May 8,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No.

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Before proceeding to our routine business, on behalf of hon.

members I would like to welcome to the galleries today students from Seamen's

Elementary School, Garnish, in the district of Grand Bank. These students are

accompanied by their teachers, Mr. Riley, Mrs. Nolan, and Mr. Marsh.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, a couple of days ago, on

Wednesday, I met with a group of citizens from the Goulds, who, as everybody

knows, have had their property taxes increased from 6 mils to 11 mils. Nearly

doubled. That has come about as a result of being forced into amalgamation with

the City of St. John's by this government.

Now, since the government members are meeting today, as I

understand it, with the city council of St. John's, and since it was the

government that caused the problem in the first place, I want to ask the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs, will he authorise his city

colleagues today to give a commitment to the city council to at least provide

transitional funding to the City of St. John's to allow those higher mil rates

to be phased in over a period of, say, up to five years?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: I apologise to the hon. Leader of the

Opposition. I did not catch the first part of his opening remarks. But the gist

of it was, I think, consideration of alleviating the burden in the Goulds area.

The Minister of Agriculture and I have met with the representation, the

Federation of Agriculture, and we have set in motion a mechanism that would

review this and get back to the minister and I in short order, so that we can

address this particular problem.

The municipality of St. John's has not, to my knowledge, put

any proposals forward to the department to assist in any way with the

introduction of higher taxes or the increased burden of taxes to the area of the

Goulds.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)!

MR. HOGAN: Any proposal that might come forward, I can

assure the Leader of the Opposition, we will entertain it.

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

MR. SIMMS: I will have to repeat the question, I guess,

because obviously the minister did not hear it. I know it is Friday morning and

a bit early and all that stuff. I will try it again. What I have said is that I

met with a group of Goulds residents on Wednesday. It had nothing to do with the

issue of the land freeze, that is a totally separate issue. They did not meet

with me on that. It was on the issue of their property taxes having been raised

from six mils to eleven mils as a direct result of being forced into

amalgamation with the City of St. John's by his government. So what I asked him

was, since the city members are meeting today with the city council to discuss

this particular issue, and since it was the government who caused this problem

because of forcing amalgamation, will the minister give a commitment to his city

members to allow them to give a commitment to the City of St. John's today, when

they meet with them, to provide for transitional funding to allow for a phasing

in of those additional tax increases, over say a five year period? That was the

question. I wonder if he could respond to that?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: I did not miss as much of the question as I

though I had but that is the answer that applies. The meeting that we had with

the people representative of the owners of farm land in the Goulds, part of the

discussion was on taxes. We did address it and it is going to be addressed in

that fashion. Yes, I would invite city members that are meeting with the city

today to entertain any proposal from the city in that regard, in fact invite

them to put forward something for our discussion. I personally am very concerned

about it and I would take any position that comes to me and present it to

government and to cabinet, for their consideration. It is a hardship and it is a

burden on the people of the Goulds and I would like to be able to address it.

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

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My understanding is that the City of St. John's has already

made a request for transitional funding and they were rejected. According to the

Mayor on the news this morning she said they had already been turned down once

for transitional funding. I understand the request had in fact been made in the

past but I am only listening to what was said on the news this morning. I want

to ask the minister this: in reality why should there be any difficulty with

this kind of a request because other areas amalgamated with the City of St.

John's, for example, in the past, Kilbride and Airport Heights have been given

transitional funding to allow a phase in of increased taxes? So, I want to ask

the minister does he not believe therefore that the residents of the Goulds

deserve the same treatment, fairness and balance, as other residents have

received in the past, so could he be a bit more specific and give a firm

commitment? That is the question.

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: I would suggest to the hon. Leader of the

Opposition that in fact the city was reimbursed, or the city was in some way

alleviated for the annexation of Airport Heights and other sections of the city

and it would only strengthen their case if they came forward looking for such

alleviation in the case of other sections that have now come into their

possession because of recent amalgamation. I might also add, Mr. Speaker, that I

am not trying to avoid the issue, I am trying to be as straightforward as I can.

If we get a proposal from them and I will encourage the city members to invite

it and bring it forward and I will run with it.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to hear the minister make that commitment. We

could not get a similar commitment from the former minister in the debate all

last year on amalgamation. He absolutely rejected such suggestions.

My supplementary to the minister is this. Dealing with

funding for capital improvements to the former Town of the Goulds: now this

government has precedence for that, they provided funding to the new town of

Grand Falls-Windsor for example, to help those towns by providing capital

funding over a period of three years to upgrade the services on the Windsor side

in the Windsor ward, but the Goulds got nothing in the transitional amalgamation

issue, so I will ask the minister: Would he be prepared to make a similar

commitment - as he just made, I think, a fairly strong commitment in terms of

transitional funding for taxes - would he be prepared to make a similar

commitment to the City of St. John's to provide some capital funding to help

up-grade services in the community of the Goulds?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot make the same

commitment there. As the hon. member is aware, capital funding is done at a

specific time in the year, it is done under specific circumstances and it is

almost a one shot deal, and I am not aware of any deal with Grand Falls for

capital funding.

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

Extern.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is also to the Minister for Municipal and

Provincial Affairs.

According to the former Minister for Municipal and Provincial

Affairs, the intent of the new municipal grant structure was not to save money

but to redistribute grant funding more fairly. Is it not true that the

government will save $5.4 million a year when the new system is fully

incorporated in 1993?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: The hon. member got it all right, I think, but

he put it in the wrong format, Mr. Speaker.

It is true that the municipal operating grant will be

shortened by $5. some-odd million this year. That is because of the restraint

program, and that the grant funding was capped with last year's Budget, as I

understand it. The distribution and the theory and the philosophy behind it came

out of this being distributed more fairly or more equitably. There is just less

being distributed.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister that the

smaller communities who did not have an adequate commercial tax base were to get

more from the new structure. In fact, they are the people who have suffered.

Will the minister confirm that funding for smaller municipalities was reduced by

13.3 per cent from 1990-1991, and they have lost again this year to a greater

extent?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: I don't know if the member's calculations are

correct or not. I will accept them on the surface. If he says they are reduced

by 13.3 per cent, I would say it was his calculation, not my figures. I will

accept his calculations that this is so. There is no plan to change that at the

moment, but it is under review by a committee that government has set up in

co-operation with the Federation of Municipalities and the Administrative

Association.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: I say to the minister, all municipalities

are losing, but those losing the most are the least able to help themselves. How

will those small municipalities survive, and is this a way or means to squeeze

and force those small municipalities into amalgamation?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: There is no squeeze play underway at all, Mr.

Speaker.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

I want to ask the minister a specific question. In Flatrock

they received $505,000 for water and sewer funding this year. They turned it

down because they could not afford it. Seeing that was the only money that was

allocated to St. John's East Extern, I ask the minister, could he divvy that up

between the other applications that were received from the other municipalities?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. PARSONS: That was the only money that we received

down there. Could he divvy that up between Torbay, Outer Cove, Middle Cove, Logy

Bay and Pouch Cove to extend the services that are already there? Where is the

money, and could he divide it up among the other communities?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: No, I can't make that commitment either, Mr.

Speaker. It is not within my jurisdiction or authority as minister to divide it

up. To my knowledge - and probably it is in the mail from Flat Rock - the money

has been declined by Flat Rock in their capital funding. It has not been made

known officially to the department yet.

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

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question

is to the Minister of Fisheries. This year there will not be a commercial salmon

fishery on the Island portion of the Province, however, it will continue in

Labrador. Already, I understand, there are some potential buyers planning to

move into Labrador and purchase salmon at probably an extraordinarily high

price. Would the minister bring in some safeguards to assure that the salmon

fishermen on the Labrador Coast will have the opportunity to sell their catch to

the fish plants on the Labrador Coast so that the people there can get

employment in processing this particular fishery?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I understand the

question. We know there is a salmon license buy-out. We know that Labrador is on

a voluntary basis and there is no moratorium in Labrador as there is in the rest

of the Province. Is he talking about the fishermen who will have no market for

their salmon? There was too much noise and I couldn't hear. Would you mind

repeating the question?

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

MR. WARREN: I agree with the minister, there is some

noise. Would the minister assure that there will be an equal price per pound for

salmon from the fishermen of the Labrador Coast? At the same time, would he

assure that other companies from outside the Labrador Coast don't come in and

pay an extraordinarily high price for the salmon and take it away from the

Coast? The people of Coastal Labrador want to have the opportunity of processing

it in the fish plants on the Coast.

MR. CARTER: Yes, I can understand his concern, Mr.

Speaker, in the question, but I don't know what the Province could do in a case

like that. Certainly, we wouldn't encourage it, but I don't know how we could

prevent, say, a company from going into Labrador and paying, maybe, or offering

a higher price for the salmon than the local processors. That is what you are

saying, isn't it? If you have any ideas as to how we can address that problem,

we would be quite willing to sit down with you.

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

MR. WARREN: Yes, I have ideas.

Mr. Speaker, I have a particular, direct question for the

minister. The minister owns and operates the fish plant in Nain. The minister

sets the price per pound for char and salmon each year. For the last number of

years, going back ten or fifteen years, the price has been much lower than on

the Island portion of the Province. Could the minister advise us now what price

per pound his department will be paying the fishermen in the Nain area for

salmon and char this year?

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

MR. CARTER: No, Mr. Speaker, I can't provide that

information. I will certainly take it as notice and, on Monday if I am able to,

I will certainly provide the information to the hon. gentleman then.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Social Services. On CBC

radio this morning, Mr. Speaker, the minister was complaining that the increased

awareness of child sexual abuse was causing problems for his department because

many more cases were being reported. I wonder, Mr. Speaker, could the minister

tell us whether that is the reason why the government is being slow in

implementing changes to

Section 49 of The Child Welfare Act which requires and

causes penalties for people failing to report child sexual abuse or child abuse

that they are aware of?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I was not complaining this

morning of the increased caseload, I was answering a question. If I recollect,

my comment was that increased awareness has contributed to the demands on our

social workers and the caseloads they have to handle. I think that is a very

factual statement, Mr. Speaker. For anybody to suggest that we have been in an

environment over the last few years where child abuse has not been very much in

the press and we have not had an increase in awareness, I wonder where the

gentleman has been living. Certainly, we have had an increased awareness of

child sexual abuse and other abuse over the last few years and that has

contributed to the reporting of cases by the public, certainly, an awareness by

staff, whether it be police staff or social services staff, and the caseloads

have consequently increased. I think that was a very factual statement on my

part.

Mr. Speaker, as to dealing with sections of the act and

changes in the act, we are, as I again said this morning, dealing with

amendments to the existing act. Those amendments will have to be looked at now

in the light of the Hughes report. We have some thirty-five recommendations as

the House knows, many of which have been acted upon, as I said yesterday. The

remainder though have now to be dealt with by staff. We have given the two

deputy ministers responsibility to work with staff in the departments and seek

any advice they choose to, and to report back to us with recommendations as to

where we should go with those thirty-five recommendations of the Hughes

commission.

So we will be making changes, Mr. Speaker, in the act, and

changes that are necessary, but only after due deliberation and consideration of

Hughes' recommendations.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for St.

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the ministerial

statement yesterday the minister indicated that this review of the Child Welfare

Act has been going on for several years and that

Section 49 was one of the

sections that there had been recommended changes to.

Now why should there be an awaiting of the full review of the

Child Welfare Act and a full new act to be brought before this House before this

specific change can be implemented? Would the minister be prepared to introduce

that section, that change and that amendment, to the House? I am sure it will

get speedy passage this Spring. Perhaps the official Opposition might respond to

that. But that particular

section I understand is ready to be changed. Would the

minister commit himself to introducing that change this session?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, I do not think you could have

acted any more quickly than this government did in asking our deputy ministers

and our other staff to look at these recommendations.

It may very well be that the

section of the act that the

member speaks of will be acted upon more quickly than other sections that we

have to deal with, and more quickly than dealing with the entire thirty-five

recommendations. But that is something that we have to await advice on from our

officials. We want to give them the time to consider the recommendations. It has

only been a matter of a week or so since Hughes' recommendations were made

public. Those recommendations were acted upon immediately in terms of staff

looking at them and giving us subsequently their advice. We may very well, Mr.

Speaker, act more quickly on some recommendations than others, but we have to

see the advice first from our officials.

MR. SPEAKER: Supplementary, the hon. the Member for St.

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I guess I have to ask the

question again. How can the minister say that it still requires further

deliberation when the considerations of this particular

section of the act have

been going on for several years? The knowledge of the inadequacy of

Section 49

of the Child Welfare Act existed before the Hughes Commission Report was given

to the government. The report was given to the minister and his predecessor more

than a year ago. Why can't we have an amendment this session to fix that problem

with the act?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, we are not going to act with

the sort of haste that the member is suggesting and quickly make changes to the

act and probably regret it later. We are going to take the time necessary to

review all thirty-five recommendations, to consider the advice of professionals

on our staff, deputy ministers and the committee that we have struck. We are

going to take that time. I can only repeat what I said in answer to the previous

question. That it may very well be that they will recommend that we make changes

more quickly on some recommendations than others. If that is the case, Mr.

Speaker, we will do so.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question

to the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation. Last October the

airstrip, which would benefit the entire Burin Peninsula and which would give a

boost to the economy of the entire Burin Peninsula. This was one of the key

factors in Kvaerner wanting to purchase the Marystown Shipyard as there was a

connection to the Burin Peninsula by air.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister if he can tell me what has

happened to that $700,000 which was needed to upgrade the Winterland airstrip

Newfoundland to use for that purpose?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, with respect to that particular agreement and

that particular amount of money, the government is well aware of the need for

the expenditure of those funds on the Burin Peninsula, given the state of the

economy in that area of the Province. One of the concerns that we had with

respect to that particular agreement and that particular facility was that if

that quantity of funds was to be expended on the airstrip in Winterland, then in

order to adequately service the residents of that particular area from that

airstrip there would have to be an improved access road from the airstrip to the

main road. Negotiations are still ongoing with the federal government to have

that access road constructed up to a suitable standard to allow the residents to

avail of these improved facilities, and those discussions are still ongoing, Mr.

Speaker, with respect to that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, the minister is not being honest

and forthright. The fact of the matter is that the federal government has told

the minister of the department that they are responsible for roads. In case the

minister doesn't know, in this Province the provincial government has the

responsibility for provincial roads.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. TOBIN: Now, Mr. Speaker, the road from the Grand Bank

highway to Salt Pond branches off to the Community of Winterland. That has been,

still is and always will be, I would suspect, the responsibility of the

provincial government.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: Can the minister tell me, Mr. Speaker, and

tell this House and the people of the Burin Peninsula when he is going to accept

his responsibility, when this government is going to do something for the people

of the Burin Peninsula and when are they going to say yes to the federal

government, take the $700,000 and let the Burin Peninsula have the same types of

benefits as the other parts of this country have, Mr. Speaker? When is he going

to do it?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Mr. Speaker, it is trite to say that I

recognize that roads are a provincial responsibility. However, Mr. Speaker, when

is a road a necessary adjunct to an airport? If the federal government was to

build an airport in this Province fifty kilometers from any access road in the

Province, would it then be a provincial responsibility to build an access road

to an airport that was constructed by the federal government? You know, you just

can't clearly define roads as being a provincial responsibility and airports as

being a federal responsibility, because in order to access an airport you need a

roadway. So in some cases the roadway can be considered part of the airport,

which is a federal responsibility, Mr. Speaker.

As to when the money will be spent, I would like the money to

be spent as quickly as possible to improve the economy of the Burin Peninsula

and to let people go to work down there. Therefore, I urge the hon. member to

get in contact with his federal colleagues to apply some pressure on them so we

can resolve this outstanding difficulty, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

West, on a supplementary.

MR. TOBIN: What a bluff, Mr. Speaker! What a bluff!

Mr. Speaker, is the minister stunned or does he not want to

know the difference? Doesn't he realize that there is presently a road connected

to the Winterland airport, that there is presently a road there, Mr. Speaker,

that has been used for the last twenty years connecting to the airport? The

airport is there. What is happening is the federal government are going to

extend the airport and they need road improvements made. They need a commitment,

Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get on with his question, please.

MR. TOBIN: I am asking the minister, Mr. Speaker, does he

realize the federal government are only looking for a commitment from this

government that they will upgrade the road that is there? If they say yes to

that, then the airport can go ahead.

So, Mr. Speaker, let me ask the minister this: Did he not

meet with a group of councils from the Burin Peninsula and did they not tell the

minister that the present road needs some upgrading? Will you, Mr. Minister, and

will your government accept your responsibilities and upgrade that road? If you

cannot spend the $200,000 that is needed this year, will you do it over a period

of three or four years? Make that commitment. We are not asking to build a major

new road. Take the road that is there, upgrade that and make the commitment to

provide the economy of the Burin Peninsula with the type of air services that

they need, Mr. Speaker. For the past three years they have been abandoned on the

Burin Peninsula by this government and it is now time -

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

MR. TOBIN: I ask the minister, Mr. Speaker: Will he

confirm that that was the request of the Burin Peninsula residents?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I remind the hon. member for Burin - Placentia West of the

rules. The member ought to know them. He knows very clearly that when he is

asking a supplementary that it must be a question - not an expression of

opinion, representation, argumentation, nor debate. The hon. member knows that,

and there is a responsibility on him to follow the rules.

The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I am aware that there is an existing roadway there, but

the hon. member's question indicates that even the existing roadway, if it is to

adequately service that particular airport, would have to be upgraded. Once the

airport is upgraded there has to be an improved road network to access the

airport. Whether that is an upgraded road or a new road, there has to be an

improved access road to access the airport.

The airport is a federal responsibility. Why is there a need

for an improved access road?... to service the airport, which is a federal

responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, in this particular case all I can suggest is, as

in the case of the fisheries crisis, the members opposite are trying to protect

the federal treasury and alleviate the federal government of their

responsibility of coming forward with money to discharge their responsibility in

this particular matter, as they are seeking to evade and avoid the federal

responsibility with respect to the fisheries crisis.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the minister responsible for cultural

affairs, the Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs. Would the minister

please give the House an update on the long talked about Federal-Provincial

Cultural Industries Agreement? When will that agreement be signed, and how much

money will the Province contribute over what period of time?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, the agreement is just about ready

to be signed. The amount of monies that has been negotiated in that regard is

still of a confidential nature and I am not at liberty to disclose this to the

House.

MR. SPEAKER: The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: In answer to the question on the Order Paper

by the hon. the Member for Kilbride, I want to table and indicate the answer,

Mr. Speaker. Trips taken during the period as requested, Corner Brook, September

18, 1991 for the signing of a silviculture agreement and I was accompanied by

the Assistant Deputy Minister; Harbour Grace on September 19 for the official

opening of the Fall Fair, again accompanied by the Assistant Deputy Minister of

Agriculture; to Grand Falls on December 20 to attend the Exploits Valley

regional recreation facility announcement, and the next day, to officially open

the Fall Fair in Green Bay. Mr. Speaker, on October 9 - it says here, one day,

but I obviously overnighted - on October 9 in Baie Verte, I am pleased to tell

you there was no charge on that particular trip.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FLIGHT: On October 10, Mr. Speaker, I attended a

Resource Policy Committee meeting and I was accompanied by my executive

assistant as I was on the previous trip.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where was that?

MR. FLIGHT: To Bonne Bay, Wiltondale in particular.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. FLIGHT: The Liberal Party. I must say it was a very

successful trip to Baie Verte. It paid off handsomely.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table my answers to

the same question.

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

point of order.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the information is provided in

this particular Answer to Questions. I think, we need to have some kind of a

guideline because some ministers could have very lengthy answers to give and

presumably -

AN HON. MEMBER: It could be embarrassing.

MR. SIMMS: There is no embarrassment, Mr. Speaker, we

don't mind asking questions because we want the information, but there has to be

some kind of an understanding. Should the answers be lengthy or should the same

rules apply as would apply in the ordinary Question Period which is what I

understand it to be. For example, the Minister of Finance, I think, did it

properly. He just got up and tabled the answer. It is available to the press and

everything. You do not get anything out of it other than a little bit of

showmanship in the House, but it wastes the time of the House.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr Speaker..

I agree with the Leader of the Opposition that where answers

are lengthy, the lengthy answers should simply be tabled under Answers to

Questions. But I think it is customary in this House that a brief period of time

be allowed for a member to explain the answer to the question as long as it

isn't lengthy and doesn't take up the time of the House, Mr. Speaker.

However, I wonder if the comment by the Opposition goes a

little deeper than that, in that they don't like the answers to the questions

and therefore, they don't want to hear them.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order. If we go by practice

and precedent in this House, there have been some mighty long answers given

under this item, but this Chair has asked ministers to regard it the same as the

Question Period and that they be as brief as possible. We could get into some

very lengthy answers and it is not supposed to be that way, so I ask for the

co-operation of hon. ministers.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Order 10, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 10, the continuation of the debate on

Bill 17.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The amendment to Bill 17 that has been proposed by the Member

for Harbour Main is to refer the matter to a committee of the House that would

travel, to hear comments from the public on this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I

don't think the government is going to support that amendment. I have a very

strong feeling that the government is not prepared to support the amendment to

the legislation that would defer consideration of Bill 17 to allow the people of

Newfoundland to have some input into the decision that this government has made

to attack collective bargaining in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, this doesn't come as a surprise to me, because

the government doesn't want the people of Newfoundland to have any say in any

matter that is one of controversy. I am quite happy to see committees of this

House travel around the Province to discuss signage on highways. I know the

Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island had a road show going around the Province

for a couple of years to talk about signage on the highways; what colour the

signs should be, how big they should be, how many should be put up and how many

should be allowed to be put up. I am quite happy to see the people of

Newfoundland have some say in that, Mr. Speaker, because that is not a matter of

great importance to the Province, a matter on which public input is necessary,

particularly from a committee of elected politicians who are highly paid,

compared to the average Newfoundlander, to travel around the Province and talk

about that.

They are prepared, Mr. Speaker, to have a committee of this

House spend government money to travel around and talk about whether the

constitutional name of the Province should conform to the actual name that the

Government uses when it talks about itself so that we should call it the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador so that the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador, which it calls itself, can be the Government of the Province of

Newfoundland and Labrador, something that it seems everybody in this House

supports. So that is not controversial. Let's have a committee. Let's send a

committee all around the Province. Go to Labrador. Make the Member for Eagle

River Chairman of it so he can get a bit of a profile. We will do that.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I voted against it. I voted against wasting

the people's money, Mr. Speaker, to travel around this Province to profile the

Member for Eagle River on a proposition that every member of this House said

they agreed with. Yes, Mr. Speaker, I voted against that. I voted in favour of

changing the name of the Province to the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

I voted in favour of that, Mr. Speaker, as did every single member of the House,

but I voted against wasting the taxpayers' money having a committee to talk

about something that everybody agreed with.

Mr. Speaker, when I moved the Private Member's resolution in

this House some weeks ago to set up a committee to consider ways of implementing

a system that would guarantee the representation of women in this House, the

government to a person, Mr. Speaker, each and every one of them, stood up and

voted against it.

So, Mr. Speaker, the government is not prepared to have

committees when there are matters of controversy, when there are matters of

important government policy such as the representation, the very basic elements

of democracy in terms of representation of people in this House. They don't want

to have a committee for that. They don't want the public to have input in that.

They don't want to stimulate public discussion on that kind of issue. They don't

want to have the voice of the people participate in a progressive measure to

improve democracy in this Province.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is not surprising that they are also

going to vote against the amendment by the Member for Harbour Main to have the

people of this Province have some input into whether or not this government

ought to be permitted to destroy collective agreements and to destroy the

foundations of labour legislation and labour peace in this Province. They don't

want, Mr. Speaker, the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to make the

connection between what this government is doing in destroying collective

bargaining, fomenting an anti-union attitude and the activities of certain

private sector employers, who are going about this Province now attacking

unions, attacking collective agreements, holding demonstrations, organizing

demonstrations, trying to undermine collective bargaining. They are not seeing

the connection. They don't want the people of Newfoundland and Labrador to see

the connection between what this government is doing in collective bargaining

and the private sector attacks they are encouraging.

Mr. Speaker, what is happening is that this government's

commitment to collective bargaining is not dying, this government's commitment

to collective bargaining is dead and that is why it is not surprising that the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations - he may say now that he was joking,

but it is not surprising that the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations

would say that collective bargaining is not just in jeopardy, collective

bargaining is dead.

So I suspect that when the time comes for a vote on whether

we would have a committee to examine Bill 17, the government members opposite

are going to vote against that resolution because they don't want the people of

Newfoundland to have a say in what happens to Bill 17. Because, Mr. Speaker,

they have been putting it forth as if it were a revenue measure, as if it had

something to do with any financial measure the Minister of Finance might

propose, why we are going to impose this tax or impose that tax, we are going to

cut out this program or add that program.

They are suggesting that Bill 17 is just another financial

measure and has to do with restraint of compensation in the public sector. They

have great euphuism, Mr. Speaker. If they were serious about that, if they were

serious about restraint, we would see them removing the $8,000 a year

ministerial car allowances. We would see that as a gesture. I don't know how

often the President of Treasury Board needs to have a personal car or a

chauffeured vehicle or $8,000 car allowance to drive around to meetings to do

his business as President of Treasury Board. I don't know if the Minister of

Finance needs that, Mr. Speaker, I understand when people want to see the

Minister of Finance they come to see him.

We would expect to have seen that if they were serious about

restraint. If they were serious about restraint and about the necessity of a

freeze of wages in the public service, they could have imposed that without Bill

17, they could have tacked on a wage freeze at the end of a collective

agreement. I am not suggesting that they should do that, but they could have

done that if that was the purpose of this measure. We all know that collective

agreements have a short life, it may be one year, or maybe two or three years.

They don't all end at the same time either, Mr. Speaker. So, over a period of

three years we would expect every single collective agreement in the public

service to expire at one time or another. Many of them had already expired when

Bill 16 was introduced last year. Not only that, the government knew what it was

doing when a week before it introduced Bill 16 it signed collective agreements,

thus creating agreements that they knew they were going to tear up within a

matter of days.

So it would be very useful to have these issues brought to

the public of Newfoundland and Labrador, giving the people of this Province a

chance to see exactly what this government is doing in terms of the principles

that it says it espouses, in terms of its high principles; whether or not it can

be trusted; whether or not agreements that are made with the government can be

relied upon; whether or not agreements in every other sector are declared to be

final and binding on the employers and employees, and the unions; can be

enforced by arbitration, and arbitration decisions enforced by the Supreme

Court; whether those collective agreements, declared to be binding by law, can

be torn up by the government that signs them.

That, Mr. Speaker, is the fundamental question dealt with in

Bill 17. It is not surprising that the government doesn't want the public of

this Province to see what the real issue is. They would rather have it disguised

in terms of fiscal restraint, in terms of budgetary problems, in terms of the

legitimate concern that is out there now for people who don't have jobs, who

might think that a person who has a government job or a public sector job is on

the pig's back, because at least they have a job. They would rather disguise

what they are doing by trading on the insecurity that exists amongst members of

the public who are hurting and who are not getting any relief from this

government, instead of going out there up front and allowing the people of this

Province to participate in a meaningful discussion about the alternatives that

might exist.

Now, one of the government members sent me over a copy from

The Globe and Mail today talking about the measures that had to be taken in

Saskatchewan to improve their financial picture as a result of the enormous debt

that province has. I appreciate whoever it was who sent it over. I already have

a copy of The Globe and Mail, thank you very much. I don't quite see what the

relevance is except this: Yes, every province is dealing with fiscal problems,

dealing with serious concerns about the level of public debt, serious concerns

about the ability of governments, particularly provincial governments, to

transfer payments. I see that in this Globe and Mail report the Finance Minister

of Saskatchewan has noted that $517 million was taken out of the budget of

Saskatchewan by cuts in transfer payments.

Five hundred and seventeen million dollars that the Province

would have had if the federal government had paid its bills, Mr. Speaker. If the

federal government had kept to the commitments of the federal governments of the

past in instituting programs and their established programs financing, and the

transfer payment plans and the Canada Assistance Plan, that government, Mr.

Speaker, would have been $570 million dollars better off. And they said they

could have balanced their budget if that had been the case. Similarly, Mr.

Speaker, this Province has had problems of that nature where the federal

government is not paying its bill.

In addition, Mr. Speaker, Saskatchewan had had up until the

Tory government in 1982, thirteen years of balanced budgets, and some of the

best social programs in Canada under an NDP government. When the Conservatives

got in in 1982, Mr. Speaker, they ran up the highest per capita provincial debt

in the country, higher than Newfoundland's. And Saskatchewan is worse off than

the Province of Newfoundland when it comes to having to deal with a budget.

What did they do, Mr. Speaker? Did we see the Government of

Saskatchewan ripping up collective agreements?... No. Do we see the Government

of Ontario, with enormous fiscal problems again, larger by about twenty times

than this Province, did you see them rip up collective agreements, Mr. Speaker,

and destroy collective bargaining in the Province of Ontario?.... No, Mr.

Speaker, you didn't.

So, Mr. Speaker, there are ways of dealing with financial

fiscal problems without destroying your integrity as a government and the

integrity of agreements that the government signs, particularly with working

people in the Province. This government, Mr. Speaker, exercised its choice to

tear up those agreements.

I see the Member for Baie Verte looking very intently at me

and showing great interest in this debate, and I am pleased that he is because

there is a man who has a tremendous amount of experience in the real world of

doing business, of operating by agreements. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that if I

made a deal with the Member for Baie Verte and shook hands on that deal, if we

made an agreement as to the purchase or sale of fish or any agreement of that

nature, that I could count on him as an individual following through on that. I

see him nodding his head, and I believe that because I believe, Mr. Speaker,

that the Member for Baie Verte knows that if you are going to operate with

integrity and have a reputation for integrity you have to meet your deals.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, that when you are dealing with the

Member for Baie Verte - White Bay you are dealing with a man of honour. I can't

say that, Mr. Speaker, about this government, and I think that the Member for

Baie Verte is ashamed of what this government has done in this legislation,

because what this government is doing, Mr. Speaker, is not only countenancing,

it is doing the very thing that the Member for Baie Verte as an individual would

not do, and that is break an agreement that is made. I would not even have to

sign an agreement with the Member for Baie Verte. I could shake his hand, and as

a man of honour and a man of integrity I would know I could count on it.

With this government, Mr. Speaker, a signature is not enough,

a signing ceremony is not enough, legislation, Mr. Speaker, that makes it

binding and enforceable is not enough. That is not enough because they are

prepared to turn around the next week or the next year, rip up those agreements

and say: We don't care. We will change the law. This is how we bargain. We will

sit down and make a deal with you and the next week, month or year we will tear

it up by legislation.

Not only is it dishonourable, Mr. Speaker, it is unfair,

because in order to get the compensation that is included in collective

bargains, those who are negotiating give up other things. If you have three

things on the table, Mr. Speaker, one of which is a wage increase, another which

may be a benefit, another which may be some language changes, and the government

negotiators say on their side: Look, if you give up your demands for an extra

holiday, your demands for an extra language change that is important to you, if

you give up these three or four things we will give you an extra 2 per cent or 1

per cent on your wages. That is one way that negotiations take place. You give

up certain things to get others. It is the spirit of compromise. It is the

ongoing collective bargaining process where the democratically elected

representatives of workers sit down and negotiate with the employer and the

employer's representatives. When you do that you are consciously giving up some

things to get others. Now the government has gotten the benefit of that deal.

They agreed with it, and then they take away what they had put on the table to

get those concessions.

The government negotiates to get the concessions, and gets an

agreement signed by the employees that is binding on them, so they get all the

concessions out of the employees, and then they turn around and take away what

it was the price that they paid to get those concessions. That is what they are

doing. You sit down. You make a deal. We will ask you for concessions and we

will give you a wage increase to get those concessions. Then we will turn around

and take away the wage increase. That is what they are doing. It is

fundamentally wrong. It is immoral. It is dishonourable, and it is totally

unprincipled.

I am not surprised that this government does not want this

legislation to shine in the light of public exposure. I am not surprised that

the government does not want to parade this legislation around the Province and

show it off, and let people see what they are doing, because if we went out to

Baie Verte and the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay was there he would have to

hang his head amongst his own people when they became aware that the government

that he was elected to serve with was doing this dishonourable thing. That is

why they do not want to have a committee. That is why they do not want to go out

travelling around the Province. They do not want to see hon. men like the Member

for Baie Verte - White Bay have to hang their head in shame amongst their people

when they see what the government is doing.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: The Member for St. John's South says that I

am losing my audience. Well this government does not want an audience for this

legislation. They do not want the people of Newfoundland to have a close look at

this. They do not want people to know what happened last year when Bill 16 was

introduced and government members and the President of Treasury Board got up in

this House and said: We are not destroying collective bargaining. We just have a

one year freeze. Anyone who got a wage increase during the freeze period in

their collective agreement, that is no problem. They can extend it.

Section 6 of

Bill 16 says, all you do is give notice to the Government of Newfoundland that

you wish to exercise your option to extend your collective agreement for a

period of a year.

AN HON. MEMBER: More lies, that is all. More lies.

MR. HARRIS: More lies, yes. That is all you have, Mr.

Speaker. All you have to do is sign here, send us a note, drop us a line by a

certain date and your collective agreement is extended, and if you have a 3 per

cent increase, or a 4 per cent increase, or a 5 per cent increase, or an 8 per

cent increase in this freeze period, you'll get it. You won't get it this year,

you will get it next year. You can extend your collective agreement for a period

of one year and the total integrity of collective bargaining is maintained. That

is what they said, Mr. Speaker. No lies! That is what they said. There were, Mr.

Speaker, believe it or not, after what they were doing and despite the `Clyde

lied' campaign, there were a number of bargaining units that actually believed

in the government and they sent notification to the government by the deadline

that they intended to exercise their option to extend their collective

agreement, in the full expectation, Mr. Speaker, that the government, despite

what it had done, would honour its own legislation.

I see the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay looking at me in

shock because he wasn't here to see that, but have a look at Bill 16, look at

Section 6. People in this Province, Mr. Speaker, unions in the public sector,

sent a note to the government exercising their option to extend their collective

agreement for a period of one year, in total reliance, in good faith, Mr.

Speaker - the word that is so often used in collective bargaining, in good faith

they went and told the government that they wanted to exercise their option

under

Section 6.

So what happened, Mr. Speaker? Could they rest in their beds

secure in the knowledge that the wage increases they had negotiated were going

to come through, albeit a year later? Could they go out and buy a new car, Mr.

Speaker, or replace the car they had or renew their mortgage? Could they do

that, Mr. Speaker, secure in the knowledge that the wage increases they had

negotiated would come through? Could they make decisions about their economic

future based on the signed collective agreement, legal and binding, which this

government, through its legislation, had said was extended for one year by

Section 6? Could they do that? Some of them did, Mr. Speaker.

MR. RAMSAY: It is totally legal.

MR. HARRIS: What did they get, Mr. Speaker? Another

response from this government, "Totally Legal." That is what the Member for

LaPoile says, "Totally legal."

I know, Mr. Speaker, that some members of this House don't

like lawyers. They don't say that when the Premier is around. They don't attack

lawyers when the Premier is around, but they don't like lawyers. Let me tell you

one thing: The Member for LaPoile says, "It is totally legal." Sure, it is

totally legal, but do you know why? Because you guys make the laws, so you can

make any law you want. But that doesn't stop it from being immoral, that doesn't

stop it from being wrong and that doesn't stop it from being dishonourable. So

go ahead, you will make it legal all right, but you will also build a reputation

for dishonour and for lack of integrity. The Member for Baie Verte - White Bay

will go back to Baie Verte - White Bay and hang his head with his people and

say: I am sorry, I became part of a dishonourable government that is not

prepared to stand by its agreements. That is what he has to do, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you see him rushing out of the House

a couple of days ago? He rushed out of the House.

MR. HARRIS: I saw him rush out of the House a couple of

days ago. I don't blame him for rushing out of the House a couple of days ago.

If I were him, I would have rushed out of the House even faster, when I was

being called upon to vote against my own people, called upon for cheap,

political reasons to vote against my own people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: That is what is happening over here, Mr.

Speaker. They do not want the people of Newfoundland to find out about this.

They do not want this Bill to be taken around the Province because they are

afraid that the people of Newfoundland are starting to catch on. I would not be

surprised if they'll rush out and have an election sometime in the next six

months or so before the people of Newfoundland have time to realise to a person

what is wrong with them. But I think people are catching on at a faster rate

than they imagine.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was not going

to get up this morning. But while I was sleeping last night I had a dream. The

dream was that I woke up, I went to work one day and I came into the House of

Assembly, and that there was an NDP government in Newfoundland and Labrador. It

was a dream. Now I can tell you. Now I'm going to tell you.

Then I looked on the other side of the House and I saw the

new government there, sometime in the year 2500, somewhere around there, I do

not know. But it will never happen now. In the dream I came in and I looked

across and I saw Roy Romanow as the premier of the Newfoundland. Or it was some

kind of clone, anyway, of Roy Romanow. It was a really bad dream because I had

been reading all of these reports from The Globe and Mail, all the reports in

our national newspaper, which had been talking about all the difficult decisions

that the New Democratic Party, the left wing-party of Canada, the responsible

party of Canada, the social conscience party, the party that would never, would

always - I mean, it is for the people. They would do everything the people would

want them to do. They would never do anything to harm the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: Pardon?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes. So I had a dream, Mr. Speaker, and I

have to tell you, it was a bad dream. I woke up and I was sweating, there were

beads of sweat coming off me. It was a pure panic. But when I woke up anyway

there was reality. Thank God there was reality.

But you know, in Saskatchewan today they woke up and they

have to live with reality. The hon. Member for St. John's East talks about

principles. Well, in Saskatchewan this morning, I do not know what they are

talking about, but it is not exactly principles. You have the NDP government

that have gone more right-wing than Preston Manning, as a matter of fact, in

what they have done there in one budget. This is their first budget!

MR. TOBIN: Preston Manning (Inaudible)?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Boy oh boy. Go on, go on. Mr. Speaker, it

is just unreal. I was reading some of this this morning. Punishing, it is more

than punishing. This is just outrageous. At least this government when it comes

in with its budget, tells exactly what it is going to do. This one, they

decided: well, about five weeks ahead of time now we are going to slide this and

that in. We are going to reduce health care, but we won't announce that in the

budget, we will just tell them ahead of time that we will ask them to see what

they can do. We're going to see what they can do.

MR. HARRIS: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GRIMES: Oh, we're going to get the explanation now,

oh yes!

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

point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Would the hon. member permit a question, Mr.

Speaker?

MR. GRIMES: State your point of order, never mind the

question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Would the hon. member permit a question?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. K. AYLWARD: No!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Would the hon. member permit a question?

MR. K. AYLWARD: No, thank you. I was up here last week

and I said, when the members opposite get up, what they should try to do in

their twenty minutes or half hour, is to give us ten minutes of what they would

do, that is what I would like to hear. I would like to hear ten minutes of what

they would do and you know, still after all those speeches from the other side,

we have not heard anything that they would do, hardly a think and I think it is

ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous that somebody can come in here, criticize this

government knowing the financial position that we are in, and you know we hardly

had anything to do with, and get up and criticize us and not even give us a

suggestion as to how to fix it, and then the same person for example, the member

representing the NDP Party -

AN HON. MEMBER: He said borrow more.

MR. K. AYLWARD: - yes, borrow more; and Roy Romanow and

Bob Rae are saying, boy, we cannot do that anymore and this is the same

political philosophy, so I am having a really hard time trying to put all of

this together. I just cannot understand it. Maybe it is just that I am missing

something here or I am missing the boat or something because I cannot understand

it, Mr. Speaker. We all have to face reality so when we are going to say

something and present a position, then why don't we do that and be clear and be

fair. I think that if you have criticisms let us make them fair criticisms.

Everybody knows that this Province has financial problems

just like every other province in Canada, so if you are going to be in

opposition and you are going to say, well, don't do this and don't do that, then

give us some options that we can deal with but so far, I am sad to say that

there has hardly been an option. The Leader of the Opposition tried the other

day to present a few options and the government can consider some of the options

that he talked about, but at least that was some constructive criticisms on the

wage bill.

But when I hear the extremism coming from the Member for St.

John's East, I do not know what to think, it just boggles the mind. He can read,

as I can, and when you see what is going on in other provinces of which his

party is the government, so when I had that dream, I must say I woke up, Mr.

Speaker, and it was not too pleasant. We have some major financial problems in

this Province. We have pension funds with which we have to deal, we have to get

workers compensation back in order, I mean, there is a whole range of serious

financial problems. You know, I was reading an

article this morning and one

thing of interest which really hit me was that, the Government of Saskatchewan,

the previous government had implemented a program, a Saskatchewan Pension Plan,

which was established five years ago to help provide homemakers with pensions,

which was pretty innovative.

This government, the new NDP Government have now cancelled

that plan because it has a deficit, they have cancelled the pension plan of

homemakers in Saskatchewan, wiped it out because it has a deficit -

AN HON. MEMBER: Did they make any commitment?

MR. K. AYLWARD: I don't know what they did, I am not sure

what commitment they made, all I know is that they have cancelled it. Here it

says 55,000 people were signed up for the pension plan in Saskatchewan for

homemakers, 80 per cent of them were women, they have now wiped out the pension

plan because it has an unfunded liability. So, does that mean that if the NDP

takes over in Newfoundland and Labrador, that they are going to wipe out the

teachers pension plan, does it mean that they are going to wipe out the other

pension plans that this government has, because they have unfunded liability? I

am going to try to get more details because-

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: Well, I mean we are trying to get the

others back in order, hon. member. Give us some time here, we are trying to get

indexing done for the first time ever. Give us some time boy, give us some time,

but this is what-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. K. AYLWARD: - your cohorts in the other provinces are

doing, but sir-

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. K. AYLWARD: - why don't you face up to the fact,

don't come in here preaching to us, saying: well, now, Mr. Social Conscience -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. K. AYLWARD: - I am Mr. Social Conscience -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order,

but I find it difficult that the member is criticizing another government

outside of the jurisdiction of this Province, for bringing in a budget, and who

has been in government for less than three months, and they have been the

government for three years and he is saying give us time and yet he is only

prepared to give them three months! Well, Mr. Speaker, he cannot have it both

ways.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Stephenville.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you for the comments, the hon.

Member for Burin - Placentia West. I say to the Member for Burin - Placentia

West, I have great sympathy for the hon. Premier of Saskatchewan, I have great

sympathy for him, as a matter of fact, he has some major problems, but then when

you hear his other cohorts across Canada saying exactly the opposite of what he

is having to do, that is what drives me a little bit batty, Mr. Speaker. It

drives me kind of crazy actually because he has to face reality just like the

Member for Burin Placentia West had to face reality when he was in government

when they had to have their wage freeze, when they announced they were going

seven, five, six and four, and then in the middle of that had to change it to

three and two. Even after they announced the restrictions they changed that down

to three and two. Then they came back in and said we are going zero, zero, so

let us at least be a little bit real here. The pension plans in this Province,

if we had let them go, would be bankrupt. The former Premier Peckford said so as

a matter of fact. The Opposition as a matter of fact knows it, they saw the

books and knew it, so let us get a little bit real. These things have to be

fixed up folks and if they are not going to get fixed up we have some problem in

the future. Yes or no.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for St. John's East on a point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member feels he

has to get up every time I speak but perhaps the relevance of what the member is

saying on the amendment as to whether or not this legislation which tears up

collective agreements should be taken around the Province. That is the

amendment, Mr. Speaker, should that be done? Now, can he say something that

would help out the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay in the moral dilemma that

he is place in by his government, lacking in honour and integrity with respect

to agreements that he signed? That is what we would like to hear. That is the

relevancy that is required to make this on point.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Stephenville.

MR. K. AYLWARD: The financial position of the Province

has no relevancy to this bill, Mr. Speaker? The financial position of the

Province, the NDP critic for everything over there says the financial position

of the Province has nothing to do with the wage restraint bill. I know of all

kinds of collective agreements in the private sector that are not being

honoured. Do you know why they are not being honoured, Mr. Speaker? The reason

they are not being honoured, Mr. Speaker, is because some of the companies have

gone bankrupt. A number of companies in this Province have gone bankrupt,

unfortunately, because of the recession so their collective agreements cannot be

honoured because the workers are out of work. That is what happened. We have to

face some realities. All across Canada there have been companies, especially in

Ontario, the economic engine, they have been leaving, going bankrupt and going

under.

Olympia and York, it is unreal the restructuring they have to

go through, companies which affect hundreds and thousands of workers, so all the

collective agreements they had with their workers are null and void once they go

into bankruptcy proceedings. What we are trying to deal with is a situation

where we are trying to get this Province's financial position in order. A number

of members of the Opposition understand that. When they were in government they

had similar decisions to make and they are not easy, they are pretty tough, and

when you are there trying to figure out what you are going to do with less money

and trying to stimulate the economy at the same time it is not easy. It takes a

fair bit of ingenuity to come up with some programs with little, or less funding

to be able to stimulate an economy, especially when you have a rural based

economy like we have.

They did some things when they were in Opposition which were

positive in some areas of the Province, and some programs. A number of them have

been kept by the government and have not been changed, so obviously they have

worked out pretty good. The thing is these circumstances dictate difficult times

and they dictate some difficult decisions to be made, so I think what we are

trying to do is to get everybody to understand the situation. Not everybody is

going to be happy, Mr. Speaker, nobody is jumping up and down at the thought of

a wage restraint or limiting increases, or limiting spending, but there is a

reality to deal with.

Her Majesty's loyal Opposition has been there before. I

appreciate it when they get up and give some criticisms because at least they

have been there and they understand - or most of them do - the position of

government when you are in power trying to deal with an enormous problem.

The Member for St. John's East just bothers me a little bit,

Mr. Speaker. I shouldn't let him get to me a whole lot, but just a scatter time

he does, because if we are going to talk about this in the House of Assembly we

should be relevant. We should speak to reality, not to what we might do - I

wouldn't do this if I was there - when you know from their cohorts elsewhere

that they are doing it and not only are they doing it they are wiping it out in

a number of places.

So when I hear that, Mr. Speaker, it is just troubling. That

is all. The dream I had was of waking up and seeing an NDP Roy Romanow

government in Newfoundland. I don't think we will see it for a long time unless

way down the road, years down the road, they swing back from either the right

wing position they have right now in Saskatchewan and Ontario, or they become a

reality party, which is really a party of dealing with the problems that we have

to face. So there is no easy solution, Mr. Speaker. There is no easy solution.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: There is no easy solution, Mr. Speaker.

But we have to work to resolve some of the problems ahead of us. For this

Province we are dealing with those things head on. You know, when it comes to

dealing with all of the employees of the public service who are getting funds

from the public purse, I think everybody out there is working to do their best

to make sure the government can keep on track and provide services to its

people. I think that is the important part. We have to keep providing a good

service to people for all of the services that they pay taxes for. The

government is trying to make sure that continues through our different

portfolios.

You know, looking at the financial position we have been able

to do some major things in education, major, major things in education. I mean

really other provinces are cutting back to school boards across Canada and we

are increasing to school boards in this time of recession. What it means for my

school board out in Stephenville, I will tell you, is very much.

I saw a letter from the school trustees of the Province - I

think it was sent to the minister and to the Premier - saying thank you for

raising monies for the school boards of this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: School trustees?

MR. K. AYLWARD: The School Trustees Association of

Newfoundland and Labrador wrote a letter to the Premier saying: We appreciate

the commitment that you made and were able to keep when it came to the school

boards of the Province.

Rural school boards of this Province are getting a big shot

in the arm, Mr. Speaker. They are getting an influx of funding to help bring up

the level of schooling in and around the Province. That alone is a major

initiative for a government in a term of office as far as I'm concerned -- a

major initiative, and we are not finished yet. A lot of reform is coming. The

Royal Commission on Education is coming down shortly with all kinds of

recommendations, and the minister and the Cabinet are going to consider those

for the coming few years.

Again the hon. Phil Warren, minister, was able to get the

government to come up with the Royal Commission on Education which I think is

going to now provide a map for us for the future. That is important in dealing

with our financial position, and in doing that we still have to look at how we

are spending our money. I think in some areas it is a matter of not so much

increasing the funding to solve the problem, but how you spend the money and the

areas you spend it in. That could help us more effectively deal with the

problems that we have to face.

It is not a question of more money in some cases, Mr.

Speaker. It is not a question of more money, it is a question of how you use

your money. This government has not only been trying to, it is being forced to,

and by being forced to I think it has been a decent exercise because we have

been able to get more effective use of every dollar that we spend.

I look forward to seeing some of these reforms coming

forward. There have been a number of major initiatives. The increase in

scholarships alone by this government in this term has meant a lot to hundreds

of students in this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Distance education.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Distance education. I mean the Member for

LaPoile was telling me about distance education in his riding, about what is

happening down there, down in Port aux Basques which is 600 miles away,

Stephenville and the Port au Port Peninsula, a number of excellent things there

to deal with drop-outs and trying to get people back into school. I mean there

has been a tremendous number of initiatives costing different dollars, and we

have been able to find them and work with the school boards to bring them in.

DR. WARREN: The school boards recognize it, too. The

school boards realize now (inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: They do. The school boards do. I think

so, minister, and I believe they now see it. They have a good working

relationship with government and they know that we are looking at trying to

resolve some problems out there, and they can come in. There is an open door,

and if they come in with a decent proposal on how to better educate, it is

getting considered. It is getting considered by the Department of Education.

That, I think is excellent, and I know out my way it is paying off. We have a

new primary school going to be opened some time this fall, $3.3 million, one of

the most beautiful primary schools you will ever see; a big improvement for our

400 students out there. Again the government was able, even in these difficult

financial times, to improve funding again for capital for schools in the

Province.

So even throughout the recession and throughout the difficult

times, and we are coming out of it, and we are going to be one of the first ones

out of it, we have been able to do some very, very positive things, and I think

people out there are realizing it.

When you look at wage restraint, everybody across Canada is

in wage restraint. It is not just Newfoundland and Labrador. We are not the only

ones out there, pushed out in the middle of the Atlantic, surrounded, and all

with a zero per cent increase. We are not the only ones like that. Everybody is.

It is not just us. The other provinces are looking at this Province and saying:

Now there is leadership. Newfoundland and Labrador has leadership. It has

direction. It is facing the problems head-on. It is not easy medicine. Nobody

said it was easy. We never got elected to make easy decisions.

AN HON. MEMBER: No. Some people did, though.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, some people did.

AN HON. MEMBER: We are not going to give up.

MR. K. AYLWARD: That is right. We are going to deal with

it. The very least they will be able to say about this government is that we

faced up to the tough decisions. We have been trying to face up to them, and we

have been trying to make it easy on our people - not tough on them - easy on

them, especially for the future.

I think the Member for Harbour Main understands that. The

member for Harbour Main would know this. He was a minister of government. The

Member for Harbour Main has a social conscience. He understands that. It is not

a great time to be elected in politics. When you are elected in politics you

want to bring in programs and you want to be able to change things. Sometimes

you need money to do that, in some cases. In other cases you do not, so it has

not been easy. It is not the best of times, but then again it is going to get

better, and we want to be there and make sure that when it is better we have the

programs ready to go.

I also say that in other areas we have been able to use the

money more effectively, and I think that has been an exercise that governments

all across Canada have had to go through. They have had to go through this

exercise and look at every dollar being spent, and where it goes, and how much

is spent on health care, and how is it being used, and do we have the right

programs? Our population demographics are changing on us. We have an older

population. They will require different services than an acute care hospital

located in every town. They need different services. So we have been trying to

face and plan for the long-term. Given the financial situation, and keeping

those circumstances in mind, we have been able to at least try to deal with that

also, because governments have to plan to meet the needs of their people. Even

in difficult economic times we have to plan and do that, and we have been trying

to do that.

Nobody is saying that every decision you make is the right

one. Governments are elected. They make mistakes. They are only people.

Everybody here, we are all people. You make a decision. Sometimes maybe you

should have gone further, or you should not have gone as far, but these

decisions are taken with the best interests of people in mind in this Province.

So at the very least, what we are attempting to do is deal with the reality of

lesser funds at this period in time; but we are also planning for when we come

out of this recession, which is not too far away, and hopefully very soon, again

we will be in a better position.

Nobody predicted the fisheries crisis. Nobody predicted that.

All along the fishermen have said it, and maybe enough people did not listen to

them over the last number of years. The inshore fishermen were saying it for a

long time and so on, but the thing is that we now have to deal with the

fisheries crisis and I see this as an opportunity this time around for all of us

to get an understanding of how important the fish resource is to this Province,

and also to push for the case of joint management for our fish resource. It is

time now. Now that we are in the desperate straits that we are in the fishery,

it is time that the federal government come a little ways and sit down and talk

about joint management so that the problems that we have now, the major problems

that we have now, that we do not have to experience them in the future. I

believe that if the fishermen of the Province were listened to years ago we

might not have the problem we have now. We have to find a way to get their

opinions around the table when decisions are made because they are our resource,

they are economy in this Province. The fishermen in this Province bring in a

resource, they farm a resource, and they create an economy. We have to listen to

them when they see a problem on the horizon. It is easy to have hindsight in

hindsight, but we should have listened and we have to find a proper mechanism

for the Government of this Province to have its say when decisions are being

made in the management of our fishery. The whole House of Assembly, including

the Opposition, are now on side with the provincial government when it comes to

joint management.

MR. GOVER: Are they?

MR. K. AYLWARD: Yes, they are.

MR. GOVER: They are? Two of our buddies are saying no.

MR. K. AYLWARD: But they are with us on this one.

MR. GOVER: I think that is a sham.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I think when it comes to the fiscal

situation of the Province, when we talk about the fiscal situation and where we

are going in the future, the fishery is so important to this Province that in

order for us to have a long-term future in making sure that our economy, and

that our revenue from the Province's people is going to be at the right level

for us to keep doing the proper services we need to have a fishery and be able

to have control or have a say over how we do that. I think the plan that the

Province, the Premier, the Cabinet, and the government have presented to the

federal government when it comes to joint management is the way to go. It has

been developed over the last three or four years and it is time now for the

federal government -and I hope it looks back and has some hindsight also, the

Prime Minister and his Cabinet, I think after the experiences we are now going

through - I mean, the Prime Minister has to now go to Rio de Janeiro for the

environmental conference and we have to have fisheries as one of the lead issue

now because our fish stock is in such poor shape. It is becoming a world issue

and the reason is because we just have not managed the resource right. Given

diplomacy and everything, I think there is a lesson to be learned and we have to

plan for the future.

The entire House of Assembly supports our proposal and we

look forward to seeing the federal government come on side, hopefully in the

next year, because it is time they did when it comes to that one. If we had some

say in the management of our fishery - and the Member for Trinity North will

agree with this - if we had some say in the management of our fishery, we would

not have to bring in a wage restraint bill probably because our economy wouldn't

be in such dire straits. If we had more say and we had some more power in the

decision-making side, at least sitting around the table and being able to have

our say, and being able to plan out with the resource and the policy-making side

of things, I think we would not be into governments every ten or fifteen years

having a financial crisis on their hands in this Province. Because it is going

to continue. Every ten or twelve years a recession is going to hit somewhere

along the line and this government is no different from any other government

which has to deal with this situation.

I think we have to take the opportunity while we are into a

difficult economic time to look at the root problem of how we are here. The

reason we have a wage restraint in the Province is because we don't have enough

revenue to pay everybody, unfortunately. Whose fault is that? Maybe it is

everybody's fault. We are all to blame, but let's find a way to resolve it so we

don't have this type of problem in the future. I think a number of these

problems can be resolved if we have our economy back on the right track.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I had a dream about the NDP, waking

up and reading the Globe and Mail this morning. No wonder the Member for St.

John's East has left us. I wasn't finished but he didn't want to listen to me

anymore.

All I say is that members opposite, when they get up and

speak, I enjoy their speaking and I ask them to present us with options so that

we can deal with the problem. That is all I ask. I don't ask more than that.

Give us the gears and all that, but let us ask them to be a bit real in their

criticism, give us a few suggestions in their twenty-five minutes as to how they

would deal with this and then maybe government will look at these options and

try to deal with them in a different way. The government is open to any

suggestions that can be made. Nobody here has all the answers and that is freely

admitted, because I don't think there are any masters of economy here, masters

with economics degrees, and even they can't advise us on how to resolve it, Mr.

Speaker. Every bit of advice that government can get as to how to deal with this

problem would be appreciated.

Understand one thing, we have a major financial problem and

it is not just the revenue right now. We have pension plans and a number of

things to fix up and they are going to be done, but it is going to take a little

bit of - we have a little bit of minor pain but we have to do it for the

long-term gain. We look forward to trying to deal with this problem. It is not

easy, but we will face up to it.

I see, as The Globe and Mail - I keep talking about The Globe

and Mail, I don't mean to. But they are talking about how Newfoundland has led

the way in rebuilding health care and trying to fix the health care system,

dealing with the people's needs out there. Other provinces are now calling the

Department of Health in this Province asking: 'How have you done this, and how

can we have a look at what you've done?'

I know it's not easy, and I know that in some cases it may

not be working as well as it should be, but maybe down the road it is going to.

At least, that is what they are telling us. It is a pleasure to rise, Mr.

Speaker, in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few

moments to address this issue. I have to say that the debate I have listened to

the last two or three days has had a minimal amount of relevance to the

particular bill that is being debated. Your Honour has provided a tremendous

amount of freedom in the debate. It is Your Honour's prerogative. I suppose, in

talking about a bill that deals with wages or finances, it could be construed as

being a finance bill to a greater or lesser degree, although it is not seeking

funding. Perhaps in that category, Your Honour feels that he can provide that

kind of freedom.

Nevertheless, I would like to deal a little bit more with the

issues. Because I think it is a very important issue facing not only the

government of the day but facing the Province of the day. That is the cost of

labour. The question is, why has the government found itself in the position in

which it now finds itself? That is the first issue that I think we should look

at.

I think we have to look back to the early days of this

administration. Perhaps through inexperience or political expediency or

whatever, this government provided a couple of settlements with bargaining units

which I think were generous, overly generous; not to say that those bargaining

units didn't need or didn't deserve - certainly they wanted - those types of

increases. I don't think the government appreciated, I do not think the

President of Treasury Board appreciated, at that point in time, the precedent

that was being set. But he soon learned, I think he learned very quickly, that

once he had given that kind of an increase to one group that he was setting the

stage for other groups to come forward with similar types of demands, and they

now had a precedent on which to rest their case. So he soon learned that: 'I

think I have made a mistake.'

But he made a second mistake. Instead of standing firm at

that point in time, he decided to take what was, in the short-term at least, the

easy way out. He agreed to refer several matters to binding arbitration. He has

learned now, that in binding arbitration, government invariably loses. Because

the unions negotiate, and government negotiates, I believe in good faith -

AN HON. MEMBER: You're half right.

MR. WINDSOR: I'm half right. I said unions negotiate and

governments negotiate in good faith.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: The hon. gentleman now agrees with me. But

the old trickery, Mr. Speaker, is for unions to negotiate with government, get

them as far as you can get them, and when you have come to the end of the road,

then you ask for binding arbitration. Governments are aware of this, and wary of

this. I suspect the hon. minister, the President of Treasury Board, was advised

by his negotiating staff always to hold back just a little bit. You always have

to have a face-saver in the event that you get into a dispute, and then try to

reach a settlement. There always has to be a face-saver for the union executive.

They cannot put the union out on strike for six, eight, or ten weeks, and then

reach a settlement which is no better than they had been offered prior to the

strike. You have to offer them a face-saver.

Someday some government will have enough public support and

courage to bury one of these union leaders by standing firm and saying: no. What

we have offered you is fair and just. You chose to take your troops to the

streets and you will stay there until you are prepared to accept this.

Unfortunately, it gets back to the old problem that governments are dealing with

public services. I say that I believe, from that point of view, labour

negotiations in the public sector are unfair to government, because government

has to go be elected again. And the average person out there, the average

taxpayer, who has no concept that the money that government is trying to

negotiate with is their tax dollar, that concept has not gotten out yet,

invariably preached to students who come in here. As hon. members know, I get

perhaps more students visiting than any other member. The district of Mount

Pearl seems to be very interested in bringing students here.

AN HON. MEMBER: Suburbia.

MR. WINDSOR: Suburbia. But because we are close and

because the schools in there are politically active, teachers are politically

aware, I think, perhaps more than anywhere else, more than in any other

district. I believe hon. members will agree that we get more students coming in

from that area.

Anyway, I meet lots of students and I invariably preach to

them the fact that all the government is doing is redistributing their tax

dollars. When I hear people putting more and more demands on governments for

services, and at the same time saying, but you are charging me too much taxes,

how do they believe the governments are going to be able to do that? Of course,

government is always a whipping boy. I will reduce your costs, cut your

salaries, reduce the number of public servants.

I think studies could show there is always room for

improvement, I guess. There is always room to save some money, but I believe in

government, particularly in this Province over, certainly, the last ten years,

we have been continually cutting in the public service. Now there is probably

still some room. There is always room. There is room in the private sector, as

we are finding now in this recession, that private companies are, on a regular

basis, reducing their costs and finding out that they can, indeed, operate with

much lesser costs, if they tried to. It is not done easily. It is not done

without some pain. You have to reduce some unnecessary staff positions, you have

to reduce some frills, some fringe benefits, some luxuries. Private enterprise

has had to do that in this Province. They have been doing it very much over the

last couple of years. Unfortunately, they have done that and they are still

suffering desperately today. I will predict to this government that you are

going to see more bankruptcies in the next six months in this Province than you

have in the last six years, or any six-year period, unless something changes

very quickly, unless this government can find some ways and means of helping

private enterprise, particularly the small business in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, the point I am trying to make is that there are

limitations on how much you can cut, and I believe government is getting very

close to that limitation today, as it relates to simply trimming the fat. If

government is to effect any amount of saving in their expenditures this year, or

in future years, they have to start eliminating programs. Because you can only

cut a program so far, you can only trim it so much before it becomes

noneffective, and the administrative cost of the program exceeds the benefit

that is being received from the small amount of money that is left in that

program.

I believe that the government, therefore, doesn't have a lot

of options there, and I don't have a lot of time for those out there who say,

'Oh, you have to reduce the cost of government.' I think you will find if you

compared, on some sort of an equitable basis, the operations of government with

the operations of most private enterprise, that government is, indeed, fairly

efficient. Again I qualify that by saying there is always room for improvement

and change, both in government and in private enterprise. So that is not the

answer. It is not the cost of government, unless we want to reduce services, and

is that acceptable to the taxpaying public today? That is not what they want.

They want more services. They want better facilities. They want more schools.

They want better roads, and these are all legitimate needs in this Province. It

is very difficult for us, as politicians, to stand in this House and say these

are unreasonable requests, because they are not. But I sympathize with

government today, because I see so many specific interest groups coming in here

one after one. Not day after day, but one after one, in the same day, a constant

barrage of groups that have a specific interest and a specific purpose. They are

all in with their hands out looking for more, but none of them say, 'We want

more, but we are prepared to pay more taxes in order to get more. We want more,

but we are prepared to do without this.'

AN HON. MEMBER: What is the (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: We don't hear that. The pensioner is a case

in point, and the pensioner is probably one of the greatest needs facing this

government, because they have been almost forgotten for the last three or four

years. They were given 2.5 per cent in the first term of this government and not

a cent since. But you have to realize that they are on fixed income. They have

no other means, generally speaking, to help themselves deal with the problems

they are faced with because of the recession. The rest of us can do some other

things. Many others can do other things to try to make an extra dollar. It can

cut back on cost. Many pensioners today are fixed in their income. Many of them

are in a housing accommodation, the cost of which is going up.

That is an issue I wish to get into with the Minister of

Social Services in due course, particularly those hundreds of senior citizens

and single parents who are living in housing owned by government, either social

housing or economic rental units. But either way - the economic rental units,

now, the cost of those has been increased to market. Economic rental units were

built to stabilize the market, to keep the market cost down. But the policy of

the corporation today is to increase the cost to market. We have units in this

city through which the Housing Corporation is actually making a profit, in some

cases, a very handsome profit, being used for other housing purposes, but those

specific units are now no longer a bargain.

Government units were always reasonably priced and stable,

and you knew you had some protection, that you weren't dealing with a landlord

who was trying to take unreasonable profits out of it. But now, today, they are

no more beneficial than any other unit on the market because House Corporation

has adopted a policy of meeting the market. Another issue. I didn't wish to get

into that, particularly this morning. I bring it up only because it is

indicative of the problem that seniors, single parents and those with low

incomes are having today where costs are rising regularly.

So what can government do, Mr. Speaker? The hon. the Member

for Stephenville said, 'Tell us what we can do.' I have told them on many

occasions what they can do. Not only I, but my colleagues here, have suggested

many things that government should be doing. We could take the easy way out that

this government took when they were in Opposition. Whenever we said, 'you tell

us what you would do,' the answer always was, 'You are the government, you are

being paid, you are elected to govern, you do it. When we become the government

we will show you.'

MR. K. AYLWARD: You remember that?

MR. WINDSOR: I remember it well, and you have showed us

well. You have showed us what you would do and we are sadly disappointed in this

government.

So, Mr. Speaker, let's get back to the point I tried to make

in the beginning, and I have broadened it out tremendously.

AN HON. MEMBER: You digressed a little.

MR. WINDSOR: I digressed a little bit, but I tend to do

that when I get excited.

The point I am trying to make is that the options are only

two: increased taxation or increased revenue. Simple. You are trying to balance

a budget. I have said that government programs cannot necessarily be cut without

cutting services. I think that not this government but this Province is at the

point in time when we have to evaluate the programs. We can no longer afford to

be providing programs that may no longer be necessary. I would encourage this

government to do a thorough examination, department by department, of programs

that are no longer filling the need that they were designed to fill, or where

the need is no longer there, perhaps we just don't need them anymore. We would

like to have them, in a perfect world we keep them but this is not, these are

difficult times, so I think we have to look at that and we have to perhaps spend

our money, earmark our money for the greatest needs. In doing that, we always

have to be cognizant of the returns on that investment.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: That is right, that is exactly what it is

supposed to do, but I think government in doing that has to be cognizant of the

returns on that investment and I believe the return on education makes it a good

investment -

DR. WARREN: Streamline the system (inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: We can streamline the education system. I

agree with some of the things that the minister has done and I disagree with

others but I do not want to get into that today, but the point that I think the

minister raises is, yes, we can streamline education -

DR. WARREN: And put the money into other things.

MR. WINDSOR: - let us get the maximum benefit out of

education. The problem with education is, that it is a long-term investment, it

does not give you returns tomorrow, and unfortunately in this Province today the

employment situation is so weak that we are not getting returns for our

education, because the people cannot find employment here. They are not able to

stay here to contribute to the economy and they are being forced to go

elsewhere, so what we are doing now is pouring more and more money into

education, to educate our young people, to give them an opportunity to earn a

living elsewhere. That in itself is good.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is why Ottawa should fund them.

MR. WINDSOR: That is exactly why Ottawa should be

involved. Education is universal and benefits accrue to Canada as a whole and

that is a rationale for government providing a measure, and they do, they

provide funding for education, but unfortunately we are not getting the benefit

out of it anymore.

Now we can build roads, it is infrastructure, it helps

business and industry, it reduces transportation costs, that provides a benefit.

We can provide assistance to industry but have to be very careful in doing that,

we have to be very careful in providing assistance to industry. The Premier, I

thought, was quite accurate yesterday when he said we cannot put a lot of money

into the Lundrigan corporation, because they are competing with somebody else,

and neither should we, unless they are competing with somebody from outside of

the Province. If it is the only business in this Province and you are not

competing with somebody else in the Province, that perhaps, in certain

circumstances might be an exception, but generally speaking government programs

are designed toward resource based industries.

But what opportunities are available in resource based

industries, Mr. Speaker? I have been seventeen years in this House talking about

resource based industries. The hon. Minister of Fisheries and I, back in 1976,

went to Europe to see what we could do with the fishing industry. We are still

talking about aquaculture, we are still talking about secondary and tertiary

processing but we have not made a lot of gains in those areas, with some

exceptions, we are now producing some finished products but not nearly what we

should be producing.

When we talk about resource based industries, we have to sit

down and say what do we have left to work with and the fishing industry is

probably one of the best examples. I think that this current crisis in the

fishing industry will cause us to realize that the fishing industry cannot

expand on the basis of an increased catch, we in fact have to decrease the

catch, we have reached and surpassed the sustainable yield, foreign fishing

aside, that is one fact and is certainly a problem that has to be dealt with,

but nevertheless there is a sustainable yield and that has to be identified and

identified accurately, and we also have to realize that regardless of all the

scientific information, it is still a cyclical resource and there will be good

years and bad years regardless of how much you catch, so you have to find a

sustainable yield and we have to utilize that resource. So there is where our

money should be going, directly into moving the fishing industry from a

harvesting industry, which is what it effectively is, to a processing industry.

We have not had great success in that area. Even though we have been aware of it

for a long period of time, we have not had great success in moving the industry

from harvesting to processing. The harvesting we will always have. We are here.

We will harvest.

But that is not where the value added is. The value added is

in the processing. With free trade we should be benefiting more than probably

any other province in Canada, because we should now be getting our fish products

into the US market in a consumer package, not in the hundred-pound frozen cod

block that is primarily being sent down to Danvers, Massachusetts. More jobs

created in Danvers, Massachusetts, on that fish than there is in Newfoundland.

We have to stop that.

The pulp and paper industry, I think we send a world-class

product out of here. Can't do much with that. I think we can utilize the timber

that is there, that could be utilized to produce lumber a little more

effectively. I think we could be a little more creative in utilizing the waste.

My friend will remember the same visit, we visited Bergen, I believe, where they

were processing the seal skins that came from Newfoundland.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: That's right. I have told this story in the

House before, but I will tell it again for those who have not heard it. The

minister and I toured that plant and we watched their operation. One of the

things they used to clean the oil from the skins was sawdust. Common, old,

everyday sawdust. In great wooden vats that rotate. The seal skins go in there.

The sawdust is abrasive and also absorbs the oil, the fat, from the skin. That

is the first process, really. It goes down through three or four bins. At the

end the skin comes out with a tremendous amount of oil removed. At the other end

the sawdust comes out, totally saturated with oil. All of that sawdust went into

a hopper with a screw mechanism that fed it into the furnace that completely

heated a building five times the size of this chamber. The total source of heat

was the oil that they were removing from the skins, and the sawdust they were

using to remove the oil.

That was their form of energy efficiency, utilizing every

dollar that can be extracted from the process. These are the kinds of things

they do. What do we do? We burn the bark and create environmental problems. Or

we dump it out in the harbour as they do in Corner Brook. In another life I am

doing some investigating of the mill in Corner Brook. I think I have mentioned

before, twenty tons of fibre a day goes into the harbour in Corner Brook from

that mill.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: Pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you see the

article on t.v. last

night?

MR. WINDSOR: I was just about to mention it. I saw the

article last evening and I was very interested in it. Because it makes so much

sense, if it works. I do not know if it works. But some research has been done

on combining bark and sawdust with fish offal, and some other chemicals perhaps,

and it produced something that they are going to ship to Saudi Arabia to create

arable land in Saudi Arabia. It has been proven very effective as a fertilizer

here locally.

That is the kind of thing that I would like to see. Why are

we dumping fish offal back into the ocean? Hundreds of thousands of tons of

biomass going back to the ocean, when it can be utilized for these types of

purposes. Why are we burning all of the bark and all of the sawdust, and

otherwise creating environmental problems for ourselves, instead of utilizing

that?

Well, I am getting off my subject, Mr. Speaker. How much time

have I used? Could the Clerk tell me?

MR. SPEAKER: Twenty-five minutes.

MR. WINDSOR: Twenty-five minutes gone. I have five

minutes left. And I am only in my

preamble yet. If the House will give me leave

for about two hours I will carry on.

MR. CARTER: Tell them about our trip to Spain.

MR. WINDSOR: Spain was very interesting. A very

productive trip. The minister makes light of it, but I believe that particular

trip, as pleasant as it was, was also very productive at the time. Unfortunately

it was not followed through. We are back there now dealing with the same people,

asking them to stop overfishing. Our purpose at the time was to form an alliance

with the Spaniards but unfortunately there were things that took place that

prohibited us from doing that - but had we been successful in that - and we went

to Germany and Portugal as well, and each time we were talking about jointly

managing and jointly utilizing the fisheries resources, had that been followed

through, had we been as successful as we would have liked to have been, I

suspect we probably would not have the problem we have today, at least not to

the same extent. We are back now after the fact, now that the fish are gone

saying: now you realize what we said was true, and that is effectively what the

minister is saying there now, I am sure.

Mr. Speaker, I only have a few moments so I will try and clue

up by saying something about labour negotiations. I started to say you had all

these demands and I got sidetracked on these other issues. The point of the

matter is I think government made some mistakes early in the game and now they

find themselves in a very, very difficult position, so they now have to bring in

a piece of legislation which is undemocratic. I have just given the government

all of the reasons why they find themselves in it, and I sympathize with them in

all the problems they face in spending government money today, but they have a

piece of legislation now which is undemocratic.

The teachers said in a document that was circulated to me

yesterday - there are a number of very good statements in here - at issue is a

lost of confidence, confidence in the value of a signature. Confidence in the

value of a signature, that is the point they are making and the point that I

agree with, that this government, rightly or wrongly, entered into an agreement

not so long ago, they put their name on a piece of paper. I know circumstances

change but they did not change that quickly. Government should have known when

they signed that piece of paper, and I will not suggest that they did know,

there are those who are suggesting that government knew full well.

AN HON. MEMBER: With some of them we did.

MR. WINDSOR: Some of them he did. The minister admits

that when they signed some of the contracts they knew they were not going to be

able to honour them. Now, that is a shameful admission. I was generous enough

not to even want to suggest it but it is shameful that the minister admits that.

If there was one contract that this government knew when they signed it they

could not honour then I think my friend for St. John's East is right, that was

immoral. Their promises broken - this dispatch from the NTA goes through that in

some detail and I think it makes some very valid points. I do not have time to

deal with it all today.

AN HON. MEMBER: They are off base a little.

MR. WINDSOR: Some are off base. Invariably any person

bringing forth a position colours it to their own best advantage, and why not?

You do not go in negotiating something and give all of governments points. I do

not stand here, I did this morning, and felt like I was defending government. It

was not what I started to do. My thoughts when I rose were to deal with what I

am getting into now more so. I will say dishonesty - the President of Treasury

Board now gives me reason to say it, the dishonesty of signing agreements that

you knew you were not able to honour, and the reason you were not able to honour

them was because of weakness in the first instance early in the term in

providing settlements which were too generous, seconded by another mistake of

referring issues to binding arbitration. I cautioned government early in the

term. Hon gentlemen can go back to Hansard and you will find I cautioned you

then to stay away from binding arbitration because you will lose. I learned a

lesson as well in a binding arbitration over which we had no control. It was a

binding arbitration that was there by statute. If an agreement could not be

reached then the matter must go to binding arbitration. It was a group that did

not have the right to strike, and a particular arbitrator said: 'This arbitrator

does not feel bound by the ability of government to pay.' In other words, it was

not necessary even to consider whether or not government had the ability to pay,

and that is frightening. I think it is irresponsible - absolutely irresponsible.

I immediately said: 'That will be the last time that person will do an

arbitration, as long as I have anything to say about it,' because how can you

have an arbitrator who says: 'It doesn't matter how much money government has.

We have to look at what these people need. We have to compare their needs and

what other people in other provinces of Canada in similar positions are getting,

or in private enterprise. It does not matter if we award something and it

bankrupts government. So what? That is not my concern.' I think that arbitrator

totally missed the responsibility with which he had been entrusted.

So I say to government, whenever you go to binding

arbitration, it is going to cost you dearly. Not only that, when you get an

award from an arbiter then the next group that comes in to negotiate has a

precedent, and they are buoyed up by the fact that an arbitrator gave a large

arbitration award. Therefore, they constantly hit you over the head with, 'Well,

look what they got.' 'Oh yes, but they got that through arbitration.' 'Well, I

guess we will have to go to arbitration, too, as quickly as possible.'

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair must advise the House that the hon. member's time

is up.

MR. WINDSOR: Two or three minutes by leave?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave, the hon. member.

MR. WINDSOR: Just to clue up. I don't have time to get

into all I wanted to do, that would be asking too much.

So when you get those groups coming in with that, then they

are armed with a lot of ammunition. They have strong arguments to make.

To get back to what I was saying earlier, the real weakness

is in government's vulnerability, that governments do have to get elected. Union

leaders do and they don't. The union leader's objective is to get as much as

they can for their union. As long as they do they will get reelected, as we are

seeing, and paid well for it, I understand. But governments do have to get

elected. At the same time, they have a responsibility to maintain public

services. How do you leave 15,000 government employees on the streets when those

streets have not been cleared of snow? When hospitals are - pardon?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINDSOR: I mean, how can you do that when hospitals

are not being properly operated? When people are having difficulty - I won't say

being denied medical care; there is always emergency care available. But we have

had cases in the past when people have had serious difficulties because various

medical groups were on strike. We have had problems negotiating with the unions

in the past, essential services that were called for under the agreement that

had to be provided in the event of a strike.

So it is a very difficult position in which the government

finds itself, and government will never resolve it on its own unless the people

of this Province are prepared to support the government in their efforts; unless

the people are prepared to say, enough is enough. It does not happen very

easily. The hon. gentlemen opposite like to make reference to the strikes we had

in 1985 and 1986, in which I was very much involved. It wasn't a lot of fun.

That is perhaps why I can sympathize with hon. people opposite. It wasn't a lot

of fun driving in through 300 or 400 people every morning. It wasn't a lot of

fun having to step over bodies on the step of Confederation Building. It wasn't

a lot of fun listening to yourself being called some of the things that I was

called. It wasn't a lot of fun going out and seeing the side of your car

destroyed, the paint job destroyed, not a lot of fun having threatening phone

calls at home so that the police had to patrol your house twenty-fours a day. It

is not a lot of fun, Mr. Speaker.

Anybody who doesn't think that took place in 1985 is hiding

away form the truth, because it did happen. It's not a lot of fun having

constituents come to you, members of my provincial executive come to me, saying:

'I can't cross the picket line anymore. It is too tough. You know, I support

you, but I cannot refuse to go on strike any longer. I have to go back to work.

It is costing me too much, it is costing my family.' It's not a lot of fun

having your kids come home from school telling stories of what other kids have

said to them in school, because their mother or father is on strike. But that is

what you have to deal with.

You can't do it unless you have public support, you can't do

it unless you have a lot of support within your own caucus. I was very

fortunate. I was very fortunate I had a premier who was very strong. I give him

full marks. Never once did he fail to support any action that I took. But you

have to have a strong caucus and a strong Cabinet. I have to say that if there

are things that I probably wanted to do a little differently, but that the

caucus or the Cabinet held us back a little bit, you have to listen to your

colleagues, obviously. You try to find reasonable compromise on all things.

Government is not like private enterprise. If you are the

president of a private enterprise, you simply call in your staff and say: I am

the president, here is what you will do, and be quick about it. In government

you don't do that. It is government by consensus of Cabinet, to a large measure.

As long as you agree with the Premier, particularly in this particular case. But

generally speaking, of course, the Premier will finally decide. Generally, if

the Premier wishes to stay a Premier for very long, and wishes to retain the

loyalty of his Cabinet, he will listen to them. If he chooses not to, he should

have a good explanation of why he is choosing not to.

I will say without any hesitation, the premier that I served

for the longest time certainly listened and was fair. There is not always

agreement in caucus or in Cabinet. Sometimes you have ministers who are

personally involved in something, so there is a lot of pressure to do something

you don't want to do - a lot of smiles opposite; I am sure that has happened

once or twice in the past couple of years. So there is not always unanimity in

Cabinet, by any means. Sometimes there are very strong arguments across the

Cabinet table. I would hope there are strong arguments across the Cabinet table.

But unless you have the support of your caucus, colleagues,

and the House, I would say - because it is very easy for us, as an Opposition,

to stand here and try to make political brownie points over a labour situation,

to try to get a labour group to support us. It is easy to hop on the bandwagon

when you haven't got to pull the bandwagon. It is easy to do politically, and I

think I can say I have never done that. I will put forward a position on behalf

of a group, because that is our role as an Opposition, but I will do it only if

I believe in it. I will not do it for political purposes.

So I think the House, itself, is going to have to be strong.

The government will need the support of Opposition to be fair. But the

government must be seen to be fair if they expect support, that is essential.

Unfortunately, this government does not have a lot of freedom anymore. They have

put themselves into a box that is going to be very difficult for them to get

their way out of. So their only hope is to improve revenues.

It goes back to the whole thing I was talking about, and I

don't have time. I have said most of it before, so I won't go into it. But

government has to look at creative ways of improving the economy of this

Province. It may mean taking some unusual steps this year. I was disappointed

with the Budget, as I said during the Budget Debate. But I think, in order to

deal with the labour situation, the government has to improve its revenue

situation. That may mean making some unusual expenditures and it means borrowing

in the short-term to start generating some economic activity, not necessarily

new economic activity, but saving some of the businesses that are in grave

danger of going bankrupt over the next six months.

I suggested last week that why not, since we gave people with

loans from the Fisheries Loan Board, or the Department of Fisheries - since we

have forgiven their interest for this year; I don't know how much that cost the

government, no doubt it was substantial - why can we not give that same

consideration to private companies that have funds from the Newfoundland and

Labrador Development Corporation? They are still paying 15, 16 and 17 per cent

on loans that they received two or three years ago, yet they are going bankrupt.

That is something that government could do to help these

companies. Because if one small company with ten employees goes bankrupt,

government has ten more people on their rolls to pay. I think that would be a

small amount of expenditure. That is only one example. Now, I could give a

hundred examples, and will, in due course, probably.

So I urge government to think about that. Because the answers

are not in Bill 17, that is a cop-out; that is admitting failure, and it is

admitting mismanagement of the economy. We can talk about all of the cuts from

Ottawa, and all of the recession and everything else. Government had the tools,

and has the expertise available to it, to be able to predict much more

accurately than they have the situation with which they would be faced.

They could have known and they should have known that they

could not honour these agreements, and I think they are to be faulted for

getting themselves in this position. Whether or not there is any alternative now

but to introduce this piece of legislation, I don't think I am in a position to

judge. Where else would you find the amount of money that you are saving here?

Perhaps they have chosen the least painful route. It is either that or cut some

other services, or raise taxes. We realise all of that. God knows, in this

Province raising taxes is not an alternative. This government has stepped beyond

the border now. People of this Province are overtaxed. Small business in this

Province is overtaxed, and the individual is overtaxed.

I think government has to take some very drastic action to

relieve some of that tax burden and relieve it quickly to provide a measure of

support for those businesses that are failing, to give some relief to the

consumer, so the consumer can start spending again, start to move the economy so

that government's revenues will increase. Then the government will be in a

position to deal with their labour problems.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentlemen opposite for allowing

me to go past my time. There is so much more I could say on this bill. I'm

really only starting to get into the labour side of it. Because I believe it is

all so directly tied together. But we cannot support a bill which effectively

wipes out the signature that a government willingly and knowingly put to paper.

This particular bill also wipes out a bill that this same

government brought to the House of Assembly last year when they asked for a

one-year freeze. Now they are saying: Eliminate Bill 16; Bill 17 asks for a

two-year freeze, and restrictions in the t