May 4,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 29

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could have the

indulgence of the House for one minute to offer congratulations to the

Newfoundland team who won three medals, and one individual medal in the Youth

Bowling Council championships held last week in Winnipeg. Teams from the Plaza

Bowl won gold, silver and bronze medals while Lee Escott of St. Pat's won a

bronze medal for the bantam boy's single section.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members of this House of

Assembly would like to send a note of congratulations to all of the youth

bowlers. We are very proud of them. Some of the members of the House of Assembly

will remember this young man Escott because we bowled against him a few weeks

ago and he handily beat all the members of the House of Assembly who attended

that bowl-a-thon. I would like all members of the House of Assembly to offer our

congratulations to the Newfoundland youth bowling team.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like, on behalf of hon. members on this side of the

House, to associate ourselves with the words of the hon. the Member for

Kilbride. We certainly do offer congratulations. It was a great effort on behalf

of the youth bowlers and I think we should congratulate those who organized it.

After all, I think what is always seen is that the proof of the pudding, so to

speak, comes out in the eating and the organization and the coaching always show

when the kids perform like that. I associate myself with the hon. member's

comments.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform

members of the passing of a distinguished former career public servant, Mr.

Cyril Banikhin on April 20th of this year.

Mr. Banikhin was born in St. John's in 1929 and first worked

for his father's business which was involved in fish processing, shipping and

marketing as well as manufacturing, retailing, forestry and milling. He joined

the staff of the Department of Fisheries in 1956 as a field supervisor in the

engineering production division. Over the next thirty years he held a number of

senior posts within the Department of Fisheries; in the Department of Labour,

where he was deputy minister from 1970 to 1972; and in the Planning and

Priorities Secretariat of Cabinet where he was charged with re-organizing the

administrative system of government and putting in place a better mechanism for

long-range planning. He was appointed to head the Liquor Licensing Board in

1973, a position he held until his retirement.

He held the position of Chief Administrative Officer at the

former College of Fisheries, Navigation, Marine Engineering and Electronics from

1963 to 1970. During that time Mr. Banikhin also served as a member of the

Labour Force Committee of the Royal Commission on Economic Prospects

(1965-1967); co-chairman of a joint federal/provincial industrial manpower

resource committee for the Province from 1967-1972 and as a federal

representative to the International Labour Organization in Geneva Switzerland.

It was during this time, that I met Mr. Banikhin and developed an admiration for

his knowledge, forthrightness and his commitment to serving the people of our

Province. That service also extended into community organizations of which Mr.

Banikhin was a member, including the Rotary Club and the Shrine Club.

Mr. Banikhin's family emigrated to Newfoundland from Eastern

Europe in the early part of this century, like hundreds of other Jewish people,

in order to escape persecution which they experienced. Many came here because

they saw Newfoundland as a stepping stone to Canada and the United States but

fortunately for our Province, many others, like the Banikhins, came to stay.

They brought little with them except their talents and their determination to

succeed but I believe that, on reflection, one can see that men and women of the

calibre of Cyril Banikhin have given to this Province far more than could be

easily repaid or properly acknowledged.

On behalf of the Government and people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, I express our deepest sympathies to the Banikhin family in their

bereavement. The sense of loss at his passing will be felt by all those who knew

him and admired him.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise on behalf of the Official Opposition to associate

ourselves with the remarks of the Premier. Mr. Banikhin was long known as one of

our senior public servants who served this Province extremely well in various

capacities in a number of departments of government.

I first knew him in his capacity as Chairman of the

Newfoundland Liquor Licensing Board and I think it is there that he will,

indeed, be remembered as one who, I guess, piloted a series of new policies,

probably for the first time, and all of us probably know the past issuance of

liquor licenses unfortunately was laced too heavily with politics. Mr.

Banikhin's stewardship of the Liquor Licensing Board, I think, saw that come to

an end. We saw him and the board that he chaired, develop a whole new set of

policies which are being used today and which I think brought in a measure of

fairplay.

Mr. Banikhin himself was known as a highly professional

individual with a tremendous sense of fairness and balance in all matters in

which he dealt. He was also known, Mr. Speaker, for his work in service

organizations, most notably, Rotary Club, in which I worked with him and was

associated with him as a fellow Rotarian and, of course, he was also very much

involved in the Shrine Club, as has been said.

We join, Mr. Speaker, with the Premier and the members of the

House in extending to the Banikhin family our sincere sympathy, and we take

great pleasure in being associated with these remarks.

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

leave of the House.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I would

like to join the Premier, and the Member for Mount Pearl on behalf of the

Official Opposition, in offering my sympathy, and join in the sympathy offered

by members of the House, to the family of the late Cyril Banikhin. To listen to

the recital by the Premier of the many functions and contributions made by Mr.

Banikhin throughout his very long career is to see how diverse a career as Mr.

Banikhin had can contribute to the life of this Province, and to bring the

experience and knowledge of other cultures and other countries to our Province

and contribute to the future of a province that we are creating together with

each individual's contribution. I am pleased to join in the remarks and

associate myself and our party with the remarks concerning the late Mr.

Banikhin.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, on December 4, 1991, I announced a Request for

Bids for onshore petroleum exploration permits in Western Newfoundland. At that

time,I invited interested parties to submit bids in the form of work commitments

by April 30, 1992.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to announce that I have selected

bids totalling approximately $1,650,000 on three parcels covering an area of

about 117,000 hectares.

The successful bids are in the form of work expenditure

commitments whereby the companies undertake to spend the bid amount on

exploration during the five-year term of the exploration permit.

The successful bidders are: For Parcel #8, Vinland Petroleum

Inc. with a bid of $10,630; for Parcel #9, Vinland Petroleum Inc. with a bid of

$10,630; for Parcel #13, the Parsons Pond area, Labrador Mining and Exploration

Company Limited with a bid of $1,627,770.

Parcel 8, which encompasses approximately 38,000 hectares, is

located east of Main Brook on the Northern Peninsula. Parcel 9, which

encompasses approximately 38,000 hectares, in located north of Port au Choix.

Parcel 13, which is about 40,000 hectares, is located around Parsons Pond.

Mr. Speaker, successful bidders have fifteen days to submit a

$10,000 performance bond for the first year of operations. Receipt of these

bonds is required before I am able to issue permits, pursuant to the

regulations.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Maybe it was an oversight on the minister's part, or on my

arriving late at the office, but I was not aware that he was going to make a

statement.

Let me say that this particular news, I suppose, is good

news. The exploration industry in Newfoundland for minerals, generally speaking,

is on the broad of its back right now and in desperate need of some sort of

stimulation. We would certainly hope that something good will come of this

onshore exploration on the West Coast of our Province. The amount of money we

are talking about is not a great amount of money over a five year period, but

every little bit helps. I do wish the companies concerned the very best and some

success in their endeavours. Thank you very much.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the

Minister of Education. I wonder if the minister will tell us if he agrees with

the decision by the Memorial University Senate to raise the entrance

requirements from 60 per cent to 70 per cent?

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

DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to preface my

answer with a couple of short comments.

I think in the 70's and the 80's, Mr. Speaker, the key word

in education was equality - equality of opportunity. In the late 80's and

certainly in the early 90's the term is 'excellence'. Schools, universities and

colleges are focusing increasingly on excellence, and throughout Canada

universities have been reviewing their entrance requirements. Memorial has done

that over the last two or three years. Memorial, I gather, in the list of

universities, Mr. Speaker, was surveyed by McClain's last year. Memorial was I

think close to the bottom in admission requirements, and now the university has

done some studies and is proposing to introduce and to increase the entrance

requirements. They have the authority to do that, Mr. Speaker, and we will

support them in that.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. More theory and

equality being sacrificed! The President of the University said on several

occasions over the past year or so that the university would have to reduce

first year admissions in order to cope with budget cutbacks. Let me ask the

minister: will these new entrance requirements reduce first year admissions, and

isn't this the real reason that higher requirements are being put into effect?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I have not been fully briefed

this morning on this, but it is my understanding that the issue has been on the

table for some years. Memorial has been reviewing its entrance requirements and

it is not to restrict enrolment or as a result of budget cuts, it is to increase

excellence. We are told, Mr. Speaker, that large numbers of students are going

to Memorial now and not completing successfully in a reasonable period of time.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, this morning I talked with students from all over the

Province and they support this. The students themselves support this initiative

by the University. It is not as a result of budget restrictions or restraints,

it is an attempt to improve the standard of excellence of Memorial University.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, the minister when talking about

equality always (Inaudible) that relatively few students from rural Newfoundland

get an average mark of 70 or more. Won't this policy severely reduce

opportunities for rural students to attend University?

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

DR. WARREN: I thank the member for raising that question

because I raised it at the University, I have raised it for years, and I raised

it at the University just a few weeks ago in a speech that I was making to the

University.

I have asked them to examine the impact of this proposal on

students throughout the Province, and I have asked them whether they would

monitor - I will ask them again to monitor this policy. It will not be

introduced, I gather, before 1993. I gather it is a year away from introduction.

But the member raises a very important point and I will ask the University to

monitor the impact of these increases in admission standards on the various

groups of students in the Province. We do not want these admission requirements

to discriminate against any one group, Mr. Speaker, and I am concerned about

that. I do not think they will. They have done studies at the University, they

don't think they will. But I am going to ask the University to monitor the

impact of these changes in admission requirements over the next year or two.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Given the

importance of higher education to employment opportunities and to the whole

economy, shouldn't the government do everything impossible to expand and

encourage access to a university education? Will it tell the University -

instead of suggesting that they monitor - won't the minister tell the University

that higher entrance requirements are not in the best interests of the Province

at this time?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, on the question of

that we have done reasonably well in the last few years on increasing

admissions. As I said earlier, our entrance requirements were said by some to be

among the lowest in the country for General Studies. Not for various faculties,

because after General Studies some faculties require 70 per cent and higher. We

are concerned about elitism. Queen's University, Mr. Speaker, I have been told

in the last few weeks, Queen's in Ontario, the average is 85 per cent to get in.

I tell you that Memorial University is not moving in that

programs throughout the Province, improved student aid, more scholarships. No,

other post-secondary institutions, equally important, will make sure we prepare

our people for the next century. Education is the keystone to the future

development of this Province and our post-secondary institutions, all of them,

have to provide quality education for our people so that we can compete as a

Province and as a nation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the absence of the Minister of Municipal and Provincial

Affairs, I would like to ask questions about the Province's Public Libraries'

Board to the Premier.

The public libraries' underfunding problem is much worse than

many people realize. Perhaps it is worse than the Premier himself realizes. I

would like to ask if the Premier knows that last year the government, his

government, did not grant the provincial Public Libraries' Board enough funding

to pay for relief or substitute staff while librarians were on vacation or off

sick, and, consequently, in the majority of the Province's public libraries

which are small, serving rural areas and employ only one or two part-time staff,

the libraries had to close for three or four weeks? Does the Premier realize

that?

Does the Premier know that the problem has been allowed to

degenerate now because of the present year's budget to the extent that on top of

the three or four week closure that started, for the first time ever, last year

in the majority of libraries, all the libraries will close for two weeks? So

that in the case of the majority of libraries, the rural libraries, this year

they will be closed to the public for a minimum of five weeks. Does the Premier

know that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am aware, through comments

from the Minister of Education, through comments in the news media and so on and

statements that have been made by the Chairman of the Libraries' Board, as to

what they propose to do to deal with the fact that they don't have the funding

they requested. But I would just like to set the record straight as to what they

got and what was requested.

The amount budgeted for the Libraries' Board in 1991-1992 was

$5,952,700. Now, I am having people check right now, but on a per capita basis I

suspect we are pretty high by comparison with the rest of Canada. I am having it

checked and I will report to the House of Assembly hopefully by tomorrow exactly

what the situation is.

Now the Libraries Board requested for 1992-93 - $6,303,746.

That, Mr. Speaker, was assuming salary increases, don't forget. That was

assuming salary increases. Now with the restraint in public sector wages and

everybody depending on the public sector, the government took out that salary

increase, and we have provided in the Budget for $6,096,900 for the Public

Libraries Board which, Mr. Speaker, is just about $210,000 less than was

requested.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't know why the Public Libraries Board

or it's chairman are carrying on in this particular way, but I would like an

explanation from them as to why they are all of a sudden explaining that they

must, because of government cutbacks, close the libraries of the Province for

two weeks. If that is what they are doing they are doing some kind of

mismanagement because they have gotten all of the money that they requested

except for salary increases. Is that correct?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: Nearly as I know that is essentially

correct. Now I need to know exactly what is going on here before I respond fully

to these questions in the House of Assembly. So, Mr. Speaker, I have caused a

full examination to be undertaken, and I will report to the House in some detail

as to exactly what the Public Libraries Board is doing with the money it

requested or how it proposes to spend $6.1 million this year.

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

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, it is outrageous that the Premier

of the Province will stand before the House of Assembly and admit he does not

know what is going on with the Province's Public Libraries Board, and then

insult and belittle

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MS. VERGE: - the volunteers on that board by accusing

them of mismanagement.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask

the Premier will he not find from within his governments $3.5 billion Budget

sufficient funding to supplement what was granted the Public Libraries Board so

that the public libraries can provide a decent service to the people of the

Province?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, every government agency can

make the same case. There is not a single agency providing government or public

services in this Province that has adequate funding. I will admit that. There is

not one that has adequate funding to meet the real need, but, Mr. Speaker, what

we have had to do is provide funding within the reasonable limits of our

capability bearing in mind that we have to bring in line the Province's sorry

financial state, that has been in for many years, in difficult economic times in

this country and in this world. Now that means that certain government agencies

cannot have every dollar they want.

Mr. Speaker, this year when the Public Libraries Board made

its request they had monies included, I believe, for computers and for increases

in salaries. Other than that, we have provided what they requested including

increased funds to purchase books, increases over and above what was provided

before. So there is a provision for increased funding. As a matter of fact they

are getting $144,000 more than last years budget, so there is some increase in

funding. It is not very much. It is not enough to meet the genuine need, but,

Mr. Speaker, it is clearly the maximum that the Province can afford unless

somebody is going to decide that we are going to close schools here or close

hospitals somewhere else, or fail to plow a road somewhere else. We still must

manage the Province's public obligations in a responsible way and at the same

time try to cause the government to recover from the financial mess that the

former government has put us in for all the years they were in power.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is not a

supplementary, it is a new question which will be prefaced by a

preamble.

Mr. Speaker, the Province's Public Libraries Board is the

only provincial government agency, branch, department which is taking every

single employee off the payroll for two weeks this year -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to remind hon. members that there is no procedure for

asking a new question, although hon. members have done that. With the system

under which we operate, with not a two or three Oppositions kind of thing, the

Chair has been under obligation many times to acknowledge a member when a member

stands. But I want to remind hon. members when the Chair recognizes a member the

second time, when a member is standing, the Chair recognizes the person for a

supplementary and not a new question. Hon. members ought to follow these rules.

If the hon. member is asking a question of a different

minister, then the Chair uses some tolerance. But when a member is directing the

same question to the same minister, it is a supplementary.

MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker, with respect, this is a new

question. Had the minister responsible been here, I would have asked my first

two questions to that minister. I was planning all along to ask this question to

the Premier.

Mr. Speaker, my question has to do with the drastic measure

chosen by the Province's Public Libraries' Board which is to take off the

payroll every single employee of that agency, from the Director on down. For two

weeks this year none of the staff of the Province's Public Libraries' Board will

be paid. Mr. Speaker, if the problems of the Province have really come down to

the stage where some public employees have to go off the payroll, does it really

have to be the librarians? Could it not be the public relations directors or the

political staff, the members, or some administrators or clerks in Confederation

Building? Don't we have our priorities all wrong, I ask the Premier, to allow

the libraries to shut for two weeks -

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

The hon. the member has put the question.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the Public Libraries' Board

has responsibility for making the decisions. It has the clear right to operate

on a different basis. It has the clear right to reduce the number of hours from

forty or fifty hours a week to thirty-seven or thirty-eight hours a week and

reduce their costs in that way. It has a variety of other means. It chose to

operate in this way. Now, I don't think it is right for the government to say to

the Public Libraries' Board: You have responsibility for managing the libraries

but you must make this decision and this decision and some other decision. We

trust it to their good judgement.

Now, we assume that they made a decision that there was a

certain time in the year when the demand for library services were so low that

they could justify closing for two weeks, and that is fine. An alternative might

be to lay off some employees, as other government departments have had to do.

But, Mr. Speaker, I remind the House again that the government provided exactly

the same amount of money for salaries as it did last year. So it is not because

of salary they have to close. Whatever other decision they have made, I don't

know, but it is not because they cannot afford to pay the salary. They got

exactly the same money for salary as they did last year, and every other

government agency is in the same boat. To allow them to do otherwise is to allow

them to provide for an increase in salary.

So I don't know what is really behind their decision, that is

why I have undertaken, Mr. Speaker, that I will make an enquiry and I will bring

to the House a full explanation of what the Public Libraries' Board is doing.

But this is all a red herring that they are creating, that they have to close

for two weeks because they don't have enough money to pay salary. They have

exactly the same money for salary as they had last year.

MS. VERGE: But they were closed for three or four weeks

last year.

PREMIER WELLS: They have exactly the same money for

salary as they had last year, and every other government agency and department

is in exactly the same boat. Now, if they decide to operate on a different

basis, that is up to them.

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

MS. VERGE: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

What signal is this Premier sending to the business

community, to the economists, to the academics, to the citizens of our Province

and people elsewhere in the world about our values, if he and his government

allow all our public libraries to close for not two weeks, in most cases, but

five or six weeks this year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I am glad the hon. member asked what

signal we are sending. Let me tell the members of this House what signal we are

sending with respect to literacy. Many people have tied this question into

literacy. When we came to power, Mr. Speaker, in 1988 - 1989, the former

government had spent a whole $79,300 of provincial funds on literacy, a whole

$79,000. They got $225,000 from the federal government, but they spent out of

provincial funds $79,000. In our first year, Mr. Speaker, we committed out of

provincial funds $356,000.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: In the second year, $364,000.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: In the next year, Mr. Speaker, $440,800.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: And in the coming year, Mr. Speaker,

$593,000.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now that is the signal we are sending to

the Province! That is where our commitment is!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now the hon. member obviously is having

great fun with the newspapers and others proclaiming this as a literacy problem

and our concern for literacy and so on. That is where this government's concern

for literacy is. I have to advise the House that I am having that examined too,

and I will tell the House the full expenditures on literacy, and explain just

where our commitment is and just what kind of a signal we are sending to

industry and commercial establishments in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Extern.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Member for St. John's

East Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister

of Fisheries.

When the Premier returned from his trip to Europe he called

for patience in dealing with the European community on the overfishing issue.

This weekend in Toronto the Minister of Fisheries again called for a deadline,

and if that deadline was not met, that unilateral action be taken. I want to ask

the minister: What is the government's position? Is it patience or is it a

deadline?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the government's position is

precisely what the Premier has stated and what I have stated on numerous

occasions. No later than yesterday at a mass rally in Toronto I made a statement

on the fisheries and the urgency for some kind of action, and that is precisely

the position the Premier takes.

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

Extern on a supplementary.

MR. PARSONS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Last week the Minister of Fisheries said that it may be

necessary to close down the Newfoundland fishery. Are the stocks in worse shape

now than they were perhaps a couple of months ago, or is the minister privy to

some technical knowledge that the rest of us Newfoundlanders and Labradorians do

not have?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, some time

ago the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans placed what in effect is a

moratorium on the offshore fishery as it relates to northern cod. At a meeting

in Clarenville during the past week at the Chamber of Commerce, at which I was

the guest speaker, I made reference to briefing sessions that were held between

senior federal scientists and senior officials of my department, and I expressed

some alarm that the situation may be even worse than we anticipated, or at least

than what they anticipated, and I said: it is not at all unlikely, it might well

be, that not only will we have to put a moratorium on offshore fishing, as we

have done; it might well be that we are going to have to cut back on the inshore

fishery as well - not because we want to, but if it means the survival of the

Newfoundland fishing industry then that might very well be the price we will

have to pay.

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

Extern, a supplementary.

MR. PARSONS: What I want to ask the minister: Is the

government ready to deal with the economic and social crisis if the fishery is

closed down? And does government have a detailed plan - something more

comprehensive than the one or two pages that the minister sent to the Minister

of Fisheries? Will the minister present this plan to this hon. House and give

the hon. members a right to debate it? What plan do you have, and will you show

us that plan so we can debate the issues?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, maybe that question would be

better asked of the hon. gentleman's political soul mates in Ottawa, and not the

Newfoundland government. Maybe rather than stand here and try to convey the

impression that sole responsibility for addressing that problem rests on the

shoulders of the Province, maybe he would be doing his Province and the people

of this Province a greater service if he were to direct that question where it

belongs, and impress upon his friends in Ottawa, including his soul mate, the -

maybe, Mr. Speaker, that is what he should be doing, and not rise in this House

to try to convey the impression that the Province of Newfoundland is solely

responsible for addressing the problem.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for

the Minister of Fisheries. I ask the minister is he aware that the seal fishery,

as of today, has come to a virtual halt because fishermen can sell neither the

meat nor the pelts?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that there are some

problems with respect to the seal fishery, but I am also aware of the fact that

the Province this year provided a considerable amount of money to promote the

seal fishery, monies that were allocated for specific purposes. Now, if somebody

within the organization of the seal industry, the Canadian Sealers Association

or the co-op, spent that money in other areas, then that is something that I

cannot be held accountable for. But, certainly, we are having the matter

investigated to see exactly where it stands, and maybe tomorrow I can make a

statement on it in the House.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, thank you. Of the total

allowable landsmen hunt of approximately 180,000 seals, can the minister

indicate what portion of that quota has been reached?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I know that initially it was

their intention to harvest approximately 50,000 seals altogether. I think 20,000

of those seals would have gone to the Carino company for processing, and it was

planned to harvest about 30,000 by the sealers' co-op and the Canadian Sealers

Association. As to how many have been harvested to date, I can't say.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, one of the Province's positions

is that we need a seal cull. Having an harvest of only 50,000 out of 186,000

seems to be passing strange. But since ice conditions along the Northeast Coast

appear to be worsening - ice is moving quite close to land, which means the

start-up of the other fisheries is going to be delayed - is the minister going

to consider putting further subsidies into place to allow for the harvest of

more seals?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I would caution the hon.

gentleman to choose his words maybe a little more carefully when he talks about

a seal cull. If he wants to bring environmentalists down on this Province, then

suggesting that, is the way to do it.

I don't have any plans at the moment, Mr. Speaker, for

recommending to my Cabinet colleagues that we put more money into the seal

fishery. I think we have been extremely generous this year and last year, and

the previous year, in terms of providing funding for the harvest of seals. I

personally do not entertain any thought of recommending that any further funding

be made available this year.

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

MR. WINSOR: The minister subsidized the seal industry in

two areas, pelts, to the tune of $510,000, and I think it was $120,000 for seal

meat, all of which was left over from last year, because there was no hunt. Will

the minister consider making more money available for the meat sector and is he

pursuing this matter with federal Fisheries to see if the hunt can continue in

view of the fact there is no other kind of fishery taking place now?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, that question might have been

better directed to the hon. Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, because the

funds that were provided for that purpose were made available by his department.

Certainly, we have no plans to provide any additional funding.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the Minister of

Fisheries: My office has been in contact with the minister requesting a meeting

for a delegation from Little Bay Islands. I wonder is the minister aware of the

request and is he willing to grant that request?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, no, I'm not. It might well be

that the request has been made, but I have been out of my office for a day or

two, and maybe when I go back this afternoon I will be told of the request for a

meeting. If that request is there, I will have no hesitation at all in meeting

with the delegation from Little Bay Islands.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A different question

to a different minister. I have been told - and I don't know if this is a rumour

or not, so I take it under advisement in that regard - that Cumberland Farms in

the United States has gone into receivership, or is about to go into

receivership, or something to that effect. That being the case, I ask the

minister, is he aware of it and what action is this government planning, whether

there is any fallout with regard to this particular situation vis-a-vis Come by

Chance?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My understand is that Cumberland Farms Incorporated has not

gone into receivership but that on Friday of last week they filed for protection

from creditors under

Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the United States.

They expect to be re-organizing their debts and hope to pay off creditors in the

next three months. I have learned from a representative of the company that

there is no immediate effect on Come by Chance.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister

of Fisheries. The federal council of the New Democratic Party, at a meeting this

weekend in Hull, Quebec, passed a resolution calling on the federal government

to give notice to the participants at the NAFO meetings in Halifax in May and

the United Nations Conference in Brazil that if the overfishing problem is not

action to assume management over the stocks off the Nose and Tail of the Grand

Banks. I ask the Minister of Fisheries whether or not his government supports

that approach in light of the Premier's statement on his return from Europe that

he is getting tired of diplomacy, that diplomacy is not working and that it is

time for some action. Does the government support the position of the federal

New Democratic Party?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, the question hardly deserves an

answer. For that hon. gentleman now to stand in his place in this House trying

declaring unilateral action over the Nose and Tail of the Grand Banks - Mr.

Speaker, it is sickening in my view for him to even make that kind of comment,

when, in fact, the argument that is being made now by his party originated with

the Premier.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CARTER: I don't know where they are. I know they have

their heads stuck in the sand most of the time. Mr. Speaker, I know their heads

are buried most of the time, but surely they come out for air and when they do,

surely, he should have know that the idea came from this government. It is one

we have been pushing now for quite some time.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

I want to bring to the attention of hon. members the presence

in the gallery of the hon. Mr. Ross Reid, Member of Parliament for St. John's

East.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding to the next item of

business, the Chair feels its obligation to remind hon. members again about

certain procedures in Question Period, and the one to which I referred during

the Question Period, of hon. members asking new questions primarily for the sake

of getting in a

preamble. I remind hon. members again that there is really no

provision in our Standing Orders for new questions, and I quote to members

Paragraph 31,

Section B, which says: In the discretion of Mr. Speaker, a

reasonable number of supplementary questions arising out of a Minister's reply

to an oral question may be raised by hon. members.

This again is substantiated by Beauchesne, Paragraph 410,

Section 8. I want hon. members to pay attention to this, as well, which says:

"Preambles to questions should be brief and supplementary questions require no

preambles. Supplementary questions should flow from the answers of Ministers."

Hon. members are aware that if members made a practice of

saying they were on to a new question, that, indeed, would make things very

difficult for the Chair, and there is an obligation and a responsibility on hon.

members, to follow the rules, and particularly, to obey the rules. I ask hon.

members for their co-operation in this regard so that we can have Question

Period, adhering to the rules and Standing Orders of both our House and the

House of Commons inasmuch as that is possible.

I am asking members' indulgence, as I am just checking to see

if we have some students - I don't believe we do; we had several but they all

related to the same thing.

Notices of Motion

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Burgeo - Bay

d'Espoir.

MR. GILBERT: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow present the following resolution:

WHEREAS the Inshore Winter Fishery has been a complete and

utter failure this year on the South Coast, west of the Burin Peninsula; and

WHEREAS unemployment insurance payments for these fishermen

will expire on May 15, 1992;

BE IT RESOLVED that this House go on record as asking the

Department of Employment and Immigration to extend the Unemployment Insurance

Benefits to these South Coast fishermen, as was done for the North East Coast

fishermen in the 1991 season; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this House ask the federal

Department of Fisheries to pay the $800 gear-up allowance which was paid to

certain fishermen in the Province of Newfoundland and in Nova Scotia in March of

1992, to the South Coast inshore fishermen and women, who were omitted from the

original payment of this allowance.

Petitions

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to present a petition of 618 residents of the

Town of Pasadena in the district I represent. I wholeheartedly support the

petition. It deals with the subject of the shortchanging of the public

libraries. This petition was drawn up and circulated before last week's shocking

news that all public libraries in the Province will close for an additional two

weeks this year. This petition protests the downgrading that began last year. I

will read it in its entirety:

'We, the undersigned residents of Pasadena and patrons of our

local library, were outraged upon hearing of the intended closure of our library

during our head librarian's working hours while she is on vacation from May 5 to

the 26. This is a crucial time for our 800-and-some students, who will be amidst

exams, year-end projects and science fairs. The library is the only source of

research and reading materials accessible to most of us. Cutbacks have been

detrimental to library services in our community, and we believe that for a

Province which promotes literacy this is definitely a step in the wrong

direction." End of quote.

Mr. Speaker, Pasadena is a town of 3,500 people, and 618 of

them signed this petition. Pasadena is a progressive and well run community. It

places a great deal of emphasis on education. In many ways it serves as a model

in the Province. The Pasadena people quite enthusiastically support their

library both in contributing to the efforts of the volunteer library board as

well as in borrowing books from the library. The Pasadena library is a beehive

of activity. The Town Council contributes generously by covering all overhead

costs. The library is located in the new town building, and the Town Council

pays for heat, light, maintenance, and provides parking.

Mr. Speaker, the Pasadena experience illustrates the growing,

the escalating problems faced by the Province's libraries. It is a small library

serving a small town, and it is fairly typical. Other libraries in the Province

are smaller still.

Now the Premier talked about the Public Libraries Board

mismanaging, and he suggested that they have other choices before them besides

closing all the libraries for two weeks. He did not seem to realize how bad the

situation had already been allowed to degenerate. He did not seem to know that

last year the majority of libraries had to close for the time their staff were

on vacation or off on sick leave. Mr. Speaker, he also suggested that the board

could look at reducing the number of hours below forty or thirty-five.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in Pasadena the board employs only two

part-time librarians who work together for a total of only twenty-five hours a

week. At the best of times they were opened to the public for only twenty-two

and a half hours a week. Last year the government did not provide the provincial

board with sufficient funding to allow for relief workers or substitute workers

while permanent staff were on vacation or off sick. That is the problem that

this petition addresses. This year the situation is much worse. All library

employees will be coming off the payroll for two weeks, so the Pasadena library

will be closed this year not for the three weeks that the petitioners are

complaining about, but for a minimum of five weeks. The three weeks vacation

period, up to one week sick leave, and two more weeks because of the general

close down.

Mr. Speaker, people who have analyzed economic developments

agree that education, reading and learning are now more important than ever.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to rise in

support of the petition and take the opportunity to expand a little bit on my

remarks on last Friday when I first raised this question with the Premier.

Listening to the questions today I was quite pleased to see the Member for

Humber East raise this question again today to the Premier, but I have to say

that I was very disappointed and quite surprised to hear the Premier's remarks

today when he responded and seemed to be prepared to abdicate responsibility for

this very important question and say that the management of the public libraries

is in the hands of the board and that they can do what they want.

Mr. Speaker, that is not what this government has set up the

Public Libraries Boards for. They may well be volunteers, but, Mr. Speaker, the

government has to have certain principles under which these libraries should be

expected to operate. The job of the Public Library Board, Mr. Speaker, is not to

close libraries, the job of the Public Library Board is to manage libraries and

if they are not doing it in the way that satisfies the government then

government should do something about it. If they are happy with the way they are

managed then they might as well say: well, we are happy they are closing down

libraries because we gave that job to them and we are not going to say anything

about it.

Mr. Speaker, that is the problem I find with this government,

that the Premier gets in the House here and says: we have given them as much

money as we did last year. Essentially what he says is if they want to shut down

the libraries well let them do it. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough. I

asked a very simple question last Friday and I think it has yet to be answered

even after the valiant attempts of the Member for Humber East today. I see the

Minister of Education is quite interested in this question and well he might be.

He knows that the people of this Province have expectations for the future for

their children and they know if they are going to have any hope for the future

of their children it depends on excellence in education, increasing the level of

literacy, increasing the availability of knowledge and access to knowledge. If

he and his government allow the Public Library Board to shut down libraries, for

whatever reason, for the time period that is being contemplated by the Library

Board in Pasadena, or the board that controls that library, or in fact shut down

libraries for the Summer period when many students are anxious, available, and

have time to delve into the public libraries and explore the wealth of knowledge

that is available. It is not the most pressing issue of the day but it is a

very, very symbolic and important action that is being taken in this Province

where we are seeing, and this government seems to be allowed to see that kind of

backward step to be taken. If we are going to have Public Library Boards, and I

think they are a very valuable thing, to have members of the public involved in

the provision of these services, there still has to be some basic requirements

that are being required of the boards in the operation of public libraries

across this Province. Mr. Speaker, maybe it requires government to tell these

boards, or if necessary change the legislation, to suggest that they in the

operation of the public libraries must keep the public libraries open for a

specified period of the year and not use the closure of libraries, whether it be

for one week, two weeks, or five weeks, as is the case of the Pasadena library,

and be part of the job of running these libraries.

Mr. Speaker, I support wholeheartedly the petition of the

people of Pasadena and I think it is quite instructive that such a large and

overwhelming percentage of the population of that community have gone to the

effort of putting together a petition, in what appears to be a very short period

of time since this announcement was made, Mr. Speaker, in calling upon this

Legislature and calling upon the government to do something about it. The

question still remains, Mr. Speaker, after my efforts on Friday and the efforts

of the Member for Humber East today, the question still remains, is government

going to allow these libraries to be closed or is it going to do something about

it?

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will have more information

later this week. I will provide the full detailed information. I just draw the

hon. member's attention to a statement about this matter made by Mr. Penney, the

Chairman of the Board in the Evening Telegram.

MS. VERGE: He is not the Chairman.

PREMIER WELLS: He is the Executive Director. Now here I

caution, it may not be accurate. I cannot vouch for the veracity of the Evening

Telegram when I bear in line the headline they attributed to me about my asking

for patience with the Europeans, it is just totally the opposite. The hon.

Member for St. John's East Extern read that in the Evening Telegram. He read it

as a headline out of the Evening Telegram. He never, ever heard me say it nor

did anybody else. My position has been very clear. Months ago I asked the

federal government to serve notice on the world that if the matter is not

resolved by January 1, 1993 - and I originated the date - they should take

action. I am pleased to get support from the NDP on a national basis, I am quite

pleased to have it.

But back to this point, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Penney said: We

received $5,900,000 from government this year, the same amount as last year.

Government did not cut our budget, but as far as we are concerned we cannot

operate on that. He said Wednesday there were a number of layoffs in 1991 and he

wanted to avoid the number of layoffs this year. So instead of having any

layoffs this year it was thought that they would close for two weeks rather than

laying off twenty staff. Well now if he has got the same amount for salary as he

had last year; if he is not paying increases, as he is not supposed to do

because nobody else in the public service is getting increases, why would he

either be having layoffs or closing - either one? Unless he has hired more?

In terms of money to buy books, we provided increased funding

to buy books, Mr. Speaker. We provided increased funding to buy books.

Now the last two paragraphs of that

article are rather

instructive, because it clearly states what is happening here. At the moment

there is no firm word on when libraries will close, but Mr. Penney said two

options are being looked at: Libraries could close during the summer, when there

would be less impact, or close at a busy time and send a clear message to all

concerned.

Now the government is not going to operate in response to

that kind of threat and blackmail. We are going to run this Province

responsibly, and if the people are not satisfied that we are running it

responsibly, I have no doubt they will tell us when the next election comes

around. But I have equally no doubt that when the next election comes around

they are going to embrace with complete confidence the government, and entrust

to the government, to the Liberal party, the future running of this Province

because we have been doing it on a sound and sensible basis.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: Now we are not going to allow Mr. Penney

to cause the government to alter its basic budgetary position because he is

raising these kinds of threats, that he might close at a busy time to send a

message to all concerned. If the government gave in to that kind of blackmail it

is an invitation for every hospital, every school board and every other agency

in the Province to do the same thing, and the government is no longer master of

the Budget. This House will no longer be making the final decisions. They would

be pressured by this kind of silly political pressure. Well the government is

not going to respond to that, even when it is picked up and raised by the

opposition - the official opposition - even when it receives all of the full

force and credit of the New Democratic Opposition, we are still going to run

this Province on a fair and balanced basis, and we are not going to be pressured

into revising budgetary decisions that were made in a fair and balanced basis in

the first place.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise again to present a petition from the citizens of

Little Bay Islands. This is the fourth sheet of names voluntarily - I repeat,

voluntarily - given me by the citizens of Little Bay Islands at a public meeting

I attended there some time ago. This brings to approximately 110 the total

number of names who signed up that particular night.

The prayer of the petition is as follows: We the undersigned

residents of Little Bay Islands hereby petition the hon. House of Assembly to

instruct the hon. Minister of Fisheries not to approve the transfer, either

temporarily or permanently, of the crab processing licence of S.T. Jones and

Sons Limited to any other area of the Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think I fulfilled my mandate as given to

me in that meeting. I have raised this on every possible occasion since the

meeting, in the media, and in this hon. House. I have raised it on Bill Rowe's

Open Line. I have done my best to get the message out. I raised it again today

in Question Period. I am very pleased that the minister has indicated that he

will meet with a delegation from Little Bay Islands. The request was placed by

my secretary a week or so ago. I understand the minister has been on the road,

but I do hope that he will honour his word and meet the delegation sooner rather

than later at a mutually convenient time. Therefore, I would leave it at that. I

support the prayer of this petition and ask that it be tabled and referred to

the Department of Fisheries to which it relates.

Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, really I suppose on a point of

order, and it is something that I think I would like to get straightened out

here. I did not want to interrupt the hon. member and take up his time, but what

we are seeing is, I believe the hon. member mentioned this is the fourth sheet

of a petition - fourth sheet from a petition.

MR. HEWLETT: Originals!

MR. BAKER: Fourth sheet from a petition, they are all

originals I agree, from Little Bay Islands. Now, Mr. Speaker, I think we really

should have some kind of ruling on that. Normally if you have a petition being

presented from a number of communities, and members give a petition from one

community and then a petition from another community and so on, I suppose there

is some logic to not presenting them all together and presenting them as

separate petitions from separate communities. Or, the same petition from

different districts or whatever.

But I am wondering if it is proper to take a four-, five-, or

six-sheet petition, all original, and submit it as four or five or six separate

petitions. I am wondering if that is an acceptable practice. If it is, Your

Honour, I would suggest that it would be acceptable I suppose to present - if

there is a community with thirty-five or sixty houses in it, you could present

the same petition from each house in the community and so on. You could go on

forever in this House, and I am not so sure that is the intent of petitions.

If a petition has been presented as being from a community,

then can you continue to present the same petition day after day from the same

community, Mr. Speaker? So I think it is something that Your Honour will have to

look into and at some point in time give a ruling on.

MR. R. AYLWARD: To that point of order.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the

Government House Leader is wasting the time of the House on this one. It really

astonishes me. All he has to do is open our book of -

AN HON. MEMBER: Rules.

MR. R. AYLWARD: - rules, or whatever you call it. Our

book of rules. Look to petitions -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: - Mr. Speaker, in Standing Orders, yes,

thank you, and you will see that the petition is acceptable in this House if it

has three original signatures on it. No matter how many sheets it is. It does

not matter how many names are on it, as long as you have three original

signatures on that petition.

AN HON. MEMBER: And signed by the member.

MR. R. AYLWARD: So, Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the

hon. member has wasted the time of the House with this matter. The hon. member

has the right in this House to present that petition with different names, three

different names on it, as many times as he wishes. The fact that the Government

House Leader might like to see the hon. member muzzled and not present petitions

on behalf of his constituents is irrelevant.

Our rules dictate that the hon. member can present that

petition, or a petition, with three signatures on it. It is considered to be a

separate petition, as long as it is of the standard acceptable by this House of

Assembly.

MR. HEWLETT: To the point of order, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Green Bay on the

point of order.

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I agree with my hon.

colleague for Kilbride that I do not think there is any rule against my

presenting different sheets as long as they are originals as separate petitions

on the same issue, even if the wording of the prayer is the same.

However, I would point out - and especially for the

edification of the Minister of Health - that I told the public meeting concerned

that I could present one petition or I could present several petitions to keep

the issue alive as long as possible to put pressure on this government to accede

to their request for a meeting with the minister. They mandated me to use my

best common sense and political experience to so do.

Now I remember some time ago, before I was elected and was an

employee of the Crown, sitting in the House of Assembly when the present

Minister of Health was a member of the opposition getting up and reading

petitions, I do believe on electrical rates, if I am not mistaken, from the Town

of St. Anthony. Doing it street by street, day after day, alternating even and

odd numbers. He is grinning, Mr. Speaker, so he knows I have him cold on this

one.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Just to correct some misstatements opposite.

My intent - and I waited until the hon. member had presented his petition -was

not to interfere with his presenting it. I allowed him to do that before I got

up on the point of order. I simply requested some clarification from Your Honour

with regards to this particular process. I understand that what the hon. members

are saying about petitions is perfectly okay. There has to be at least three

signatures on the petition part of the page. Regardless of the number of

signatures, as long as three signatures appear on the front page, on the page

with the prayer, then it is okay. It does not say that the same petition can be

presented 300 times, each time with three separate signatures, Mr. Speaker.

So I would still request that Your Honour have a look at this

problem, as I see it. The rules of the House, Mr. Speaker, are such that they

are supposed to encourage the smooth running of procedures, and there are ample

opportunities for members opposite to slow up proceedings and to interfer with

proceedings of the House. One mechanism is by presenting petitions. If hon.

members opposite wanted to generate petitions, they could do so on a variety of

topics to slow up the business of the House, but, Mr. Speaker, it makes it so

much easier if you can present the same petition 300 times with only three names

on it, it is an entirely different problem.

Also, I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, that the prayer

of this petition, which I understand is to get a meeting with the minister, has

already been agreed to. So I don't know what the purpose of doing it beyond this

point is, Mr. Speaker, because the prayer of the petition has already been

answered.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I just want to differ with

the hon. member. Our rules on petitions are very clear. Standing Orders 90 to

97, I believe they are, Mr. Speaker, are very clear. The hon. member can, if he

has a petition with three signatures on the prayer of that petition, present it

300 times in this House of Assembly. He can. I mean, that is clear, it is not

complicated. Our Standings Orders say that he can. Maybe we would like to change

our Standing Orders.

MR. DOYLE: There is a process going on now.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I would say we might be able to have a

talk about that, but, Mr. Speaker, our Standing Orders are very clear.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I thank hon. members for their submission. The Chair will

take that under advisement.

I am not sure that all hon. members follow the rules of the

House with respect to presentation of petitions and, again, without being

repetitious on this matter, I refer hon. members to the right format. I will say

that the hon. Member for Green Bay invariably has the right format for his

petitions and one that all hon. members ought to follow.

I meant to say this before the hon. Member for Humber East

left the House, that that petition again was not in the right format and I would

really like for hon. members to deal with that.

I have said to hon. members in the past, if they think that

their petition is not in the right format, they should take it to the Clerk of

the House. It only takes a short time to get it in the right format.

The reason why the format is the way it is is because

petitions are not for debate. That is the reason why it is designed the way it

is. Now, hon. members can sort of disregard the rules, but the job of the Chair

is to try to enforce them, and hon. members will have to understand that that is

the reason why the petition is designed the way it is, to discourage debate. Not

that that works every time, but at least the petition is designed in a way that

it is supposed to discourage debate, because it is a forum in which no debate is

supposed to take place. When the petition is not written properly that sort of

encourages it because there are things on the petition that are debatable that

ought not to be there. So I would ask hon. members to try and abide by that

rule, which is a simple one.

On the matter raised by the Government House Leader, the

Chair will research and just see what the situation is.

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

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the

petition so ably presented by my colleague from Green Bay. I think perhaps what

we just saw is a bit of camouflage because the government is trying to get away

from the real issue here. The issue is the movement of a processing licence,

that only government can do, from one community to another. If we were devious

enough, I suppose we could look at the geography and the political involvement

of the move.

Mr. Speaker, in this Province of ours, in the rural areas, we

find that many areas are one-industry towns, whether it be a mining town,

whether it be a paper mill town or whether it be a fishing town or village,

particularly in our fishing areas we find that the industry, the sole industry

in many cases, is the local fish plant. In Little Bay Islands the crab

processing plant is the sole source of livelihood. Now, if the present operator,

for some reason or other, is not interested or wants to sell his licence or

facility, that is entirely up to him provided he owns the facility and it is not

leased from government or whatever, but the licence is not his to sell. The

licence is assigned, always was at least, assigned to a facility within the

community involved and if a certain individual or individuals do not want to

operate by using that licence, maybe somebody else does.

A crab processing licence, now, like any other licence in the

fishery is a prime piece of property to hold; it is a commodity that many crave,

and for which many will pay a considerable amount of money, even though you are

not supposed to sell a licence as such, but licences are being bought and sold

whether they are dragging licences or boat licences or inshore licences or

whatever, they are being bought and sold as we know, because people know they

are going to be harder and harder and harder to get. There is a freeze on

processing licences.

If anybody wanted to start a plant, a primary processing

facility tomorrow, you are going to be told by government: sorry, there is a

freeze on licences so the only way you can get into the fishery is to pick up an

existing licence which is there so if the operator in Little Bay Islands does

not want to operate, maybe somebody else does, so that work will be provided

there and it is very easy for the government to try to appease some of their own

members or friends if they so wish, by allowing a licence to be transferred to a

place where, perhaps, seemingly interested individuals are willing to operate a

facility in that area, and I can appreciate people wanting to get involved in

the fishery or anything else. That is what makes the economy grow and the world

turn but you do not take away the only, the sole opportunity that a community

has and we have had opportunities in our own area in the past, in recent years

whereby, if we did not have control of the licences, then the individuals who

owned facilities just packed up and moved and took everything with them, but by

having the licence in the community assigned to the facility, even though the

facility might be dilapidated and would have to be rebuilt, but by having a

licence there it gave new entrepreneurs a chance to come in. The only choice

they had to get into the fishery was to come where the licence was and they did

and they continued to provide employment and in fact in many cases enhanced

employment, but if we took away that licence and let it go with the individual

or individuals, then we wipe out the sole source of livelihood for the area.

So I think this is why we see all our points of order and our

concern about - it is not the concern about whether the petition is legal or

not, it is just to throw up a smoke screen to take away the fact that they are

not worried about meeting with the minister only, why you want to meet with the

minister, is to get him to commit to not taking the licence, that is the case,

because taking the licence means taking away their livelihood, so, Mr. Speaker,

I stand in support of the petition, it is essential that a licence be left in

place, whether it is in Little Bay Islands or anywhere else, whether it is a

Tory district or a Liberal district. Where we have licences and employment

provided, that is the only guarantee people will have that this employment will

continue and I certainly support the petition.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I rise today to present a petition signed by 1,029

individuals from all parts of this Province, from Labrador to St. John's to

Stephenville to central Newfoundland and, Mr. Speaker, the prayer of the

petition is as such:

We the undersigned are concerned about the number of impaired

driving incidents in our Province and we feel that the present penalties for

impaired driving are not strong enough to deter people from driving while under

the influence of alcohol. The lives of innocent people continue to be devastated

and needlessly by the impaired driver, and we call on our government to enact

legislation which will help to keep drunk drivers off the road.

Mr. Speaker, I guess there is not a lot more which can be

said about this particular prayer, but certainly I am pleased to stand in

support of it. I would like to commend the Friends Against Drinking and Driving,

a voluntary group in Happy Valley-Goose Bay, which was instrumental in having

this petition circulated throughout Newfoundland and Labrador, and of course

they were assisted in this by the Member for Naskaupi as he presented I think,

the first of a number of these petitions last November, so, Mr. Speaker, I would

just like to say that I certainly concur with the prayer of the petition.

I believe, as everybody does, that anytime we have a tragic

accident where life is taken by a drunk driver then certainly the whole

community suffers and there is no doubt about the pain and anguish that comes to

families who have to endure this type of very, very unfortunate tragedy. Mr.

Speaker, I know that the Premier has struck a committee to look into this

particular issue, and I hope that they will be making their recommendations to

the government in the near future to see that we do all that is humanly possible

to see that the signal is sent out there, to see that the people of this

Province who ever had a thought about drinking and driving, that certainly they

would feel that the government of the day would be taking whatever action is

necessary to see that this kind of tragic thing does not occur. I am sure all

hon. members would concur with the wishes of this petition. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. the Member for

Kilbride, again the Chair feels its obligation to again tell the Member for

Eagle River that petition was not in the right format either.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Although that

petition is not in the right format, Mr. Speaker, I am very delighted that the

Member for Eagle River did bring it to the attention of this House. Certainly it

is a very, very serious issue. I want to go on record on my behalf and on behalf

of all the members in the Official Opposition of supporting that petition

wholeheartedly, Mr. Speaker.

We had some months ago a similar petition presented in this

House from the Happy Valley - Goose Bay area, I believe, and it got unanimous

support in this House of Assembly. Mr. Speaker, it is a very serious problem.

Drunk driving in this Province, I guess in Canada overall and in this Province,

is a serious, serious problem. There have been occasions when people drive who

do not believe they are drunk - I don't know how you can avoid that. If there

was ever some kind of a portable breathalyser that a person could have if they

were going out for a night's entertainment or social evening, if there was some

kind of a portable thing that you could take with you, and before you sat in

your car you could blow into that thing and know if you were above the legal

limit.

It certainly would be a great help to a lot of people, and I

don't mean just people who - there are people who drive and don't realize they

are drunk. There are people who flagrantly abuse this and they are caught many

times, and you see their names in the paper for being convicted of drunk driving

a lot of times. These are certainly the most serious ones, but there are other

instances when people do not realize that they are over their limit. They do not

realize how serious it is and how bad their judgement can be impaired by a few

drinks of alcohol, Mr. Speaker. It is too bad there is not some kind of an

invention, with all the brilliant minds that are in this world today, there

should be something that can be left on a bar maybe before you are leaving a

lounge or a bar, or something that you can personally take yourself or buy at a

bar just to try it to see if you are over that legal limit. I am sure that would

cut down on it once people realized. If they realize that they are over the

legal limit, I don't think there would be as much impaired driving as there is

now. Even people who are close to the legal limit, Mr. Speaker, if they realized

it they would be fools, certainly, to continue to drive once they knew it. They

are fools anyway to be taking the risk and many of us are guilty of that, of

being fools, Mr. Speaker. I don't hide away from it that I have probably been

guilty of it in the past, Mr. Speaker, not knowing - I don't hide away from it -

not knowing that I was guilty but could very well have been. I am glad to be

able to stand in this House of Assembly and support that petition, and I wish

the group who collected the petition well, and I hope they continue to highlight

this issue. I hope they continue to take up petitions, and if there is anything

that the Official Opposition can do in this House of Assembly to help them

highlight this issue, I am sure we will be more than glad to. We will cooperate

certainly fully with any government initiative to try to impose stiffer

penalties, if that is what is necessary. I am not sure that comes under the

Criminal Code. I imagine most of it would come under the Criminal Code, but

maybe some way under the Highway Traffic Act, that we do have control over in

this House of Assembly. We can make tougher rules against drunk driving, Mr.

Speaker. Hopefully we will have our law enforcement agencies enforce them even

more stringently than they are doing now.

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

MR. MURPHY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me equal

privilege to rise in support of the petition presented by the Member for Eagle

River this afternoon. Whether it was on the proper form or it suited our House

rules or not, it still is an extremely important petition. I have had an

opportunity over the years as past president of the Newfoundland Safety Council,

and been involved quite a bit with the carnage that exists on our highways.

I would like to inform hon. members that whether we do or

don't realise it that approximately 50 per cent of all highway fatalities that

take place across this nation and down through the United States, and when you

look at the number it is the highest cause of death outside of, I think it is,

coronary problems.

You can see that these young people are to be commended by

taking this approach and signing this petition. Half of those involved are

impaired, not only of alcohol as we know today. We do have other problems

associated with impairment. We find that when the accidents are over and people

do the investigation, and when you look at the tremendous amount of people that

are killed on the highways, then I think anything that we as legislators can do

to discourage the general public from exceeding - and I would say the exception

might very well be, and I think there is some room for this, that even one drink

and/or one bottle of beer and/or even some medications. We see it on our pills

today, our prescription drugs, and we also realise the terrible problems

associated with other, off-street drugs, when we have young people and

middle-aged people, I guess driving.

So maybe, it would certainly be extreme, but there are

countries in the world - and I give you free countries, like Australia, New

Zealand - that if you are caught with 0.08, if you exceed 0.08, you don't lose

your licence for three, five, eight or ten months. You lose your licence for

life. Now when the Iron Curtain countries were there - Yugoslavia, which is

devastated today, and some other countries - impaired driving meant death by

firing squad. So I would suggest to you that might be a little extreme. But

anything we can do from the standpoint of legislation to deter our drivers - our

young people and older people - from entering an automobile and getting behind

the wheel, and moving 4,000 pounds of steel down a highway at 100 kmh or 120

kmh, than obviously we all know what it is. It is a loaded vehicle ready to deal

devastation on somebody else coming in the other direction or whatever the case

may be, and/or even worse, in a lot of cases to passengers who are in that

vehicle.

So it is a great privilege for me to stand today and say a

few words in support of this petition. I want to say to the Member for Kilbride

- last year when we brought in some higher fines and what have you to deal with

this, and the loss of points and what have you - and he spoke so nobly today

about his support, well, that is great. I do not want to hear the hon. member

next year if we have fines that are increased or whatever the case might be, I

know he won't rise next year now and talk about this great tax grab. But he will

stand up and encourage the government, Mr. Speaker, to increase the fines to

decrease the carnage on our highways.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I believe we had the number of speakers on

this petition.

MR. HEARN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes on a point of order.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, it arises from the discussion on

the petitions that were presented and the type of format. Because a petition

such as the one we just saw, which was so ably presented and also so important

to have been presented in the House, could have easily been rejected if members

were picky because of the format. It could be that we would have major

petitions. When a petition is sent to the House, usually it is taken up by

individuals in an area where, for some reason or other, they have a great

concern about what is going on and want to express that concern to this hon.

House. Quite often the individuals involved, all they know is that they are

taking up a petition to give to the member to present to the House, and they

have no idea at all that there is a special format. Usually we ask government or

we ask the minister or we ask somebody, but the intention is that it be brought

here and presented here for everyone to see and comment upon or whatever.

I am just wondering, in light of that - because if a petition

came in that deals with a touchy subject, you know, some controversial issue in

government where it could be used to lambaste the government, if government

wanted or if the Opposition, on the other hand, didn't want government to

present a petition, we could object to the format and say it is not legal and

all this kind of stuff, and the petition taken up by maybe hundreds or even

thousands of people, for all the right reasons, could be rejected simply because

of the format. I am just wondering if there is some way that we could, educate,

I suppose is the word, but let more people know, through at least the agencies,

the councils and organizations who are usually the ones to start collecting

petitions, some idea of the format. There has been some discussion among

ourselves, but I don't think there has ever been a direct attempt to let the

different groups and organizations know that if you want to send in a petition,

there should be a format.

So it could certainly prevent embarrassing situations down

the line if we could do something. Either that or we forget about the format

altogether.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The Capes makes a lot of

sense, and he is absolutely right in his concern about petitions and so on.

We have to remember that the way petitions happen is that

someone in a community wants something done, so they go around and collect

signatures door to door and give it to their member or send it in and say: Would

you present this? They have no knowledge of proper form. I would suggest to Your

Honour that when you see a petition coming in in proper form it is probably one

that was generated by the member. If I am going out and generating a petition,

then I will make sure it is in the proper form. I cannot expect that the people

out there would send it in to me in the proper form. I know we have been over

this a number of years.

I don't think you can go on this big campaign to publicize

all over the Province, that here is the proper form and so on - I think the

greatest safeguard you have is kind of co-operation back and forth. I really

believe that in the seven years I have been in the House I have seen that

co-operation, because very few petitions have been in proper form and always, as

far as I can recall, they have been accepted. Maybe we should just formally make

that statement, that if the intent is that something should go to elected

members somehow, that that then will be accepted, sort of by agreement from one

side of the House to the other. I think that is perhaps the best safeguard.

Reasonable people provide the best safeguard, Your Honour, I believe.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order: Hon. members will

appreciate that the Chair's responsibility is to enforce the rules and as long

as the rules are the way they are, then the Chair has to indicate that the

petition is not in the right format. I have said to hon. members in the past -

and if hon. members co-operated I don't think it would be necessary - I have

asked hon. members, if they have a petition that they know is not in the right

format, and hon. members ought to know that, that they just check it out with

the Clerk and the Clerk will say that that is okay, either that or the hon.

member just, in rising in his or her place, simply says to hon. members: I have

a petition that is not in the right format. Will hon. members allow it given its

subject matter? But the Chair has to protect itself, as hon. members will

realize, because we do have the rules and hon. members can change them, but the

Chair cannot change them. I think what the hon. Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes says, and the submission made by the hon. the Government House Leader,

does make a lot of sense.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 6, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands to

introduce a bill, "An Act Respecting An Avian Emblem Of The Province", carried.

(Bill No. 21).

On motion, Bill No. 21 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Motion 7, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands to

introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Waste Material (Disposal) Act, 1973",

carried. (Bill No. 20).

On motion, Bill No. 20 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Order 10.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 10. Second reading of "An Act To

Extend Restraint Of Compensation In The Public Sector Of The Province", (Bill

No. 17), the continuation of the adjourned debate.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't have a great deal more to say on this particular

piece of legislation, but in summing up my remarks, we did introduce an

amendment on Friday to Bill 17, that the legislation should be referred to the

Government Services Legislation Committee. We think that is a very appropriate

move. We realize the government will not go along with it, but we think it is a

very appropriate move, that it should be referred to the Government Services

Legislation Committee, so that the people most directly affected might be given

the opportunity to have some input into this bill, to make their views directly

known. They are the people most directly affected, the public servants of the

Province, the public employees of the Province, and they have had virtually no

opportunity to speak to government on this bill to make their views known.

At least, if we were to refer that legislation to the

Government Services Legislation Committee, the people most directly affected

would have the opportunity to appear before that Committee to make their views

known, because it is becoming habit-forming. It is becoming habit-forming for

this government, especially over the last couple of years, to freeze wages, to

break contracts without any thought whatsoever to the people most directly

affected, namely, the public employees of this Province. So, at least, they

would be given the opportunity to appear before the Committee to make their

views known, because whether we choose to believe it, whether we want to believe

it or not, collective bargaining, as the former President of the NTA said, as

the Minister of Labour indicated to the teachers last week, collective

bargaining is not in jeopardy, collective bargaining is dead, and we agree. We

agree.

MR. WINSOR: Say it again, the minister didn't hear it.

MR. DOYLE: The minister knows, because I said it to him

on Friday, that when the teachers of this Province were out in the lobby with

their signs saying collective bargaining is in jeopardy, the Minister of Labour

quite correctly, quite accurately pointed out to these people that collective

bargaining is not in jeopardy, collective bargaining is dead, and we couldn't

agree more with the Minister of Labour. Now, we question the appropriateness of

the Minister of Labour making that type of comment, by virtue of the fact that

he is the Minister of Labour. We would question the appropriateness of the

Minister of Labour making that type of comment. Nevertheless, what the Minister

of Labour is saying is absolutely true, collective bargaining in this Province

is not in jeopardy, collective bargaining is dead. And in spite of amendment

after amendment after amendment that we intend to introduce to this bill, the

government will have its way in the end, the unions will lose. They lost on Bill

16, they are going to lose on Bill 17. Just as surely as the government has a

majority in the House to ram it through, they will lose on Bill 17. And just as

surely, if government has the opportunity to bring in one more Budget, they will

lose on Bill 18 when that one comes about, because this, Mr. Speaker, is part

two or a three part series. This is part two of a three part mini-series,

freezing wages, breaking collective agreements on Bill 16, enforcing it again in

Bill 17, and it will come again in Bill 18, make no mistake about it.

So, what is at stake here, as I said on Friday, is not just

the freezing of wages, it is not just the breaking of existing agreements, which

is, in itself, very, very important, what is at stake here is the honesty and

the integrity and the straightforwardness of the government. Even Ministers of

the Crown going about telling their respective interest groups in the Province

that they are not in favour of the legislation that they, themselves have

devised is one on me. I never heard the like of it before, Mr. Speaker.

What is at issue here is not the recession or how much money

the provincial government has to pay its employees, the issue, quite frankly,

quite openly, quite honestly, is the honesty of the government. And the

government, Mr Speaker, through its action in 1991, and now, again, in 1992 has

brought on - and I believe the President of Treasury Board should be aware of it

by now - what the government has brought on is a crisis in trust; and it goes

far beyond the public sector unions, because government has set a very, very

dangerous precedent in collective bargaining that is going to have repercussions

in the public sector for years and years to come, and not only in the public

sector but it is going to have repercussions in the private sector, as well.

Bill 17 is not only a reflection on this government, not only

a reflection on this administration, but it is a reflection, I believe, on every

single member of the Legislature, every member of the House of Assembly. Because

when people can no longer put their faith and their trust in their elected

representatives when they put their signature on an agreement, it is a very,

very sad day, indeed, for democracy.

What we have seen, Mr. Speaker, is a breaking of trust. It

simply means that no public service union in this Province will ever again be

able to go to the government and sit down and bargain collectively as equals

with any degree of trust in the employer, because government knew when they were

making agreements last year and putting their signature to these agreements that

a few days after they would come into this House of Assembly with Bill 16,

essentially breaking the agreements. Freezing the wages was one thing. We knew

that government was probably going to freeze wages but never in our wildest

dreams, never in our wildest imaginings, did we feel that government would

actually break existing collective agreements.

Mr. Speaker, that is where the problem lies, that is the sin,

the dishonesty and the broken promises of the government which have incidentally

become the hallmarks of this government over the last three-year period. It is

not only in dealing with the unions, Mr. Speaker, look at the health care

system, when government actually said to the people of the Province that there

was no possible way they would ever close hospital beds as long as the need

existed. What did we see shortly after the government came into power? - four

hundred and fifty hospital beds closed; three hundred beds in acute case closed

by this government; nine hundred and fifty people in the health care sector laid

off, all from a government which a number of months before had made the solemn

vow and the solemn promise that as long as the need existed they would never

close down hospital beds.

So, what we have is a crisis in trust developing in this

Province over the last three-year period. What it simply means is that no union

could ever go to the bargaining table again with this government with any degree

of faith in the people with whom they bargaining.

So, Mr. Speaker, as I said, I don't have a great deal more to

say on this bill, but what we are seeing here is not a freeze, it is a cut. It

is not a freeze, it is a cut that the public servants of the Province are

taking. Because, with the 4 per cent increase in personal income tax, or the 6

per cent increase in personal income tax when you take into consideration the 2

per cent in 1989-90, and then, when you account for inflation on top of that,

what you have then is not a freeze, you actually have a cut to the 40,000 public

servants of the Province.

Now, the government can scream 'foul' and say what they want,

but when you consider the 4 per cent increase in the personal income tax and

then the changes in income tax in 1990-91, what you have here is a cut to the

40,000 public servants in the Province.

The wages are one issue, Mr. Speaker, but that is not the

most important issue. The most important issue - and the President of Treasury

Board just doesn't seem to realize. If he realizes, he is over there with a

poker face. He doesn't seem to have any great concern about it. Mr. Speaker, it

is not the wage freeze - governments in the past have been forced on occasion to

make wage freezes. We did it. We did it, Mr. Speaker, we froze wages. Maybe we

paid the political price for it, but we did it. However, one thing the unions in

the Province can never say, and can never accuse us of, is breaking existing

collective agreements. That is where the real problem comes in, breaking

existing collective agreements.

Now the President of Treasury Board stood in the House - did

the Member for St. John's South say something?

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: No, they are perfectly right, Mr. Speaker. The

President of Treasury Board stood in the House - I remember it well - back a

year ago when he brought in Bill 16, saying that this was to be a one-year

thing, contracts and the whole thing would be reinstated one year down the road.

I have a copy of his remarks here, and that is exactly what he said, that it

would be a one-year freeze.

So what we have, Mr. Speaker, is a violation of trust. It

sets a very, very dangerous precedent for future collective bargaining.

Government is sending a very negative message. I don't know if it is the intent

of the government to try to beat and hammer the unions into submission, to

hammer and beat the unions into the ground; I don't know if that is the intent

of the government, and I don't know if the government has any concern that it

certainly undermines their own credibility, but it does. It seriously undermines

the government's credibility, and I am not really too much worried about the

government's credibility, to be quite honest with the President of Treasury

Board. I couldn't care less about the government's credibility, from a political

point of view, but I do worry about the unions.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are worried about that?

MR. DOYLE: Yes, I have always worried a little bit about

unions to be quite honest, because I have been a member of the union for a

number of years and I have always had some affiliation with unions and I have

sat around the table and bargained on behalf of unions and I have stood on the

picket line with unions and what have you, so, I am very worried about the

unions because they have made a certain amount of progress since 1949.

They have made a certain amount of progress in the collective

bargaining process and they have taken the various steps over the years and they

have come along. They have not come along as quickly as they wanted to but they

have made some progress over the years and to see that progress just destroyed

and thrown to the wind causes me some concern, and I am very, very disturbed

about it, that the unions should be treated that way, that the strides they have

made over the years are just being ignored by government.

Now, if you had a problem, why did you not go back and

renegotiate with the unions and say to them: look, we have a problem. We will

renegotiate your contract but to break existing collective agreements without

any thought to what effect it was going to have upon the union, is, in my view,

an unwarranted use of power, Mr. Speaker, it is an unwarranted use of power and

the government always seems to use the excuse: oh, we were elected to govern and

we have to make tough decisions, that they were elected by the people to do a

job for the people, that the Legislature is the all powerful arm of the

government, and that may be true, Mr. Speaker, it might be true, but we have,

under the British Parliamentary system of democracy in this Province, not a

dictatorship, as the government seems to be displaying itself right now, as a

dictatorship.

People trust their representatives and they do not expect

them to use the heavy hand of the Legislature every time something comes up, to

hammer unions into the ground. They do not expect that, so what we saw the

government do, Mr. Speaker, in essence, was to bargain dishonestly. We saw the

government bargaining dishonestly because they knew when they negotiated these

agreements what they would be doing, that they would be coming into the

Legislature and using the power of the Legislature to break these agreements and

to hammer unions into the ground.

So, Mr. Speaker, as I said, I do not have a great deal left

to say on this bill, I said what I wanted to say on Friday and I will sit down

and give members opposite a chance to have a few words to say, especially the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations. I am sure he is going to want to

clarify his position, on people running around wearing badges that say: Down

with Bill 17 and collective bargaining is dead in the Province. He should have

the opportunity to clarify that, but, Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very sad day

for democracy in this Province, if this bill passes which it will, because the

government will use its majority in the House, to ram it through, to ram it down

the throats of the 40,000 public servants in this Province. But make no mistake

about it, Mr. Speaker, and all members should realize it, all members should

realize that there is a day of reckoning - the day of reckoning is coming, it

might be two months down the road or six months down the road or a year down the

road or two, but make no mistake about it, a day of reckoning is coming because

no government can abuse and misuse the unions of the Province to that extent and

not have a day of reckoning. So, Mr. Speaker, that is about all I have to say on

this bill.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MURPHY: Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Just about a year ago I stood and we talked about Bill 16 and

I made the point and I am sure some hon. members on both sides can remember that

I thought it was probably the most dastardly piece of legislation that had been

presented in some time, I think that Bill 17 could be classified with Bill 16. I

do not think anybody in this hon. House, certainly on this side, if they had

their wish, would want to see this particular bill on the floor of this

Legislature, Mr. Speaker, because it obviously does something to a government

who is sooner or later going to have to go back to the people of the Province

and ask for a mandate to come back here as the government. The funny part about

that, Mr. Speaker, is it would seem, and one would think, that the general

population in the public sector unions would be totally upset and distraught

with the decisions that have been forced upon this government. You would think

they would be on the steps day and night, they would be in the galleries crying

and gnashing of teeth, but we have not seen that, and the reason we have not

seen that is because the people who work with the public sector unions in this

Province, most of them, I do not know what percentage but certainly most of them

understand exactly what is before this government. They know only too well that

it is ludicrous, irresponsible, and downright stupid to try and bring in a wage

increase at this time.

Mr. Speaker, it was only the day we saw a very long

complimentary and concise

article in the Globe and Mail about the health care

services in this Province, and they were not negative, Mr. Speaker. It talked

about a Province with the least ability doing the most for its money and that

basically is the same thing we have in this particular bill. It is a Province

doing the best and the most it can with the money that is available to it. Now,

hon. members opposite can get up and pound away, and shout. It does not matter

what periodical or newspaper you pick up, Mr. Speaker, you see headlines like:

Saskatchewan slashes health care and school funds.

AN HEN. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. MURPHY: Yes, Saskatchewan. As a matter of fact it

would be rather interesting tomorrow in this bill debate to have the information

of the Saskatchewan Budget at hand. I somehow or other have a feeling that Mr.

Romanow's Finance Minister will be standing in Saskatchewan today blasting the

use of the Tory mismanagement in the province of Saskatchewan, and perhaps the

hon. Member for St. John's East will be on his feet tomorrow pounding his desk

because if he got something like this to read he would probably be well

informed.

AN HEN. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. MURPHY: Now, there is an idea, however he will be

pounding and blaming the Tories. They may not be as friendly tomorrow. The

Member for Menihek and the Member for St. John's East will have a sit-in over

there and discuss what is going on in the stock market and what is going on here

and there in the investment capitals of the world.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. MURPHY: Well, the problem with the hon. Member for

St. John's East is he only knows too well that here in this tenth Province as

people call us, the poorest Province, the have-not Province of this country,

that the people in this Province are supporting, in pain I might add, but

supporting and understanding what the government of the day has to do. They

understand that, Mr. Speaker. We can talk about tearing up collective

agreements, we can talk about flying in the face of organized labour, we can

talk about all of this hypothetical hogwash -

AN HEN. MEMBER: He knows what all that means.

MR. MURPHY: That is right. If we want to talk about

principles perhaps some day we will get up and debate principles and we will see

how that rolls out. Mr. Speaker, we have had devastation in the fishing industry

through no fault of our own and I know the hon. Speaker, representing a fishing

district in this Province, what has taken place last year, what has taken place

all over the Province in the offshore and inshore fishery and a $700 million

industry that is slowly but surely in great peril looking at us, and the tax

base from that industry falling away. Looking at that, Mr. Speaker, looking at

the reduction in transfer monies that historically came down from Ottawa to help

this Province over the hump, so to speak, and get on our feet and become a have

province, and there is a lot of things in that that could be debated. The

Atlantic Accord and the devastation that cost and what the Tories tried to sell

us on what a wonderful package it was and here we are now understanding that it

wasn't.

That reminds me. The very party that we hear the squawking

from, the NDP Party, in the House of Commons in Ottawa, was the very party that

voted against the federal government supporting Hibernia. The hypocritical

attitude and the hypocritical farce and comments that we hear in this House

sometimes, it is extremely difficult to sit in one's place and contain oneself.

However, I do it and I do it quite well as the Chair knows. I contain myself.

I would like to use an example of what we can do sometimes

with collective agreements. They can have all the best intentions on behalf of

the employees. The employer sits down in good faith with the employees and they

hammer out, I suppose is a good phrase to be associated with it, a collective

agreement. Now a couple of years ago the very union - how they find themselves

in the private sector is beyond me, but if that is the wish of those who work

with a company to have NAPE represent them, then all well and good. But what we

have seen this year is simply negotiating a contract beyond the capability of

the employer to fulfil. Now what happened in that situation?

What happened was we saw seventy-nine permanent jobs on

O'Leary Avenue associated with Coca-Cola go right out the Narrows and plant

themselves in Halifax. That is what we saw. That is the extreme of negotiating

yourself out of business, negotiating your jobs out of business. We saw that, we

witnessed that this year. I do not need to tell this hon. House, or these hon.

members, how many small businesses in this city and throughout this Province are

hanging on by their fingernails, so to speak. The hon. members all know full

well, the same as I do. I get calls every day from small businesses in my

riding: you know, Tom, you don't understand how difficult it is to hang on to

those thirteen, or eighteen or twenty employees. They are working very hard.

What I hear - and the bottom line is - is that this

government has taken the financial responsibility, the fiscal responsibility, to

put the shop in order. Now that is one thing I hear. Though the hon. member -

and I said it, and I will say it again - there is no one on this side of the

House who would in all conscience stand up and agree with Bill 17. It is not a

bill that is healthy. It is like that medicine that your mother told you, as I

said before, you have to swallow it. You are not going to like the taste of it,

you are going to want to throw it up, but if you don't take it -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: That's right. Your cold won't go away, the

flu won't go away, or whatever condition you have won't go away. I know the

trouble that the President of Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance, the

Premier and cabinet, what they have gone through in this ordeal. Night after

night they burned the midnight oil on this one, Mr. Speaker, the Cabinet did.

They burned the midnight oil trying to do everything they could, but the end

result was the bill that we have before us.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I don't want to resurrect too many of

yesterdays, but just for the record, 'Crosbie tells Province to clean up its

act.' - the hon. John. Mr. Crosbie zeroed in particularly on Mr. Peckford's

statement that if Newfoundland does not get a better deal from Ottawa on such

things as regional development, equalization payments, established program

funding, fisheries jurisdiction, the problem we'll face is an 1933-34 style

financial collapse in two years. That statement was made on Wednesday, February

25, 1987.

Now Ottawa funding helped lower provincial debt. So go back

to that era. And then the hon. Member for Green Bay's former boss, anybody who

would stand in this House and say that the Premier of that day was not smart and

did not have wisdom, he was, Mr. Peckford was a wise man. He was on top of it,

and he knew and he didn't hide it. He didn't hide it, Mr. Speaker. He said that

if we didn't have fiscal responsibility, if we didn't watch, if we didn't pay

attention that in two years this Province would have a 1932-33, 6 cents a day

type of environment around us.

Now thank God, Mr. Speaker, I suppose if you pray enough or

you wish enough the right thing happens. Newfoundlanders I suppose for 500 years

have been fairly wise folks, and I suppose when 'necessity is the mother of

invention' you get wise in a hurry. When you don't have enough to eat and you

don't have enough clothes to put on your kids, and you are wondering about where

you are going to get the dollars to send them to school and what have you.

When we look back on those days and we compare, even in a

recession - that could be debated too - whether it is a recession or a

depression that we are faced with right now. That could be debated. But even in

this time of our lives when we had Mr. Wilson who was then this time last year

or a little bit prior to this time last year who could not wait, he wasn't

patient enough to wait for our friends down south who had this tremendous

investment in Canada. He wasn't patient enough to wait for the Americans. He

decided that he was going to create his own recession, and he would not move on

interest rates. He would not move anywhere. There was not a five cent piece

being invested and the private industry in the great Province of Ontario,

Alberta and Quebec were finding it hard.

Today, Mr. Speaker, if you go to the Province of Ontario you

will see a people who are beyond themselves with where their future is. When you

live in Ontario for fifty or sixty years and you get up every morning and go to

work and pick up a decent cheque every two weeks or every week, and all of a

sudden you see what has happened to the Province of Ontario. It is frightening.

It begs the question as to whether or not, number one, the Tory administration

in Ottawa was too fast in starting a Canadian recession. Then we had the

coattail and/or piggyback on the American's down south recession. And all of the

things that have happened over the last year and a half, you beckon to ask

yourself: if a province of the stature and nature of Ontario that always had

twenty pages of jobs in the Globe and Mail on Friday is now down to three pages

of very highly technical type jobs, what's happening in a Province like

Newfoundland that has suffered the devastation of the fishery, that has suffered

the very softening of markets in the forest product industry, that has struggled

to keep its mines and associated products open, our three biggest natural

resource industries. We are having a difficult time then surely heavens if we

don't have a financial conscience to the rest of the people in this Province

that Newfoundland - I mean if we go rushing off to the bond markets of the

United States or Japan or Europe, and borrowing at 12.5 per cent and 13 per

cent, all we are going to do is burden the folks of this Province, 560,000 souls

or people, all we are going to do is burden them with an excessive amount of

interest, and already that interest has climbed to $500 million a year to

service the debt. The first thing we have to do is service that debt. Before we

spend one copper on a hospital, one copper on a school, one copper on a road, we

have to service that debt.

I don't want to stand here and debate who incurred that debt

and what government incurred most of it and what have you. I think people

understand who did that, and that was the false economics that kept governments

in power. It is no longer fiscal or smart or sound to go running off to the

money markets of the world and grab as much money as you can, come back and

spread it around, and then next year wonder where you are going to go and borrow

money again to pay the interest on the money you borrowed last year.

It is extremely interesting. And I compliment the Member for

Mount Pearl. Just prior to the Budget I saw him on, I do not know if it was NTV

or CBC. I think it might have been 'Face to Face' on NTV. He said with what I

thought was real, logical sincerity that it was not the time for this government

to go rambling around the world borrowing all kinds of money. He said that we

have to be extremely cautious, we have to be extremely careful of what we are

doing at this point in time. Those were sound words. But only two days after

that, I heard his leader out on the West Coast somewhere, expounding upon the

idea that it was now time to drive the economy; the economy needed to be

kickstarted, and the only way to do it was get down and borrow some more money.

I suggested to the Leader of the Opposition then that he should have a talk to

his finance critic, because I felt the finance critic offered a whole lot more

logic than the Leader of the Opposition.

Now to our friends in the NDP who administer governments

throughout this great country, last year we saw Mr. Rae, in his first term of

office, rushing off to the states and borrowing a billion dollars -borrowing a

billion dollars. We know what Mr. Romanow was forced to do. The man who heads

the NDP Government in B.C. is fortunate that that particular province is not in

the same financial straits as Saskatchewan. Who would have thought that in

Ontario, the master province of Canada, their credit rating would fall below the

credit rating of any other province. That has taken place. And the Member for

Mount Pearl who was President of Treasury Board, knows full well, the minute

your credit rating is affected, then the points start to rise on what it costs

you to go get money. That is logical. If you are AA or AAA, then you can borrow

money a lot more cheaply than somebody with B+ or whatever the case may be.

This government was in the very precarious position this

year, if we wanted to fulfil the needs and requirements as laid down by the

public sector agreements, we would have had to jeopardize the credit of this

Province to a degree that next year to go and borrow money on capital and/or

current account we would have paid even more.

So it is all well and good to stand up and say that this is a

piece of legislation that demoralizes the collective bargaining process in this

Province, and shout and rant and rave, and put a face of conscience on it. I say

to some members opposite, how soon they forget. How soon they forget when they

were upstairs in the Cabinet room making fiscal decisions and probably -

probably - decisions that were correct, they could not, and they had to freeze

the public sector wages at that particular time. And I think they put a sincere

face on it when they made that decision. It wasn't a popular one, and I want to

remind hon. members opposite that they didn't pay the price at the polls because

of that fiscal responsibility. They came out and told the people exactly where

we were, and the people believed them and put them back with a bigger mandate in

1985, after the devastation of 1982.

Now, the NDP - I have a problem with socialism; I will tell

you why: because anything that I have seen that has happened in socialism over

the years in a democracy -

AN HON. MEMBER: Medicare, for example.

MR. MURPHY: The most devastating -

AN HON. MEMBER: Was it a Liberal Government that brought

in Medicare or an NDP Government?

MR. WALSH: Not according to 'Jack'.

MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, right now,

probably - I don't know what time it is in Saskatchewan. I would say that the

late Tom Douglas is spinning like a top. That's what he is doing. He is not

rolling over, he is actually spinning. Because thirty years later, the very

ideals - and they were sound ideals. The only problem is, it is always good to

have good ideas if somebody else is going to pay for it.

MR. WALSH: No no, just the opposite. If you can come up

with a thousand silly ideas, somewhere in there, there might be one good one.

That's what the NDP (inaudible).

MR. MURPHY: Well, I agree with Mr. Douglas' Medicare plan

for Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, one out of a thousand.

MR. MURPHY: We have seen that it is probably - Medicare

as we know it in Canada, not probably, without doubt, is the best medical

program in the world. But we must understand in saying that, that somebody has

to pay for it. Now, if the NDP had their way, they would drive everybody south

of the border and there would be nobody left to pay for it, only the workers who

weren't working, only the workers who were no longer working, because the free

trade and the labour legislation that the NDP has thrown down on the tops of the

entrepreneurs and the business folks in the Province of Ontario is catching up,

is driving these companies south of the border, where they can get workers to do

the same kind of task function, skilled tasks, in the workshops, in the

manufacturing shops, for two and three dollars less an hour.

Now, we have to be one of two things, Mr. Speaker, and nobody

can deny or denounce this: If I make fifteen dollars an hour working for ABC

Lumber, and I produce sixteen dollars an hour, then I can justify my existence.

But the minute that I make fifteen dollars an hour and I can only produce

fourteen dollars, it is just a matter of time before ABC goes XYZ. They are

gone. They are history, they are out the window.

But the NDP would like to do that on the backs of the

entrepreneur: Open up the books, let's see what you made last year, you invested

everything, you are the guy who built up this, you worked eighteen and twenty

hours a day to put this company together. However, now we are going to close the

books forever and time. We have to be extremely careful. Labour has a right to

get its full share of the pie, always has, and always will. Good, sound, solid

negotiations and legislation, in this Province and other provinces, have given

the worker ample opportunity to obtain his or her full share of the pie.

But you cannot, Mr. Speaker, in private industry and/or in a

government, bankrupt the government, the lumber company, you cannot bankrupt the

fish company, because if you do, all you are doing is cutting off your nose to

spite your face.

Now, I refer you back to the Coca-Cola situation, where we

saw a collective agreement negotiated in good faith, but at the end of the day,

it demoralized eighty jobs. So there are some eighty people in and around this

city today saying: 'But we had a great contract, it was an outstanding contract,

but it isn't worth the paper that it is printed on.' You have to be able to cut

the cloth to suit the garment.

I also have a fear that there might be some entrepreneurs out

there who would take advantage of workers during a time of recession and

constraint. We all know that, we have seen it over the years. So we have to be

very mindful of those who might try to take advantage of the workers and say:

'Look, you know, here's $6.50 an hour - if you don't like it, lump it. I will go

somewhere else.' You have to be very careful of that also. But somewhere in the

middle of 1992 and the recession that is down around us - and it isn't a

Newfoundland recession, it isn't a Canadian recession, it isn't an American

recession. We are seeing it impacting the other two great nations of the world.

They are on strike right now in Germany. We are seeing what is happening in

Japan. So it is worldwide. We won't even talk about the other countries because

they can almost be classified as Third World. There may be a few countries and

or a few small colonies that are up there like Hong Kong or Singapore, Gibraltar

or Monte Carlo, somewhere like that where they have all kinds of income from the

wealthy and the rich who come in to gamble and whatever.

But by and large, Mr. Speaker, it is time for us all to have

a very serious look at the situation. Government has done that, and government

will pay the price, as the Premier said, as the President of Treasury Board has

said, as the Minister of Finance has said. This bill will cause one of two

things to happen: for the people in this Province to say that this government

has managed its financial situation to the best of its ability, or you did not

and we want more borrowing, more mismanagement, more lights in the sky or we

want something. I don't know what they want. But they will decide that when they

walk into the polls and vote for the candidate of their choice.

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my opening remarks, I don't like

this bill. I don't like it. I didn't like Bill 16 last year. Somebody asked if

there will be a Bill 18 next year. I hope not. It is a bill that nobody wants -

nobody, absolutely nobody. If there is anybody who wants to see this bill in

this House, then they should stand up and say so. But reality is reality, and

you have to face the music. You have to pay the piper. You have to do what needs

to be done. There is no hon. member who, in all good conscience, can stand in

his place in this House and raise all the hypothetical reasons and all the

political reasons, and all the silly, stupid, foolish reasons, and all the other

songs of sadness and whatever, and get up and say, 'This government have no

feeling, no conscience, no nothing,' when ten short years ago, the very members

opposite were on the 10th floor m