brunswick saying: My god, what has Frank McKenna been

doing when we've been sitting down here shutting down the shop? There is an

imaginative, creative Premier in New Brunswick and a government that was willing

to do things - do them differently, but do them, not just manage decline. They

have attracted investment. What is this government going to do? They are going

to attract investment alright. They are going to attract investment in this

Province. Do you know what they are going to do? They are going to sell off one

of the best assets this Province has, Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro.

My seat mate here referred to it recently in a speech, and I

thought it was very apropos; he referred to it as equivalent to a farmer selling

his cow and still expecting to get the same amount of milk for his quota in

future years. Now, not even a receiver would that that, not even a receiver

would do it! A farmer won't do it. Now, that's what this government is

attempting to do, and that's what they are doing. You will solve next year's

problem with selling off an asset. You are going to sell off an asset next year,

solve the problem, maybe for two years, of borrowing. That is not going to solve

the long-term economic problem of this Province - you know it, I know it and the

people of the Province know it. It is quite evident from a poll done by

Environics that the people of this Province know, because they are dissatisfied

with what this government is doing.

You know, that is what a lot of people in this Province are

saying is the reason why you've set the mood in this Province for a general

strike, or some people are going to be out, public employees, are going to be

out on the bricks - because you are attempting -

AN HON. MEMBER: You hope, you wish.

MR. A. SNOW: No. But the people - I hope they don't. I

don't want to see them on the bricks; I know what it is like. But they know they

are low in the polls. They know that government satisfaction, done by Environics

in March 1994, shows the Federal Government has the satisfaction of 57 per cent

of the people, Mr. Speaker, in Saskatchewan, 54 per cent of the people. It goes

all the way down until we get to government satisfaction approval rating by

people of this Province. Do you know what the rating for this Province is?

twenty-five percent.

A lot of people out there are saying one of the reasons why

this group and the Cabinet are going about setting a strike is because they got

elected last year, called an election, and said: We are going to kick the

stuffing, or whatever you want to call it, out of public employees, especially

the teachers. The Premier stood there and asked: Who do you want to run this

Province - a duly elected government or your NTA?

He conned the people and you people participated in it. Now

you feel that: if we can beat up on the public employees, we can beat up on the

nurses and the teachers, maybe we will go up in the polls. That is what people

are saying. Now, I hate to think that you people would do that. Some of you, I

know, would do it.

Mr. Speaker, there are a lot of people who like being public,

who like being popular, our Premier included. He does not like to be 22 per cent

approval rating, especially a year after an election, after he got elected,

would threaten to kick the stuffings out of public employees and the teachers of

this Province. A lot of people are saying he thinks if he does it again he will

move up in the polls.

Now, Mr. Speaker, this should never occur in a democracy, but

it is happening. To take advantage of public employees like this is unfair. It

threatens the collective bargaining process. It does absolutely nothing for the

economy of this Province. Those 1700 employees that the President of Treasury

Board was so proud of laying off, they used to buy cars, and they use to buy

groceries. They spent money in this Province but now they are gone to Alberta

somewhere, or out in British Columbia. That is where they are, or they are down

here trying to eke a living on welfare. And what do you do? You give yourselves

a raise, buy another car, take a $70,000 trip to the Orient. That is what you

do.

MR. EFFORD: I think that's wrong.

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, it is wrong.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see that the

former Minister of Social Services is coming up with a social conscience. I am

glad I reached at least one person.

This government has gone around the collective bargaining

process, attempted to inflame, to incite, and it has been tremendously unfair. I

know what teachers in my district are going through, Mr. Speaker. In particular

they lag behind, so to speak, the process of negotiations that have occurred in

our area because they belong to a special bargaining unit.

I have been proud to say for the number of years I have lived

in Labrador -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. A. SNOW: May I have leave for two minutes?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No leave.

MR. A. SNOW: It must have hurt.

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

MR. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These are difficult times, Mr. Speaker. I rise today to speak

on the resolution put forward by the Member for Waterford - Kenmount. These are

not very pleasant times to be in government, Mr. Speaker. Nobody wants to be in

a position where you do not have funds to provide the services you would like to

provide. Nobody likes to be in the position of having to do wage freezes and

concessionary bargaining to try to keep the place alive. Nobody over on this

side of the House is excited about having to do that.

If somebody thinks there is glee within the government of

this Province about having to deal with that then the Opposition should get it

right, because they are not right. The government has taken on some serious

problems and are facing some of the most serious problems head on that have ever

been faced in the history of the Province. I do not mind if they get up and be

responsible when they are speaking, which some of them are, but some of them are

not.

When they were the government of the day, I will remind them

for just a few minutes before I discuss what we are trying to do here, to get

ourselves back on our feet again in this Province so we can pay a good wage to

everybody who deserves it and hire the number of public servants we need. But

when they were the government of the day I went back and did a little bit of

homework, Mr. Speaker, and about seven or eight of the members opposite used to

be Cabinet ministers of the former Peckford government, and it is strange some

of the statements that were made in times of recession. Strange things happen, I

have to say, very strange.

Financially, government must act in a way very similar to

individuals: If income drops, expenses must be cut. Over the past several years

my administration has taken many initiatives to reduce government expenses.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. AYLWARD: This was the hon. Brian Peckford, talking

like this, talking about how you have to face reality. This was when transfer

payments were up high from the federal government, not like we have had to take,

almost an 8 per cent or 9 per cent cut since 1989 when we formed the government,

so these were statements made.

I was reading through it. At the time, forestry had major

layoffs; the fishery was having a very difficult time, but it wasn't wiped out,

almost, like it is in this Province now, but they were having a difficult time

at the time. There were still fish in the sea. The question I would have is,

what would they be doing now, with what we have to face, with hardly any codfish

left in the Province, plants all shut down, and communities wondering whether or

not they can survive.

They were in a three-year wage freeze at the time, layoffs,

cutting back, restricting everything, and they were doing this at the time, and

there was no wondering about dealing with the pension funds; there was no

wondering about the future of the... That was when they were there, in a

situation which wasn't as bad. Yet, we are being told: Well, folks, you can't do

this. You shouldn't do that. You're cruel, and you're this and you're that.

Well, you know, the government is just trying to deal with

the reality again, but the only thing is that the reality is pretty stark when

it comes to the finances right now of this Province, but it is not just this

Province. We are not out at the end of Canada being the only ones in this

position. There are all the other jurisdictions across Canada having the same

problems. They are struggling.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) P.E.I.

MR. AYLWARD: P.E.I. didn't face reality a few years ago -

7.5 per cent rollback, and they haven't figured out how to do it. I don't know

what that is. Is that good collective bargaining? I don't know; I don't think

so, but they didn't bother to look three years ago and look at where things were

going. Somebody has to look at where we're heading down the road, at all of the

debt that we have to pay off. The demographics are that we don't have that

many... Down the road we're going to have more older people; we're going to have

fewer younger people, so we have to look at the demographics of where we're

heading.

We can either decide, well, let's ignore all of that; let's

don't even bother with that, and let's keep borrowing until somebody else has to

worry about it. The time has come folks. The time is here now. So what we are

trying to do, what the Minister of Treasury Board is trying to do, and what the

government is trying to do, is do it, manage it slowly; manage it so that we

don't affect people so directly, and sometimes it's hard to do. Sometimes it

hurts, and sometimes people who are out there and have to take the hit, I know

how tough it is; we all know how tough it is. We all have people we know, or

relatives or whatever, who work in the public service, and it is not easy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. AYLWARD: It is not easy. Nobody is saying that - our

public service, we have more people doing more things now, less people to do the

jobs that are there, and there is more of a demand for the services. There is

more pressure on some of our departments than there has ever been, and our

society is going through some major, major changes, but we can't shirk from

trying to deal with the reality, and we have to do a better job of communicating

our message - no doubt about it - we are working on that, but at the end of the

day we are trying to be realistic and we are trying to find a plan that we can

work through with the least amount of harm and the least amount of pain so that

people can try to live, get through and keep going, and build for the future.

It is no good to just have a couple of members of the

Opposition screaming at the government and giving partisan resolutions like this

one today about the integrity of the government and that we want to put

everybody out on strike. It is foolish. It is absolute foolishness. They know it

and most of them over there don't believe it anyway. The fact of the matter is,

we're trying to deal with a situation which is pretty big. It's very difficult

to deal with and if you're going to do it, you've got to lay out a plan and

that's what we're trying to do. As you go through those waters, they're a bit

rough but you know we're trying to calm them down as we go. So you know as we

work through it we're going to solve the problem for the long term. A lot of

people, down the road, are going to thank the government and the members here

for thinking about planning for the future. The kids who are going to school now

are going to thank us down the road for being concerned about the debt, about

the pension plans, about trying to find a way to face the reality and this is

not new to this Province right now.

The credit rating agencies; maybe we should throw up our

hands and say, what the heck? Who cares if the Dominion Bond Rating Service

says: hey, you have a BBB now instead of an A minus? It will only cost you

another $25 or $30 million next year. Who cares? I mean what the heck? I suppose

we can ignore all that. Even with the managed restraint that we have put in

place and trying to get through this, we are still being hovered over by the

credit rating agencies but it's not just this Province.

Ontario; a $9 billion deficit in their budget this year.

They're going to probably get downgraded, I expect, in the next week or so, they

might. They're being looked at again now and they're on credit alert. Now

Ontario was the richest province in Canada three or four years ago. They had

surpluses coming out every year, out of their budget, surpluses. The richest

province, the engine of economic growth in Canada and now they're into a $9

billion deficit. They're on credit watch and they've had what you call Rae days

where you go to work, you take some days off and you don't get paid. So many Rae

day's they call them, Bob Rae days they call them, plus a whole range of other

things.

So we're not just a little - our Province is just not down

here and we're not just ignoring the rest of the world and everything else. The

bond rating agencies who have been nice to us, who have been helping us get the

money that we need, are now saying folks: sorry, the credit card is up and you

got to start paying the balances. You got to start paying them off in time. So

what I would like to hear more from the other side is some responsible

suggestions about how to do that. Some of them got up and made good suggestions

and some of them have some positive impact on what can happen but to just go out

and say in a partisan way: well, who cares? The government don't care and the

government is this and the government is that. Well folks you know, that's

plainly not the truth.

The simple fact of the matter is, we are taking great pains

here to try to get through this process and to put ourselves back on an even

keel in this Province. One of these days, believe it or not, people are going to

thank this government. They're going to thank the members of this government for

thinking about the future and trying to make it better. It's not popular to be

into wage restraint, it's not popular to be wondering about layoffs and

everything else. It's not popular when you have to spend less money and wonder

if your hospital can survive on this much less money, can the administrator

tighten it up again this year or can the school board tighten it up again this

year?

I didn't get elected for that. I have to tell you, when I got

elected I said: well I'm going to get elected to try to do things, make things

happen, work with the government and try to make the economy go and so on and so

forth. We're trying but we also can't go around and not face the reality of the

debt load, most of which we inherited in 1989, 72 per cent of it and we

inherited the debt. We don't just have a recession. We got a massive kind of

worldwide economy now that's going through an upheaval and what we're trying to

do is keep it on a stable level here in this Province.

If you look across Canada - Alberta; a 20 per cent cut right

across the board in education for the next three or four years in their whole

budget. Kindergarten; they have to pay for it up in Alberta this year, they have

to pay for it. I suppose if we want to we could ignore it all and we could go

and see if we can find a junk bond market to give us another $200 million but if

we're going to keep doing that, if we're going to keep doing that, Government

House Leader, then I don't want to be around. Because I have two kids coming up

here and their income taxes now are going to be - I already know what they are

going to be in about ten, fifteen or twenty years when they get there. I already

know what they are going to be. They will still be paying off what we already

have done.

If we want to keep ploughing it on I suppose we could keep

doing that. All we are trying to do here is manage it right. Fiscal

responsibility, and try to get the economy going, even though our hands are half

tied half the time. We are trying. The thing is, everybody in this House of

Assembly, and the members of this House, and the government especially,

appreciates the public service. I do. I know how hard they work. I work with

them every day. And the people who are out in the field in the teaching

professions and in the other professions. In the health care profession. There

is a lot of stress on people because the economy is not going well.

What we want to do, we've got to try to do a partnership and

we have to try to build a partnership. We made some mistakes, we will make more

mistakes. There is no doubt about that. Maybe some times it will be rough

waters. What I say is, maybe what we should do, we should try to collectively at

least think about where we are heading in the future and where we are right now.

I think that is important for where we are going. There is no major agenda over

here to go and beat up on certain unions or anything else. What we are trying to

do is just get an understanding of what we are into.

The books are open. The accounts of this government are open.

The debt is on the books. If you want to talk to the credit rating agencies they

will talk, they will tell you where we are to. It is `get outable,' as a matter

of fact, it is `get outable,' but we have to manage our way out of it. Like I

said, nobody over here has got all the answers. We are working on trying to find

some solutions. Part of the solution unfortunately at times is restraint

programs on wages. It is no different than it was ten years ago when members

opposite were in the government, when they were at the same darn thing,

unfortunately. They were. It was unfortunate that they had to have wage

restraint, it was unfortunate that they had to increase taxes, it was

unfortunate that they had to have lay offs like they did. It was unfortunate

that those things occurred.

We can't ignore reality and we have to try to get through it,

but I say that we have to do a better job. I think if that is the message that

the member opposite today wants to say, well, let's concentrate on trying to

resolve the collective bargaining, I'm all for that. So is the government over

here, as a matter of fact. Let's try to understand that this is not like an

agenda of negativity, of just beating up on whoever. This is trying to figure

out a way with the least amount of pain and so on to get through the process so

that our economy will be least affected and we can move on.

That is what it is all about. It is not about an agenda, it

is not about any of that. This is about trying to get the Province on the right

road to get it moving and we are working towards that. We are all trying our

best. I only say that it is tough - when bargaining is on it is always tough. It

doesn't matter if it is in good times or if it is bad. When it is good times we

still have clashes over how much the employer can give and how much the employee

wants to have. There is always going to be that potential clash.

I say today that we are in a situation where it is even

tougher because we are into recessions and we are into debt problems that are so

major that we have to take unusual measures. I would like to see things not so

unusual. I look forward to seeing a resolution to our collective bargaining

issues. I hope, as one member - and I speak for everybody on this side - that we

get through the rougher waters and that we get a partnership on the go for the

future, which we need to get into. We have to accept some of the facts that are

on the table. That is what I ask people to think about. That the credit rating

agencies are hovering, watching us. That we are not trying to go out and take

people out of the jobs, et cetera. We are trying to find ways to deal with the

situation.

The government is not always going to be right. We are not

ever always going to be right. We are trying our best. I say, thank God that

this government is facing the problems. That is all I'm saying. We are facing

the problem head on. We are trying to do the best we can. I hope that down the

road in the next short period of time we will resolve some of the issues that

are on the table, but that also in the long-term people will recognize this is

what we are trying to do and that we should all participate in the process of

trying to do that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

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

I certainly want to take an opportunity to speak in this

debate -

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: What's that?

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: With whom?

AN HON. MEMBER: You are not allowed to speak.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I want to offer my unqualified

support to the resolution presented by my colleague from Waterford - Kenmount

this afternoon, a resolution that basically states:

Whereas the government

announced in the Budget Speech its fiscal plan to further reduce the

compensation of public sector employees by an additional $50 million; and

whereas the President of Treasury Board and the government have poisoned the

collective bargaining process through the use of ultimatums; and

whereas honour

and trust have disappeared from the collective bargaining process for public

employees in this Province; and

whereas the government of the Province has

displayed a confrontational, dictatorial and mean-minded attitude towards

collective bargaining in recent months; and

whereas the current threats to

disruptions in public services are causing severe anxiety for many citizens; and

whereas the threat of public sector strikes is having a profound and negative

effect on the economy of Newfoundland; therefore

be it resolved that this House

deplore the confrontational approaches of the government in its negotiations

with public sector unions and that this House direct the President of Treasury

Board to immediately begin meaningful and constructive negotiations with all

public sector unions.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that is a fair request for this House, on

behalf of the people of the Province whom we were elected to represent by the

way, asked the President of Treasury Board to immediately begin meaningful and

constructive negotiations with all public sector unions. That sounds very

realistic to me, Mr. Speaker. The President of Treasury Board has a

responsibility to do more than he is doing in this Province to ensure not only

that the public servants of this Province are dealt with fairly in collective

bargaining, but to ensure that there is an accepted morale level within the

public service in this Province and, Mr. Speaker, that has not been happening.

We have seen the other day where the Minister of Education

for example, tried to undermine the President of Treasury Board by causing

letters to be circulated in this Province -

MR. ROBERTS: You don't believe that, do you?

MR. TOBIN: I do believe that, I say to the Government

House Leader, I most certainly do believe it and you know something else? There

is very little that I wouldn't believe that this government is prepared to do in

order to isolate the teachers in this Province, I say to the Government House

Leader. There is very little that they wouldn't do. If I have ever seen in my

dozen or so years around this House, a concerted attempt by this government to

isolate one group in particular in this Province, namely the teachers, Mr.

Speaker, we have seen it happening over the past little while and in particular

by the actions of the Minister of Education.

MR. ROBERTS: Claptrap.

MR. TOBIN: Well I don't care if you like it or not, and

all I would say to you is that it is tough if you don't like it. If you don't

like it do something decent for a change. Deal with the public servants, start

negotiations -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. TOBIN: Yes you are. Yes, Mr. Speaker, that's what you

are doing. Yes, that's why the teachers today announced an 89 per cent strike

vote; that's why the nurses of this Province announced over a 90 per cent strike

vote. That's why NAPE and CUPE are announcing major strike votes in this

Province - because you are dealing with them in a fair and reasonable way? Yes,

Mr. Speaker, but let me say to the minister that that would be totally out of

character for you in any case.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you who you have

been dealing thoroughly with in this Province; I can tell you who the government

have been dealing fairly with in this Province, Gordon Seabright; Gordon

Seabright, Mr. Speaker, a part-time job. What did you pay him for his part-time

job? Ninety-eight thousand, two hundred and seven dollars and fifty cents;

that's who the government has been dealing fairly with in this Province. Who

else have they been dealing fairly with, what about Jeffrey Brace?

Jeffrey Brace the vice-chairperson of the Workers'

Compensation Appeals Tribunal, or whatever it is called. How much did you pay

Mr. Brace? How about $83,580? Name, Mr. Speaker, the nurse in this Province who

is receiving that kind of a money for a full-time job, I say to the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations, name a public servant in NAPE and CUPE, or a

teacher in this Province who is receiving that kind of money. For a part-time

job, Mr. Speaker, $83,580 or a $98,000 job. That is who you are treating fairly

in this Province.

Does it not hurt I say to the minister? You are a former

teacher. Name one of your colleagues I say to the minister, name one person in

the teaching profession today who is making $98,000 for a full-time job, not a

part-time job. That is who you and the rest of your colleagues have been sitting

around the Cabinet table with, and treating fairly, Mr. Speaker. That is who you

have been treating fairly in this Province. Jeffrey Brace, $83,000. You should

hang you heads in shame, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: To the point of order for a second, Mr.

Speaker.

The hon. member in mentioning people who are providing very

valuable service to the Province in terms of Workers' Compensation appeals -

AN HON. MEMBER: How much does she make? Come on.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: The hon. member was a member of the Cabinet

in this Province that put in place the per diem rates that have been in

existence for almost fifteen years for those boards and tribunals. These people

have been appointed and the system was set up by the members opposite. The only

thing this government has done with those rates, Mr. Speaker, since we have been

in office, is reduce them because there has been a fiscal problem in the

Province.

Members opposite appointed similar types of people who had to

have legal background and experience in order to sit in adjudicative capacities

to do those kind of jobs which are very important to the people who have

problems in worker's compensation appeals because that system operates instead

of the courts. If the hon. member opposite, or the Member for Humber East, who

is a lawyer herself, would like to suggest that any lawyers in Newfoundland and

Labrador who are working for rates, the only thing this government has done, Mr.

Speaker, is to reduce the rates because there are fiscal problems in the

Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The point raised by the hon. minister is really not a point

of order. The hon. minister is taking exception, I guess. Perhaps it would be a

point of clarification rather than a point of order.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Let me say to the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations that I know both of these gentlemen personally, and I respect

both of these gentlemen. I am not here to say anything negative or to cast any

aspersions on either one of these gentlemen, Mr. Speaker. It is the system that

this minister in particular has set up.

He talked about the per diem. The per diem is only one issue

in this. It is the number of hearings that is referred to the individuals to

hear, is where the money is coming from, I say to the minister. Do you know

something else? I say one other thing to the minister. I was part of this

government when we negotiated with the teachers of this Province, and I believe

the increase they got was 5 and 6 per cent over two years. I am not sure, but I

think that is what it was. When you were President of the NTA what did you do?

You put 8000 teachers in this Province on strike. That is what you did, and you

have done nothing except gut the teachers since you came in and became a

minister. That is what this Minister of Employment and Labour Relations has

done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations on a point of order.

MR. GRIMES: The hon. member knows that one of the rules

of the House is that we are suppose to make statements in this House that we

know to be true because anybody else is not allowed to suggest that we are

saying anything but the truth.

For the record, I think the hon. member was not in the

Cabinet at that time, because it was later, at the very end of the Peckford

administration, that he entered the Cabinet. Other members opposite were in the

Cabinet when I was President of the Newfoundland and Labrador Teachers

Association, which was the Newfoundland Teachers Association at that time, the

raise and the increase, Mr. Speaker, that was negotiated while I was President

was 0, 0, a two year freeze, and I might add that it was done despite severe

objections from a large portion of the membership of the Newfoundland Teachers

Association - just to correct -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. The hon. the Member for Burin -

Placentia West.

AN HON. MEMBER: He is using up your time.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, is he ever trying to use up my

time. Is the hon. minister ever trying to use up my time. I can tell the hon.

minister that the issue was substitute pay. That's what the minister did when he

cried out on the steps of the Confederation Building and said he would be forced

out. That is what the issue was, I say to the Minister of Labour; and, Sir,

since you have come in here -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations on a

point of order.

MR. GRIMES: Again, Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to take the

opportu