Volume 2 PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND THIRTY-SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND 2nd Session VERBATIM REPORT Tuesday, October 30, 1973 SPEAKER: THE HONOURABLE JAMES M. RUSSELL Number 68

October 30, 1973 The House met at 11:00 A.M. Mr. Speaker in the Chair. MR. SPEAKER: Order! Tape 101 (morning) PETITIONS ]'1R. SPEAKER: The honourable the member for Placentia East. PK - I MR. F. J. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petition from the residents of Ferndale, in the Municipality of Jerseyside, in the District of Placentia East. The petitioners are the parents of fort y-three school children who reside in Ferndale and are obliged to attend school in Jersey- side.

These children range in age from five years co thirteen vears of age ana are ,.,bliged to walk to and from .Jerseyside four times a day over verv. very difficult terrain and in what certainly any circumstances particularly at winter could be crnsidered very, very dangerous to the safety of children. The petitioners point out that this is a very, very dangerous piece of highway. That the children are very, very young.

Also this particular piece of road, the maintenance "f r ),i ~ ; • n ; i ,., "'1 r, between the Town of Jerseyside and the Department of Highways. ln addition, ther" are two very, very severe turns and a very, very blinel hill on th£> road all of which makes it, as I have said before, very. very dangerous for these children during the winter. Now, Mr. Speaker, I realize that the government have R policy on transportation but there would be a very, very small amount of money required in this instance to accommodate the school board, f Placentia St.

Mary's and would enable them to provide the financial assistance required to continue and to accommodate these children. What makes it more difficult is that during the past years the bus operating in the area as I understand, the bus driver.without remuneration, picked up these children and brought them to and from school. Now the time of the year is approaching when it is very, very cold, the driving conditions are very, very dangerous and these children are still compelled to walk to and from school in Jerseyside.

October 30, 1973 Tape 101 (1110ming) PK - 2 In the circum•tancea I ask for this petition to be tabled and referred to the department to which it relates. which .i•.the Department of Educ•tion. I hope the Minister of Education can find it possible to convince his -colleagues to devise some formula which will enable them to provide extra assistance to boards in circumstances like the one in which Placentia - St. Mary's finds itself and th;-reby provide transportation for the children of Ferndale. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Bell Island. Mll. S. A. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, I rise to support the prayer of this petition presented on behalf of the resident• of FemdaJe in the District of Placentia East. There is no doubt about it, Mr. Speaker, thi• is an extremely dangerous stretch of road. There la no question about that. It u a reasonable request. But I am not quite sure, Mr. Speaker, whether it should go to the Minister of Education or the Minister of Highways. I think the prayer of the petition is to have the road improved. MR. AYLWARD: Transportation and financial aasitance made available to the board so that they can hire a bus to transport the children. MR.

BEARY: Well, Mr. Speaker, if that 1a the cue,I vaa not quite clear OD - MR. AYLWARD: One of the reuons being that the road is so dangerous. But the prayer of the petition is that financial assistance be made available to the board to enable it to acconmK)date these children by providing bus service because of the condition of.the road, MR. NEARY: Well, Mr, Speaker, if the road is too dangerous to walk over, these children have to walk to school now. If it is too dangerous to walk over, my Cod, what will happen if you put a bus there, one of these big school buses I Sir I especially in the wintertime?

But it is a reasonable request, Sir, and it is just another example of the deficiency in the government's school bus policy that they brought in about one year ago. We are very happy to support the prayer of this petition, Sir, and we hope that the Minister of Education will be able to find the amount of money the school board require  to provide this servic~ for the children in the Ferndale Area. (;959

October 30, 1973 Tape 101 (morning) PK - 3 MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable Minister of Education. HON. G. R. OTTENHEIMER (MINISTER OF EDUCATION): Mr. Speaker, to comment briefly upon the petition presented by the honourable member from Placentia East and which a few days ago we discussed: Certainly I think in the general area here all of us who represent rural districts and perhaps those representing urban districts as well have the problem of school children living less than one mile from school.

As all honourable members know it has been the policy ever since school bus transportation was introduced the policy of the former administration and the policy of this administration in terms of distance. The formula for making money available has changed. It will change again. But in terms of distance the formula has always been that public funds will be made available for the transportation of children living a mile or more beyond the school. rhere are hundreds. I have no doubt there would well be a couple of thousand, certainly hundreds of students living less than one mile.

The question is obviously to have a limit somewhere. Tf you change it from one mile, is it four-fifths of a mile. What happens with those a few yards in or three-quarters of a mile or two-thirds of a mile? Whatever you make it there are always going to be some people, some children living a hundred yards inside that boundary. That is an obvious problem no matter where the boundary is.

I should point out because I presume all honourable members are aware of this but they may not be, that the policy has been and is of the former administration and of this administration to make public funds available for the transportation of children living a mile or more .

Now for those living within a mile no public funds are available but the school board may without receiving public funds transport those pupils if it wish and in many areas where children live less than one mile and there is room on the bus then there is transportation of those children without cost to them and the school board does it without receiving (

a) Aid from the government in so doing because the bus passes the road anyway, the kids are there,it is on the route. ~9oo

October 301 1973 Tape 101 (1110rning) PK - 4 So in many areas where there is space available children l~ving within.one mile are transported. I would presume, I do not know, that in the instance referred to by the honourable member for Placentia Eaat there ia in fact no room because otherwise if there were room, then certainly there is ao great cost to the board or to the bus operator en route to pick up those pupils. But I certainly appreciate fully the problem rai•ed by the honourable gentleman which we have all encountered in variou• districts.

It 1• a matter that we are aware of with respect to the condition of the road. I will certainly discuss that with my colleague respon ible in that area. We will bear in mind the problems referred to by the honourable gentleman. I do not think realistically there i  ~y mre than I can say on-it. MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Leader of the Oppodtion. HOH1 E. M. ROBERTS (LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION): Mr. Speaker, if I may ay a word or two in upport of the petition brought in by the gentleman for Placentia Eut. I supported it. I am ure every honourable member doe•.

I am glad that the Minister of Education is 1;1Ddertaking a review of the chool bua financing proviaions and pplicie  u i  reque•ted by this petition. Now this petition touches upon one of the abaurditie  or one of the weakneBSes in the present system. AIJ it 1a well known, Sir, there are many othen. Of all of the unfortunate tep•, I do not want to put a stronger word on it right now, but of all the unfortunate teps taken by the present admini tration, the decision two or three year ago to change the school bus formula . or the financing formula  vu a diuter.

We •av it again this year in St. ·Barbe North and White Bay North where~ the money allotted by the government imply wu not enough to do the job. That i  the problem in Placentia Eest, as I under•tand the point of the petition pre•ented by their representative, the gentleman for.Placentia East. The programme just does not take into account reality. It is the old question of Procrustell bed, and if there are too many children <i9ii1

October 30, 1973 Tape 101 (morning) PK - 5 for the money then some of the children just do not ~et service. Well we think that is wrong, Sir . We do think that the Minister of Education and his colleagues should review the policy and should chan,te it. I realize the costs amotmt when we were in the miristry. One of the horror stories was the Minister of Education at that time, whoever he was.coming before the treasury t,oa rd and the cabinet saying, I must have more money for school bus transportation. \,9u2

October 30, 1913 Tape no. 102 Page 1 It was as much an uncontrollable and unavoidable expense as the Minister of ln:&h.n ,.;oming in and saying that 5,000 extra people shoved up at" :tcare last night more ·than we predicted and we have to pay tbPtr bills too. Well I hope the Minister of Education will adopt what I believe to be the only sensible and logical attitude on this; namely, that where there are children who should be transported to school then those children shall be transported to school and the government will pay the cost.

To say otherwise, Sir, is to fly in the face of reality or to place an unfair burden on the parents. These are usually schools in rural areas of the province and by definition these are the people who can leaat afford to pay extra costs. Here in St. John'• the people might be a little better able to pay the costs. Whether they are or not, the people in the rural districts cannot afford to pay the extra coats. Let me close by saying that in White Bay North, to show how abaur.d the.. pr~ pali.cy 1•~ tadar& were put out and brought in low bids of $17,000, $18,000 and $20,000 for individual routes.

The government formule which the present minister inherited (1 do not blame him for it. Sir, be inherited it from the disastrous tenure . . of his colleague or his predecessor) alloted $2,000 or $3,000 and yet the low tender, open,public tender was $17,000. The minister 111ade a flying trip to St. Anthony and has half patched up the probln. I do hope that spurred by the gentleman from Placentia East, by hi eloquence and by his forcefulness that the minister will now go the whole way and do the right and proper thing. NOTICE OF K>TIONS MR. ROBERTS: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to give notice that I propoae to move the following motion, seconded by the gentleman from White Bay South: "In view of the unprecedented action of the Deputy Speaker (vho t aa glad to aee, Sir, is in his aeat this morning) in 1111ld.ng a u963

October 30, 1973 Tape no. 102 Page 2 public, personal attack outside this House on the member for Bell Island, whereby serious doubts have been cast on the ability of the Deputy Speaker to preside in this House in a fair and impartial manner, this House resolves that it no longer has any confidence in the Deputy Speaker." I have only one copy here, Sir, but it is the same motion I supplied Your Honour and the table clerks with yesterday. I assume -copies of it are available. If not, I shall gladly provide others, if Your Honour should wish it. MR. MARSHALL: On the motion, Your Honour, if I may, very briefly.

Motions of this nature are quite serious and have to be brought up at the earliest possible opportunity. I would submit that this has not been in the proper form; and secondly, it relates to statements made outside the House and therefore is not in order and thirdly, it relates to matters which are statements as between individual members. MR. SPEAKER: I shall take the motion under advisement and rule on it later. MR. W. N. ROWE: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. Firstly, Mr. Speaker, there is no question of the Hon.

House Leader's argument with regard to earliest opportunity which might be valid on a point of privilege but this is not a point of privilege. This is a motion, a notice of motion before the House. His argument on that score, earliest opportunity, has no validity whatsoever. The second thing that the honourable member said,about outside the House, I would like to hear some authority cited for that. The whole point of this motion is that doubts have been cast on the ability of the Deputy Speaker to be fair and impartial.

Now whether he said something inside the House or outside the House, the same doubts are cast on his ability so that point has no validity at all, The third point I do not even remember what it was. Does the honourable member? MR. ROBERTS: It was specious anyway. 0964

October 30, 1973 Tape no. 102 Page 3 MJl. W. N. ROWE: It was specious, Mr. Speaker, 1 am ure. There i  DGthing wrong with this notice of motion. It 1 a normal, substantive notice of motion, debatable vhen it come up for debate in the House. There i• just nothing wrong with it. The House Leader again raises a point of order which has no basis to it. MR. SPEAKER: 1 shall, as I have said, take the motion under advisement and rule on it later. ORDERS OF THE DAY: Mil. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I do not really lmCN. to whom to direct this question,to what minister, so I am going to direct · it to the Hon. the Premier.

Will the Hon. Premier inform the Bouse what steps the government have taken to distribute a •ubatantial amount of money that has been accumulated as a reault of collecting rents from homes on Bell Island that were purchased under a special housing programme paid for by th• Gove'l'NINlllt of Canada and by the province a few years ago? I have asked thi question a number of times in the House, Mr. Speaker. May~ the Premier may need notice of it but I would like to have the answer to it. Thia is the only opportunity we will proba~ly have to . -~ ask the question in this session of the House.

There is a substantial amount of money held by the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation, Sir, that should be di•tributed to the people of Bell Island. I would like to ask the Premier what step• the government are taking to see that this~• done?· Mil. KlORES: 1 will have to take notice of the quaetion, Mr. Speaker as soon as 1 get the infoniation, I will make it available to the 111!11ber and to the House. HR. NEARY: 1 thank the Hon. Premier for the answer, Hr. Speaker. I have another question (the honourable minister is not in hi seat) I will direct to the Hr,~. Premier al•o.

On Hay 13. last year, Sir, when we were diacu• ing the estimates, the government promised 69-65

October 30, 1973 Tape no, 102 Page 4 twenty-four housing units to Shea Heights. My understanding is that nothing has been done and I would like to ask the Premier what steps the government have taken to see that these twenty­ four units are built this year on Shea Heights? MR. MOORES: Once again, Mr, Speaker, I will have to take notice of the question. I am sorry that the minister is not here who is responsible. He is out of town today. Once again the answer is the same as previously. I will let the honourable member know as quickly as possible and also the House, MR. NEARY: MR. MOORES: MR. NEARY: day is over?

MR. MOORES: MR. WINSOR: Before the day is over? He is out of town. Can I get the information on both questions before the I will do the best I can. Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries, may I direct a question to the Hon, Premier? Can he tell the House when the fishermen who suffered storm damage last June will be reimbursed for that loss? MR. MOORES: Mr.

Speaker, at the present time negotiations are going on with Ottawa, not just for the storm damage last spring but also for the late ice conditions of this year, to work out a formula that will incorporate both (not disasters exactly) misfortunes and that with a cost-sharing formula between the province and Ottawa, that should be worked out and action taken on it within the next month. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Hon. Premier.

Will the Hon, the Premier inform the House if there are any negotiations at all at the present time going on between the x-ray and lab technicians and the government or have both parties now adopted a stand-off attitude? MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, the honourable gentleman well knows that the President of the Treasury Board -

October JO. 1973 Tape no. 102 Page 5 MR. NEARY: No, I do not know. MR. CROSBIE: The honourable gentleman is displaying hi• usual astonishing lack of knowledge, I will not call it ignorant. The position of the x-ray and lab was explained yesterday. It has been explained ad infinitum. What negotiations mean I do not know. There has been contact ever, day to aee if there can be anything achieved within the bounds of what the government have set our position as. I do not doubt there will be further contacts today. On motion that the House go into COllllllittee of the Whole. Mr. Speaker left the Chair. HR.

CHAIRMAN: Order! .- A bill. "An Act To Govern Collective Bargaining Respecting Certain Employees In The Public Service In The Province." On 110tion clauae (1) carried. MR. ROBERTS: Hr. Chairman, wi.th respect to clause (2). When I spoke on second readi~g I made a point vbich I. thought then had some validity and I may say that everything I heard since confirma my opinion. It is with respect to subclause (

c) wherein there 1• a definition of board and saying that board,as it appears in a number of important and material places throughout the bill,,hall mean the Labour Relations Board. When f spoke at second reading, Your Honour may have been staggering about in Port au Port ao if I may refresh Your Honour'• memor, on the point.

The Labour Relations Board bas on it no specific expertise in the public service fields or in hospital • The Labour Relations Board has on it representatives of management and representatives of labour. 1 think of recent years, the lut four or five at least, the Confederation of Labour are consulted and their nominations are generally accepted for appointment to the board on the labour side. The present chairman is Hr. John O'Neil, generally regarded as an independent man. He has been on that board for about fifteen or twenty years, has he not? i.967

October 30, 1973 Tape 103 (morning) Is John O'Neill cl1airman or is it Geoff Steele? AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: John O'Neill. IB-1 MR. ROBERTS: John O'Neill. Well, anyway he j s a man, a lawyer here in town who has been on the board for a long time and renresents nobody excent the nublic interest. None of ministers who spoke dealt with the pojnt so I raise it again. I realize thjs bill does not amend the Labour Relations Act nor I sunpose could it unless some ma_ior amendments are moved.

I think the noint has some validity and I wonder whether the "linister of Finance - we seem to he missing the gentleman from Labrador West again - could speak on the !"Oint. T do think there is something to it. The hoard, if it is to determine essentialttv - we will come back to that question later. "r. rhai rM,m, the board surelv will need expertise. Now, I realize there is an adversary process which w111 appear hefore the board.

The employer will sav that he wishes the following emplovees designated as essential and the union or the barpaininp agent will say that they no not agree and we will have spokesmen,perha!"S even counsel and in due course we will have a hodv of case law. Even with that, Sir, there is no exnertise on the board and I would compare it to the situation where one had a iudge who knew nothing of the law, where a .iucige could only hear the lawyers who anpeared before him and sort of on his informed laymen's iffl!"ression give a decision. Well, I think that is putting a heavy burden on the baorci.

I wonder if the minister could tell us whether there is any thought being given to expanding the board or strengthening it or adopting some other device that will allow the board access to expertise should they be called upon to determi.ne who are essential and who are not. It i,a; goinP, to be a very contentious issue. MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Chairman, the point is well taken.

It is planned, the "linister of Manpower has nlans to expand the Labour Relations Board now that they are going to have these new duties on which there would be representative of the public service union side and a renresentative of the public service. This will be coming in when the new labour code is introduced by the minister in the next session o9u8

October 30, 1973 Tape 103 (morning) IB-2 of the House. In addition to which, if the Labour Relations Board.of course-needs e~ert advice when they are dealin~ with this matter, it will certainly be free or it will certainly be provided to them. If they feel that they need additional assistance or expertise in deciding these questions, ste1>s will be taken to make sure it is available. The bill will be amended and it is going to be e]Q)anded to include_public service representatives. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. "1airman, I think that is a reasonable position and ve will await the further legislation.

Colle down then, Sir, to subsection (1). I have not sot the Labour Relations Act in front of me. Perhaps I will get it in a second or two. The definition of employee is a very broad one indeed. Now, I realize that under the Labour Relations Act there is a well established body of law and of jurisprudence that provide  for exclusions of managerial and confidential employees. Indeed the determination of the bargaining unit is one of the chief functions of the board in the setup that bu developed in Newfoundland and elsewhere in Canada over the years. I wonder if this

section is not a little too broad end if perhaps there should not be added at some point a subclause or a word or a ehraaa. or something making it quite clear that employees obviously are people -.ployed by these various bodies but at the same time the term employee ts for ' the uuroose~ of this bill and these

definitions are only for the "urposes of this bill and, ~r. Chaiman, employees do not include managerial nor confidential employees. If that be not the case, if that be no_t needed, does the minister take the·position that the case law is sufficient? A11:ain it is an importan't point that we should not be in the .. po•i tioa of having confidential and managerial emoloyeea • for example deputy minister or for that matter whole units, for example the t"aaury board bargaining staff, Mr. BlanchJrd and his staff in the collective bargaining division or whatever it is called down in treasury board.

Obviously, while they are employees within this definition, they are oot going to be covered by any bargainin~ unit, I ug~•st may be 0969

Octoher 30, 1973 Tape 103 (morning) bargaining with themselves. I wonder if the minister could perhaps speak to that point? MR. CROSBIF.: Well, Mr. Chairman, we think that the definition here TB-3 is sufficient because we already have collective agreements that apply to most of these situations. Under those agreements managerial and confidential personnel are not members of the hargaining unit or personnel such as the Leader of the Ooposition mentioned. There are some areas of dispute perhaps that may have to be decided by the board.

For example, it is a contentious issue between us and NAPE as to whether the employees of the Auditor r-.eneral should be included in the bargaining unit or not. That wil 1 have to be decided, I guess, hv the Labour Relations Board. It was felt bv the draftsmen that it was not necessary to include the definitjon that is in the Lahour Relations 1'ct. "IF. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I have a further question on subclause (

i) again. The employees include people who are employed bv corporations, bodies or authorities managing hospitals. Ncrw, that is a small series of words, "r. Chairman, hut i.t emhraces an extremely large point and one which raises a very great :Issue of oolicv.

In this province today and it was the pol:1.cy of the previous administration, it was the policy while the present Finance Minister was Health l"inister, it was the poli.cv which I develoPed further as Health l"inister and the gentleman who succeeded me has carried on with it, that the hospitals of this province shoul cl no longer, if they were hitherto should no lon11er be operated by the government directly. The government's role was a different one of funding and of supervising and of planning and of that sort of thing but the operations should be left to the boards.

In some cases private hoards, the Roman Catholic Church, the Salvation Army Grace Hospital and so forth in other cases public boards, for example we have seen them al)pointed recently at Gander and for the Waterford Hospital and so forth. One of the chief concerns of any employer of any hoard managing a hospital, of course, Mr. Chairman, would have to be negotiations with u97o

October 30, 1973 Tape 103 (morning) their employees because negotiations cover much more than just salaries and wages. They will include a whole range of things from working conditions to classifications, the whole bit. Under this bill the boards effectively have no voice. Now, I realize that down in section, somewhere down below - I am not sure of the section, I think it is 15 or 16, Mr. Chairman - but there is a

section which says that if the minister or chief government ne~otiator so ~•ires, he may add to hia staff, to the bargaining teams, people representin~ in effect the hospitals. I forget the exact wording but it is there. Now, that is fine if the minister ao desire. My concern is that we have here a situation - it is a lot of people, Mr. Chairman, there must be 7,000 or 8,000 or 9,000 people employed in the hospitals. Possibly well over one half the people who are in theory covered by this bill would be employed in hospitals. More than that?

There used to be 6,600 nonprofessional employees and add on 1,500 or 2,000 nurses and you have I SUJ>po•e maybe three-fourths of the public service of this province. l do not know, maybe it is half, maybe it is three fourths but it is a large percentage that are employed by ~oapitala. A. this definition reads, Sir, there employers and there is nothing in the bill to change this, have no direct aay, they have no right to a say in these all important negotiations. I realize the government must have a major say as well. That goes without quarrel because of course the governmeat have to foot the bill.

The government obviously have to consider not only the financial consequences of finding the dollars but also the consequences as we have seen with ~ragic effect of ginni one groUJ) jn the public serv-ice a higher raise than another group. There i• a relationship. There always has been and there always will be. So, I wonder if the nrinister would consider some aMendments either here or a little lower down in effect givin~ the elllJ)loyera in fact in law, hospitals iq the caa• of employees, Riving them a right to take

part in collective bargaining. I do not think we need to worry about a confrontation between the government on one hand and the hospitals on the other. The government 0971

Octoher 30, l97J Tape l ()'3 (mornini) T P-5 puts uD the monev ,3nd that has the eff ect of th~ old s,win si- that he who pa ys the niner calls the tune. But I am no t sure that he ~ho oavs the piper nee d n lav the instrument as well ais c31 l the rune. So , T w0nder if th !'! T'liniste r woul<l undert<1l<e to soeak cc the noint ;m rl woulri undert .ike to accent some amendments on that point . "I! . CROSP.J.E: ~•ell, v.r .

Ch.airman, the reason.of course, that el"n]nvpt, 1<; de fin ed to inclu de nersons emoloyed hv a corpo -racion, boriy o r auchoritv in manll.P,i nl! .inv ho,=,pital is t hat it is the ~overnment' s opinion that all fiosoitals shoul d come ,,nder this leitislation fiecause the,· are i,Jl in t h!'! nnh lie serv1 ce ca cerory.

The y ·orovi de an e ssenti a 1 puh 11 c service ,m<' chrr pfore the p rovisi ons o f this le~islation should a onl v to them. ~!ow this s ection ;ust savs ~ho an eMnlo vee i.s . 1 t i ust ~ives ;nr isdiction ove r those emnloyees o r j ust makes clear that t hos e em1>lo,,res come under chis l e P,isl ation. Tc dnes not deal wt th t he Pmt'llover. The emplover 1s ;ust definer' to mean an emnlover of an emt'llovee . So, thts v9'12

October 30, 1973, Tape 104, Page 1 -- apb Morning legislation do.es not affect the fact that the hospital boards, for example, are the employers of the employees. There i  no way in which we can bargain collectively with the bar$ainiag units·representi~ these employees unless we do it with their employers. The hospital boards have just as much influence as ve have. If they do not want to co-operate, if they do not arree with the way we are acting or they feel they are not treated properly, the remedy lies in their hands. It is with them the -union signs an agreement.

For example, at the Western Memorial Hospital Corporation, CUPE signs an agreement with the Western !-'emorial Hospital Corporation. They do not sip:n it with the treasury board, they do not sign it with the government. We are involved in the negotiations because the hospital knows that they have to receive the money to pay these wages and salaries from the government. I do not think any amendments are necessary to protect their poition. The mere fact that they are the employer really gives them the whip hand.

If they said to us that they do not agree in some partciular way or another,then there is no way we can force them to enter an agreement. The honourable gentleman mentioned how many hospital employees there are. I notice from the Budget Speech of 1972 that there were then 7,200 hospital employees out of 24,000,approximately, people who are paid out of public funda. MR. ROBERTS: The 24,000 would include the teachers who are not covered by the ••• f,ql.

CROSBIE: Teachers yes - well a brief breakdown - goverment departments 7,677; hospitals 7,200; teachers 6,500; memorial 1,600; COl!llllissions 1,015, corporations 363; boards, authorities and other agencies 572. The total was 24,927. We are su~gesting ~n amendment to clause (4) principally because the Leader of the Opposition mentioned it in his remarks the other day. We have a

section there that deals with the ri~ht of employees to fonn an association but we t973

October 30. 1973, Tape 104, Page 2 -- apb i<orning did not have a

section saying that the employers should have the right. That is why we are introducinr- that mnendl'1ent to make sure that the Hospital Association is covered. There is a detailed set of guidelines, ~r. Chairman, set down and agreed to by the Hospital Association and the Government through Treasury Board as to how negotiations are to proceed. I am sure they are at least four or five pages lon~. At every stage the Hospital Association or the Hospital Board and the Treasury Board act together. One does not negotiate with the union without the other being there. This is the way it is operated.

There are lots of problems because of this dual role. one being the employer and the other providing the money. Hopefully. they can all be worked out over a period of time. There is no danger in our view to the employer here. They hsve the final say,really, because no collective arreement can be signed if they will not agree to sign it. 1'1R. ROBERTS: ~- ----- -~ · Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the minister says and I will not pursue the point. I think in practice what he says is correct.

Certainly my experience has shown it and the gentle1'1an from Twillingate who has been for many years and is today chairman of the board of a private hospital in thjs province, the Notre Dame Bay Hemorial Hospital, Twillingate confirms it. I guess what I am really saying is that this bill is sloppily drafted. It is a very bad piece of legal draftsmanship. It is surprising because normally the legislation that comes uo before this House is well done but this one is badly drawn. I think the minister would aRree that it could have been made a little clearer. Let me come back to this same (7) of (

i) of (2) , }Ir. Chairman. This again is a very small form of words embracing a very large principle. I think it is somethinp worth looking at. This is the

section which removes all of the hospital employees in this province - I wonder, Mr. Chairman, I have a good voice as do many (i9,4

October 30, 1973, Ta~e 104, Page 3 -- apb Morning members of the House but I do not feel disposed to try to out­ shout people in the lobby - this is the

section which takes away from the hospital employees a right which they have had at law for many yea-rs, that is the right to organize and to bar,rain collectively under the Labour Relations Act of the province, We may if you wish, Mr. Chairman, talk about the right to strike. We all know the history of that ad thou~h it may have been. We know it but that is beside the point here.

The point · here is that the hospital employees in thia province had the right, I suppose as long as there was a Labour Relations Act, to orgamize under that act, to seek certification and in due course,if certification were granted, to bargain collectively and to sign an agreement. The problems came when they could not attain agreement by negotiat~on and they resorted to strike action. Again, that is beside the point for this purpose.here. This is a major principle, Mr. Chairman. Thia

section is taking away from all of these employees a right which they have emjoyed for twenty or twenty-five years in this province. The people who worked in hospitals operated by government may not have had that right, they had voluntary recognition; The people in Notre Dmne· Bay ~.emorial Hospital have been negotiating for years and the people in Comer Brook, Grand Falla, St. Clares, _the Grace and other hospitals all had that right. These few words, Sir, take it away.

I do not ·think they should and I am g(?ing to move tha.t this subclause (7) of subclause (1) of clause (2) of the bill be dropped, stricken, just not ata~ there. My reason for that is that these people have already ba-rgained collectively, Mr. Chairman, under the Labour Relations Act. The only other reason to put these people under thia bill, there vould be two, one would be to bring them under this quite repressive original section (27). The government there have seen the error of their ways and they propose to amend eection (27). Section (27) we will deal with 6975

October 30, 1973, Tape 104, Page 4 - aob Morning in due course but it will be largely meaningless. It will be a statement of principle and not a statewent of law, not a statement of substantive law, so that has no bearinf. That only leaves the question of '"Essential employees '

section ( 10) of the bill as being the only possihle reason, the only possible difference between the ri$!:hts the hosnital employees now have and have enjoyed for twenty years ;1nd the riJ!;ht that tlley would have under this bill. J. do not think that that is enough . reason to br1n$!: them under this bill. Sir. I do not think so for one minute.

If the 1!:0Vernment feel, we disagreP. with them for the reason~mich my colleague so forcefully and so eloouently explained last eveninp in the second readin(: debate, if the 11,overrunent feel that we l"ust have two cateiories of employees in our hospitals, essential and non-essential. then the way to deal with that I believe is to brinp; in legislation dealin~ iust with hospitals and with the hos1>ftal services of this province. o9·,s

October 30, 1973 Tape 105 NM - 1 MR. ROBERTS: That ·would not be decreed a new precedent at all, Mr. Chairman. We have a separate piec~ of legislation which governs, among other things, collective bargaining for the police, the constabulaey, a separate force but only two hundred and fifty or three hundred men are involved in that. They have their own legislation. A similar situation exists with the fire department which is a St. John's Fire Department even though it is paid for out of the Provincial Treasury.

The teachers of this province, 6,000 of them or 7,000 of them have their ovn bargaining legislation, their own special act to govern them. If they can have it I Jee no reason why we should not have a similar one for the employees of hospital • You may want to lump together, Mr.

Chairman, the govemmen~ operated hospitals and nongovemment operated hospitals but as the declared policy of the administration is the same as was ours, to move hospitals out from under direct operation ·and into the hand• of an independent board, Jome of them publicly appointed, some of them privately appointed, all of them publicly funded, 1 think that in itself is no argument against having a separate act. So in 1110ving the deletion of this .,ubclauae, Mr. Chairman, I am rai.Bing a very important principle. 1 do not think it needs to be debated at length although 1, of course, am prepared to.

I think the positions can be stated but our position simply is that the hospital employees should be dealt with under the Labour Relations Act as are all sorts of public service employees, Mr. Chairman. The St. John's City Council sanitary wrkera I venture to say are every bit as essential to the health and safety of the people of this city as are hospital employees. They are not more eaaential but they are every bit as essential. It would be quite intolerable to have a situation wher~ for example, if the garbage collection people were to strike for two or three months it would be equally unacceptable.

October 30, 1973 Tape No. 105 NM - 2 We have had strikes of four and five weeks in one hospital towns. Grand falls has one hospital. Corner Brook ha s one hospital. We have had strikes of nonprofessional employees in those hospitals this summer, in one case I believe for five weeks and in the other case for three weeks. The pressures became intense but nonetheless we did not have that dire state of emergency, or if we did the government took no action until the board s forced them to, as the minister told us last night ir his speech closing second readinp,.

So I think this clause should be dropped, Sir, but in moving it be dropped I do want to point out that it is a very major point because to delete this would mean, as I under s tand the law, that hospital employees would continue to be under the Labour Relations Act,

an Act which has worked fairly well over the years . nf course . there have been difficulties but there will be just as many or more difficulties under this legislation and if the government, Mr. Chairman, feel that there should be a category of essential employees in hospitals, we disagree with that, we think the answer to their problem would be to bring in legislation p;overning hospital employees as such. We did it for the police and the firemen. The present administration have done it for the teachers, witft our support.

I think everybody in the province supported that idea and I think it could be done equally well for the hospital employees. So I move that sub-sub 7 be deleted, Sir. MR, CHAIRMAN: It has been moved that subsection (7) of subsection (

i) Section 2 be deleted. -ls it your pleasure to adopt the said motion? MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak against the motion. I do not want to speak at any length. What the Leader of the Opposition says of course is consistent with the policy of the opposition as outlined by the honourable member for White Bay South last nip;ht. Of course it is not a motion that we can accept. This is a question of judgement. This is a question of policy. It is our judgement that for ~S,8

October 30 19/3 Tape No, 105 NM - 3 the protec:.:..: .. of the people of the province we must have the hospital sPrvices of the province come under this public service collective bargaining legislation so that we can ensure, through . the device of the essential employee, that at least emergency services are provided in the event of a strike in hospitals. Now this may or may not work. We can only point out again that the majority of thinking in Canada and the majority that practice in Canada is on a side in this matter.

The fact remains, why should it be included under public service collective bargaining legislation? Well the fact remains, Mr, Chairman, that the only really private hospitals in this province were the Notre Dame Bay Me1110rial; St. Clare's, operated by the Roman Catholic denomination; the Grace, operated by the Sal~ation Army denomination and the Grenfell Hospital•. MR. WM. ROWE: M. J. Boylen MR. CROSBIE: There is a donation there. It is not really a private hospital.

By far the greater number of the hospitals of the province and the largest institutions vere enti~ely put up by public funds and they are entirely operated by public funds. Now as . a matter of administrative efficiency, or managerial efficiency, and as a matter of policy, it is felt that there should be hospital boards to operate and manage these hospitals, That was the policy of the last government in its last years and of this government. So that the General Hospital, the Mental and othet large institutions now are operated by boards but the fact rnains they were put there entirely by public funds.

They are operated now alD10st entirely by public funds, It is an essential service and we feel therefore, that they must come under the provisiona of this bill, which if administered properly is not going to interfere whatsoever with the right to bargain collectively. It ia not going to interefer• with the right to strike except in minor, carefully controlled ways to protect . the interests of the public and that therefore ve cannot agree to this a111endment. 6979

October 30, 1973 Tape No. 105 NM - 4 I think really to speak any more to it would really be just hashing over what we have said in the last three or four days. '1R. W'-1. ROWF.: Mr. Chairman, I would like to very briefly add my support to the motion proposed by the Leader of the Opposition and deal with one or two points that were raised just then by the Minister of Finance.

First of all, Sir, he says that the majority of the opinion in Canada seems to be on the side of the government in this, by which I would assume the majority of the acts governing public employees in Canada are either the same as or less progressive than this particular bill. That may in fact be so, Mr. Chairman, I do not dispute that at all.

I would n•ise the point that I raised last night about Nova Scotia I understand where there is no right to strike by public employees, in the case of hospital workers they are outside the ambit of that definition, the definition of public employees and they do have all the rights under the Nova Scotia Labour Relations Act, number one. Secondly, Sir, I would like to say that most of the acts in Canada governing the collective bargaining of public employees are fairly old legislation at this point.

This is a new bill the minister is now bringing in and it should be as progressive I think and as fnrw~rd looking as possible. The 1967 legislation brought in by the Liberal Government in Canada at the time, Mr. Chairman, was considered as epoch-makinr legislation. It was breaking new ground in the whole area of public employees collective bargaining.

If my memory serves me correctly, I did some study on the matter at the time and if my memory serves me correctly I do not think there was any other legislation in North America, I do not believe there was any other legislation in Western Europe with the exception of Sweden and perhaps England which was as forward looking at that time as the legislation brought in by Canada, which goes to show the ~ u980

October JO, 1973 Tap• No. 105 revolutionary forces which have been in effect in this whole area of collective bargaining for publ~c services. NM - 5 So when the honourable minister compares what has happened in Canada or what is the fact in Canada with this legislation, it is not a fair comparison at all.

I would say that when the federal government under whatever government might be in power at the time, when they come to review 0 their legislation concerning public employees in the next several years that they will 'change their legislation and that this government will find that the federal legislation will be further in advance again of this legislation which 1• proposed before the House. I think, as the honourable Leader of . tbe Opposition has aid, that things have gone along reasonably well under the Labour I.elations Act as far as hospital workers are concemed.

I think that it is a retrograde step to now bring if not all then a great proportion of the hosp-ital worker• under this particular legislation. They have not done it a981

Octoher 30, 1973 Tape lOfi (morning) PK - 1 in ~ova Scotia. as I understand it. That is no reason why we should not do it here now. I do not want to repeat the points which I made last night. Suffice is to say that we think our position is that there is no need of it, that when the government starts as it will under other sections of this bill, when it starts to designate employees as essential employees, deprivinp. them of the> right to strike, it will have a reverse sociological c-ffect from that intendl"d hy thP government. It will not solve problems.

We> still hC'lieve it will cause problc>ms i'lnci that the best thing to do is to allow everyone in the> province to have alJ the rights which are pr«"sently attendant on collectiv<:> harp.aininp: laws. Let them have all the rip:hts and then if an emerp.ency arise, if certain employees are rlcemc>d to be absolutely essential to the hc>alth, safety and welfare of the province in the event of a strike>, then let the government call this !louse together and de hate it puhli cly.

If n<:>cessary let the rajority of this !louse lc>gislatr strikers hack to work if the situation so de>mand hut do that when the> circumstandes del'land it, ''r. Chairman, do not do it before the l'vent. Wt> think, as I said last nii?ht. that brings us half way alonp. the road to disaster alr<:>ady. I do not think there is any need of it. 1-:e will votl' in favour of the 1",otion proposed hy the Lead<:>r of thl' Opposition. ~R. Nf.ARY· Jlr. Chairman, my colleap-ues are absolutc>ly right that this lcp:islation, this clause, is g1,ing to rock the boat. Tht>re is no question about that.

CUPE have alrea<ly been certified undc>r the Labour ll.c>lations Act, Sir, and as my colleagues have pointed out to the Committee thinr.s have been going along fairly well. Now the government are hringing in a piece of legislation with a clause included in it to put CUPE under this piece of legislation. That is going to rock the boat, Sir. The hospital employees the nonprofessional hospital employees are going to bitterly resent it. Sir. and there is going to be a backlash. Mr.

Chairman, let the House he perfectly clear on what the minister said about other provinces across Canada appearing to be on the side of th~ government. This is not a correct statement. Sir, it is not a correct statement. Hospital workers right across Canada, in Nova Scotia - v982

October 30, 1973 Tape 106 (-,rning) PE - 2 Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, Mr. MaclU.llan I do not think is from Ontario, I believe Mr. MacMillan is from New Brunswick. The Honourable the Minister of Finance last night said this red rooster came dawn here from Ontario. I think Mr. MacMillan is only a golden brown cockerel from Ne,• Bnmswick. Even in Mr. MacMillan's own province, Sir, hospital workers have the right to strike. Only those who are in hospitals that are directly run by the Qovernments of Nova Scotia and -New Brunswick, and all the other provinces of Canada do not have the right to strike.

All the employees of the lay ho•pitals, the religious hospitals. are outside of the ambit of the bill. They come under the Labour Relations Act of the provinces and they have the same privileges and the smne benefits u all other employees in the private •ector. So the minister is not quite correct when he ••Y• that all hospital workers in other provinces of Canada are placed under the same restrictions as government are placing them under here in this Bill No. 123. There­ fore, Mr.

Chairman, I am supporting the amendment put forward by the \ Leader of the Opposition b·ecause I am afraid, Sir, that this is a bacltvard step. The employees, the nonprofessional workers in the hospitals are going to consider this as a backward step, Sir. They are going to resent it. God only knows what trouble it is going to cause in the future. MR. M.

MARTIN: I must riae in support of the amendment put forward by the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition because I think, as ha• been said here already,moat of the things embodied in this bill which make it different from the Labour Relations Act are in fact red fiaga to the labour movement and are quite unnecessary. The honourable gentlemen for St • .John's lieat and from Placentia West asked whether or not the opposition would put forward a suggestion U we criticize- this bill how it could be improved? I auggest, Mr.

Chairman, that it could be improved by throwing it out . altogether and simply changing one •ection of the Labour Relations Act,

Section 68,allowing public employees collect~ve bargaining under that act as in fact OM of them now bave. Then if the situation hould arise where we have a trike which creates 0983

October 30, 1973 Tape 106 (morning) PK - 3 an emergency situation then it is the time to deal with that. Then it is the time to take restrictive action 1 • in fact good will among men has broken down and we can no longer arrive at a satisfactory compromise then is the time to bring in restrictive legislation but not in the first instance. The fact of bringing in this legislation will make the labour situation even more critical than it is, The labour situation is critical.

Most of the things that are embodied in this Labour Relations Act, as insufficient as it might be, have been won by the labour movement after long and bitter struggles and these victories are cherished. Now if we are going to say that a certain segment of the labour movement are going to be denied these victories then I wonder, Mr. Chairman, how many people have heard at labour rallies the membership get up and saying, solidarity forever? They mean that, When <me local or one unit of the labour movement is threatened then they have no choice but to rise up and support it.

I cannot but support the amendment as put forward by the Honourable the Leader of the Opposition. MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Chairman, the honourable gentlemen opposite, I do not dismiss their views as not being worthy of any consideration because I think that obviously they are, We can only see how this proves out in the future I suppose, but I suppose there is a certain amount of emotionalism involved. Frankly the bill as I see it is not denying any­ one's right to do anything. The bill is permitting hospital workers the same right that they have now.

They have the right now to go on strike under the Labour Relations Act. Under this act they are going to have the right to go on strike. That is not going to be prevented. They will not be denied that. The honourable gentleman for Labrador South says and the Honourable Leader of the Opposition has said, just bring them under the Labour Relations Act then if an emergency crops up you can call the House together and legislate then as to when to strike. Well that seems ~984

October 30, 1973 ·Tape 106 (momin1) Pl - 4 to ma to be complete;y contrary to a lot of the criti~i•m that h•• beftl given to us for having the bill before the Hou• when tha x-ray ad lab people are now on atrike . and we are in a middle of a criia. In other words, what the honourable gentlemen are saying is wait for an emergency. Wait until passions are a-roused, 11'ait until everything is at fever heat and there is a strike on which is dangerous to the public health and safety,then call the House together. Well what this bill tries to do is to prevent that.

If the essential employee sections of the _bill operate aucceHfully and rationally and the employer does not attempt too much, juat attempts to have declared u HHntial the bare number nHded to aee that a hoapital for example function• and if that be successful then there should never be any requirement for the emergency aection to come into play anleH there is some strike that goes on for an eternally long time and for that reason the public health and safety are in danger.

I So what we are attempting to do is to avoid there being·· any of those kinds of emergencies that ·would require the House to be called together. If the Labour Relations Board administer this in accordance with what the policy is suppose to be and are rational and adopt a reasonable approach to it, it should prevent these kinda of emergencies cdming up. Now the only kind of institution that ·I can see where there is any possibility that a majority of employee• might be held to be easential would be an institution such as a custodial one, the Hoyles Rome perhaps or Exon Rouse or perhaps the Mental Ropital.

An active-treatNnt hospital but there is no chance in this w·orld u •· aee it of anything like that happening. It is just to keep the minimum umber of people on duty to provide emergency service. So we take exactly the opposite approach to it. Instead of wanting to wait for an emergency and then calling the Rouse together in the middle of a crisis, passions boiling and tremendoua controveray,we.want to try and avoid that. This 1 the mean• that we want to adopt to do it.

Now Nova Scotia, I think the honourable member for Bell Island explained that properly, The government owned hoapitala are not pendtted to strike. u985

October 30, 1973 Tape 106 (morning) PK - 5 There are certain private hospitals that are. In New Brunswick the hospital workers have the right to strike, so do public servants but the legislation provides for the designation of essential employees by the Labour Relations Board or the relevant board in New Brunswick. So while they have the right to strike there, they have the same provisions in their legislation a.s we do. That is what they are operatin g undrr. Now this is our annroach to it.

The honourable gentlemen onnosite thing it should be a different approach, We cannot agree at this stap.e that all the hospitals should just be permitted to operate unde r the Labour Relations Act because that means that we are saying that in a hospital the complete service can be stopped c,ne hundred rer cent. ~986

October 30, 1973 Tap• no. 107 Page 1 If all the members of the bargainihg unit were to go on strike, they could bring the hospital to one hundred per cent dead halt. Now bov can we have that? We could put up with that in St. John's, Kr. Chairman, if one of our hospitals or even two of them went down completely, we still have another two or three, we might survive it. Ifs hospital should go down in Comer Brook, one hundred per cent out, there is not another one in the area until you get to Stephenville or Bai• Verte. There would be a huge area without any aervice.

Thi• is obvioualy eomething that we think cannot be permitted. An institution like that must be allowed to function.in emergenciu. The a trike will _ still be just as valid a weapon. They will a till be worked to death in the hospitals, the management will. It will still be a tremendous burden on the public. a burden on the people operating the hospital and the government. There will still be the same pressure that they want to exert on the emploJ!er aud for all these reasons, we cannot accept the position taken by the oppoaition.

We hope that the fears of the opposition about the results of thi• will not be borne out. If they are borne out. if thia prov•• to be unworkable, as we have •aid repeatedly, then •• will take a different approach. Mil. KAllTIH: Mr. Chairman. I would like to ldve the honourable gentleaen opposite with two thougbte. I refer to the Province of Saskatchewan which had the first public service collective bargaining legislation to that effect. They went for nearly thirty years with hospital workers having the right to strike. Never once did they have a strike in the hospital service .until nearly thirty years later -.

Premier Thatcher brought in his Bill 2, I think he called it, which forced compulsory arbitration. Immediately that bill was brought in, they had a strike. Now I will bring it clo-r to home. Thia legi lat1o.o wu before the Houae and the labour uniooa had copiea of the bill. It ~987

October 30, 1973 Tape no. 107 Page 2 was not until the House sat that the x-ray an•' lab technicians and technologists saw that they were about to be islated against and about to be ordered back because of illegal st.dke action that they decided to quit. The effect that this bill had here was to impose upon us an emergency which we did not have prior to that. MR. ROBERTS: Mr, Chairman, I do not propose to go over the arguments again but I do think that the remarks made by the Minister of Finance (I appreciate the spirit in which they were made) do call for one or two further comments.

Let me first of all say that I think the poinm just made by the honourable member. for Labrador South are valid points. He could refer as well to New Brunswick where they have had a state of uncontrolled chaos, periodically and spasmodically, in their hospitals since they brought in a so_mewhat similar bill there. I am not sure whether it was done by the administration of Mr. Robichaud or whether it was done by the present administration of Mr. Hatfield. The point is it is there. Now the Minister of Finance, Mr.

Chairman, in his remarks fell into the precise pit which he last night and quite rightly in my view warned the House against, It is the pit we have tried to avoid throughout and that is equating the x-ray and laboratory situation with this bill. I think there is a cause and effect relationship in it. I suspect the reason that led the x-ray and laboratory people to resign en masse. The Minister of Finance keeps referring to it as a strike and maybe it is a strike but in law I gather it is a resignation as such, unless one is prepared to to try to establish it a conspiracy.

An allegedly concerted mass resignation is a conspiracy and therefore a strike. That I think would take some time to establish in law, just in the processes. The point is that this bill does not deal with this situation at all, I quite genuinely do not see how the passage or

October 30, 1973 Tape no. 107 Paa• 3 othervi•e of thi• bill will affect the laboratory itution. Whatever 1• to be done about x-ray .and labs, it cannot be dona, a I undar tand, with thia bill. What ~oncern• me though, other than thi• pitfall - I think the miniater did fall into that trap. It is not the ame. Many honourable gentlemen particularly on the other side have sort of made a great to do about connecting the two and they have done everything from questioning our motives to our ancestors and our descendants. That falls beside the point. The Minister of Finance is norully much more to the point.

What seems to me to be the cue is as follows: The hospitals have had a right to organize and to bargain for many yeara. They bad the right to strike previously but when it vas exercised in 1967 the then administration, rightly or wrongly, but whether tbey vere right or wrong they did act and they ended·the strike by legislation. They went further, they prohibited strikes. That administration, Mr. Smallwood aa Premier, ubsequently brought in a bill which became law, which had in it a clause allowing the . repeal of the Hospital (whatever it is called) Employee Act.

That power was not exercised by that administration, which I was a memSer of during the la.st eight months we were in office nor was it exerci ed by the present administration in the first fourteen, fifteen, ixteen aontbs they were in office. Subsequently, in July or August of this year, they decided as a cabinet to exercise that power and they did. The strikes had already occurred. There have been one or tvo completely wildcat strikes of a day or o du~ation. They .. had ended. In due course after the conciliation process and all the .c:imes that run u specified in tl)e ..

La~.ur _Ralationc . ..A~t for a atrika vh.ich would have been lawful except for the Hospital EmployeH Act, that strike went ahead and the government'did not have it ·daclared 0989

October 30, 1973 Tape no, 107 illegal, the government in the face of the action by the unions in effect ratified it retroactively by repealing the Page 4 act and saying, " Very well, we will allow you to strike." Now I happen to think that that was the right decision and I said so at the time. Mr.

Chairman, that decision by the government - Lhe strikes at Grand Falls and Corner Brook, which as a result were retroactively made lawful or if you wish retroactively not declared unlawful, I think show the inconsistencies in the argument that the minister just advanced, He said (I am not quoting him word for word but I think I am reproducing accurately the gist of his remarks, the pith and substance of what he had to say) that we cannot afford to have our hospitals closed, particularly in a one­ hospital area such as Corner Brook or Grand Falls or many others we could name and that this bill for essential employees will prevent it.

MR. W. N, ROWE: Nonsense, MR. ROBERTS: Well, Mr. Speaker, I say, echoing my colleague from White Bay South, nonsense for two reasons:

(1) This bill will not prevent it. If there is any connection, any significance to the x-ray and laboratory situation when we come to talk about this bill, that is it, Those people have not found the weapon.

They were shown it by the nurses in Nova Scotia but the weapon is there, They obviously know how to use it when they wish to use it and one can only assume that they are determined to use it, They have been at it now for ten days or two weeks or a fortnight or so and unless something has happened since we entered the House, when I last heard a news report or talked to a reporter, there seems to be no change as of this moment. We still have a grevious situation, It is nonsense for another reason, Sir. The action of the ministry over the summer showed that we could take

October 30. 1973 Tape no. 107 Paa• 5 a trike, that the people of Newfoundland could taka a atrika in the hopitals without the hysteria! tatements.

The Hiniater of Health nearly stumbled into it the other day, I do not know who wrote that statement for him but he should dismi s his speech writer and get a new one because that was the fir t time I had heard anybody in any authoritive position fall into this old boggie man of the ick and the dying will be laid at your door and somebody will come in with hi heart attack and will not be able to get the treatment and it will all be the fault of - fill in the blank.

Up until then the diputes have gone on without that, We took a trike of five weeks in Corner Brook and the hospital functioned, It was a strike of the nonprofessional workers. The other workers, the nurses. the x-ray and lab people crossed the picket lines and carried on the in the normal way. The hospital functioned at a / greatly reduced level but it did function, I am ure it caused ••rious inconveniences to the people of Corner Brook and the area that hospital erves. It could not have laated much longer.

The miniater last night confirmed what I had said on Thursday night in my peech on second reading that the only reason the Premier and the government intervened to settle the strikes at Grand Falls and Corner Brook was that tfte board at Comer Brook - bad aent them what amounted to an ultamatium; settle the strike or we will close the hospital. They sent it twice, Once produced the ainuter going out to Comer Brook. as be confirmed lut night, where he poke to them and the second one·subsequently on the weekend following, the one that led to the action.

Mr, Speaker. the point of what I am saying the esential services clau e, which had•• 1a that

October 30, 1973 Tape 108 (morning) JR-1 the only purpose of bringing these employees under this hill. We cannot talk about - the House, the minister confirmed, because

section 27 - I cannot debate i.t now, I shall in a few minutes - is meani1rnless, it is supposed to be amended. It is a motherhood, wishful statement, a statement of principle but no statement of substantive law. I think agai.n the minister would agree on that. The onlv purpose of the bill as it affects hosnital emplovees is this essenti.al services clause. For two reasons it is nonsense. It will not prevent strikes. It is not that I hope that there will be a strike, I fervent!:, hope the opnosite. It would he irresponsible for anvhody to think anvthing else.

The fact remains that in my experience and in my believe the fear is that this essential services clause will provoke strikes. I do not condone them hut J cannot ignore the fa.ct that I have received telegrams from Local 1271 of CUPE jn St. John's - I do not know where they are but it is St. John's - CUPF R79 in St. John's, rTlPE in Labrador City, the Willia~ Jackman ~emoriAl Hospital. Local 1270 of CUPE, Versa Food Services and f.lodem Buildi.np: C.l eaners at the Janewav, St. Clare's, Grace and Mental Hospitals, one from Carbonear in the Vinister of Health's district signed by Mi.ss or ¥rs.or Ms.

Joan Newman, president of C.Ul'E Local 1584, one frow Mr. ~alph Parsons, nresident of Local 2351, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers at Churchi l 1 Falls who says, "It is my believe that this bil 1 carries a detrimental effect on the lahour force of our province. If this bill should be processed, I feel it should be revised with members of both labour and management expressing their views." A similar telegram from Mr.

Chester Sanford in - it does not say where it is from, Sir - hut anyway he is president of the Atlantic lltility Council of the I .B.E.W., a telegram from Twillingate in the honourable gentleman's district,from '-'s. Angela¥. Jenkins, CUPE, Local 641. A similar one from J.F. Hughes of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers; Mr. David Hunt in Summerside, Bay of Islands, president of Local 488. I believe that is at the Western Memorial Hospital in Comer Brook, CUPE. Local 1560 of CUPE, Leo Adams, president, u9~2

October 30, 1973 Tape 108 (moming) IB-2 Brenda Col•, secretary, members certified in respect of the Roman Catholic School Board for St. John's; Mr, Wayne Smith in Grand Falla, the president of Local 990 of the Canadian l'nion of Public Employees; ~- A.J, MacDonald, president of the CUPE Local 670, the Broadcast Division - is that Aubrey Mac. whom we all listen to in the momings?

A.J, MacDonald, president of CUPE Local 670, the Broadcast Division, a request in the name of hwnanity to our brothers and sisters.who work in the hospitals to withdraw all the - well, anyway, Aubrey Mac. has a very good program in the mornings. Finally from Hiss Josephine Shea of CDPB Local 1568 of the H.J. Boylen Hospital in Baie Verte. All of them say the same thing, Hr. Chairman.

All of them say, "We are in opposition to bill 123, In the event that the government pass the bill to-e will take the matter to our membership and we will recommend the withdrawal of our services." Now, I agree with the minister that we cannot act ,mder threats. I have no doubt either that all these were organized in the sense that CUPE said to their people, "If you feel ·the way we do, if you follow our lead ,send telegrams. II These have all come to me 81!1 Leader of the Opposition. Similar telegrams, I am quite sure, have come te the Premier.

The Federation of Labour passed a resolution last week in Comer Brook, not quite the same as this, but to a similar effect. What I am saying is that this legislation will not prevent strikes in hospitals. It may make it worse and this is why we are moving that this clause should be deleted, that we should go on, The effect of deleti~g it would ~ mean that we go on ,mder the Labour Relations Act and that would mean - it would mean what? It would mean that strikes are lawful in hospitals. The ~ovemment have made them lawful.

The government have taken that action and we do not disagree with it. ·Indeed we do agree with it but it would mean that strikes are lawful. What happens if we have a strike? We have the situation we had in Crand Falls and Corner Brook, Mr. Chairman, the strike would go pn, It would seriou~ly inconvenience the public at best, If it got to be o9ft3

October 30, 1973 Tape 108 (morning) IB-3 more serious than that, the government would act whether thev act under threat of the hoard, as was the case this summer in the strikes, or whether they act for other reasons. What would thev do? Thev would do one of two things. They would do either what they did this summer, negotiate, more monev on the tables. AN HONOURABLE MEMBER: Which is legitimate? :MR. ROBERTS: Legitimate. They got them back. That is the ourt>ose of a strike. A strike is only collective bargaining, a normal stage :In collective bargaining.

It :Is part of the process as it is understood and laid down. The CUPE people won their strike and the NAPE neople at St. Clare's won their strike. Thev r.ot more monev. That was the noint of their strike and they got it ;ust as the employees of NAPE over at Memorial University got it. Thev 1o,ere on strike and thev got it. Thev got more than thev went out for as I recall it. Thev won their strike. l'IR. ~1 • ROWE: Surely that is the whole point of it. '!'Ill.

POBERTS: Either the government would ~o that in response to a strike in a hospital or thev would call the House together and end it bv legislation. llnder this bill, as they propose to amend it, they quite wisely put that power in the hands of the House, not in the hands of the cabinet as it was originally proposed. They have come now to put it in the hands of the House. So, that second alternative is not available under this bill. The first alternative has nothing to do with leg:fslat-f.on. Well, then why the essential services one? It is a red herring, ~r. Chairman. It has no validity, no meaning.

It is inconsistent in logic and it is illogical and I do not think it will help. So, for all these reasons we think that those eight words in subsection 7, which are all of sub­

section 7, should be deleted. We do not think that to bring these people, these hospital workers in under this bill will help. I think that the experience over the past summer has shown that the government were on the right track. I think they were. I think they were ahead of us. When we were the government we took a blind turn. We had come v994

October 30, 1973 Tape 108 (morning) IB-4 to our senses. We had not done it fully with legislation. 'Ihe government were on the right track and now they have taken a backward ate1' and I fear that this will lead to trouble in our hospitala. ·That is what concerns me. That is why we are making such a lot of noise or taking such a time on thia point. It' is a small number of words but, Sir, it is a very important point indeed. 'MR.

CHAIRMAN: I would like to inform honourable members of thia point of order which should have been raised at the time the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition was reading that ~roup of telegrams. They are now read into the record and it is largely because of my lack of vigilance that they are there. It is a very definite point of order that these things may not be read into the record. · MR. ROBEl!TS: Mr~ Chairman, could Your Honour give ua a citation. The one which normally comes up is 157. It is fo1.md on page 133 of Beauchesne, 157, (5) and (6).

I did not read any telegrmns into the record. r·referred to the fact 1 had received and I gave the names and office• and addresses of the people from whom the telegrams were receiv.d. If that i• the citation. Now, there may be another citation of which I am not familiar. If it is 157, Sir, I submit there is nothing in t~at. Furthermore, Sir, I would point to precedent in this House. The Minister of Finance last night - 1 did not quarrel with this, I think it was good, essential to debate and it helped his point - referred to articles in newspapers.

He read from them at some length and·then commented upon them and then went o~. We raised no point of order nor did Your Honour who was then in his chair as a private member. I would like the citation. it is an important point, Sir. ~ I think KR . CHAI~AN: The ooint is an important point and if the occaaion should arise again during these proceedings, the research shall be done. However, at this point I think it is merely an academic exerciae. It did occur to me subsequent to the telegrams having been read into the record that there could have been a point of order raised. However, J think we can proceed. 6995

October 30, 1973 Ta~e 108 (morning) IA-!i MR . ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, T am p.enu:inely confused now . Your Honour has the ril!:ht and duty to raise a roint or order .it ;my nolnt. l,'e can raise it as members but Your Honour 1s our, for the time hein ~ a t least our nresid "ng offjcer. Your Honour said that I was nut of order in read:1,ng some telei -rams. ow I would like some j(Uidance.

There is. this cj tat ion 157 i.n Beauchesne but T suhmit that th.it citation doeJO not sunnort the ruling which Your Honour made. 'rhere are no ~mrds in this Sl:!:Vi.nP, that you cannot refer to teleprillnS hut there are s_ome words - 'IL Cl'/1.IRMAN: If the honourable member wi.ll nremii:. MR . RO'BE'R'l':-: Yes, when I am finished, sure. I would like iust to fin:f .sh mv sentence i f I miRht. •1av I finish mv ~en tence? MR. CHAP! AN: The Hon. Leader of the 01:mositi on ha s th~ rlght to finish his sentence. The Chair must anolop,ize for intern.q>ting him. It was very unkind of me.

Well, I th:mk Your Honour. accePr the apo o~v in the ·same 11enutne snj rit in which ;i,t 1s offered.

_.J..:..,....., October 30, 1973, Tape 109, Page 1 - apb Morning The citation in Beauchesne (157) particularly (5) and (6), Sir, do not in my aubmiaaion lend aupport to a ruling that one cannot refer to having receipt of a communication and I may add, neither does our practise in this House. I could find, Your Honour, in Hansard, I would think, several thousand precedents to support my submission on this point. MR.

CHAIRMAN (STAGG): The citation (157)5, Beauchesne is as follows: "It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or cmnmunications emanating from persons outside the House and refarring to, commenting on or denying anything said by a member expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the Rouse." HR. ROBERTS: t did not read any ••• MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Chairman, I can take it that there is not a relevant point of order.at the m0111ent. If the honourable gentleman did uot read the telegrams he may very well have a very good point there.

Sometime when it comes up again the collective wisdom of the centuries will be produced to see whether it was in order or not. I just vant to make two brief cOl!IDlents or three. Fundamentally it comes down to this, Mr. Chairman, as I see it.

The opposition say we are for the principle of unrestricted strikes in hospitals and other public institutions or services, while we say ve are for an unrestricted right to strike in hospitals and other public institutions subject to a safeguard that must be provided so that in the essent~al institutions such as hospital•, a basic .. emergency service can be given." That is the difference as I see it. This le,;islation is not designed to prevent strikes anymore than the Labour Relations Act is designed to prevent strikes.

One hopes that having legislation like thiq there will be less atrikes but it is ~ot designed to prevent stri~es. It permits strikes as.a final step if the collective bargaining process does not lead

October 30, 1973, Tape 109, Page 2, - apb Morning to a satisfactory conclusion. The honourable gentleman mentioned these telegrams he had. There is a considerable difference I would like to point out, ~r. Chairman, to the telegrams sent hy the Flectrical Workers Union and the to the telegrams sent by the ClTPE locals. The CUPE locals (and I am paraphrasing now) said that if you pass this legislation we are going to recommend that we go on strike or that we will go on strike.

The electrical workers telegram say th;;t they heard that this bill is not favourable to labour and they would like it delayed or looked over. They make no threats,in other words. MR. ROBERTS: ··- ------ -- --- ~- CROSBIE: The major distinction between them ... (Inaudible) Yes. The only units that would be affected, say, would be the power commission and maybe one or two others. There are no threats contained in their wires, There are threats contained in the wires from CUPE. No government, Mr. Chairman, can bow to threats. We can listen to reason, we can listen to arguments and we have.

We have met with CUPE, we have met with NAPE, we had discussions with ~fr. }'cMillan and "r. Mayo from time to time. We understand their position, we are meeting their views where we think we can but we cannot bow t9 the threat of strikes, that if this bill be passed there will be illegal strikes, because we feel that there will not be. There is no reason to. It would be illegal for them to do so and far more can be accomplished in other directions than by attempting that kind of pressure.

The honourable the Leader of the Opposition said that the unions involved had won their strikes in Corner Brook, ~rand Falls and St. Clare's. Perhaps in a certain sense it is true. They won their strikes but at the same time there was a penalty they had to pay. Nobody wins these things. They lost their wages and salaries for four weeks or two or three weeks, The public lost the services u9:l8

October 30, 1973, Tape 109, Page 3 -- apb Morning of the hospitals and the goveTIUnent lost. The Western Memorial Hospital and the Grand Falla Board• lost. We all lost a great · deal. Sometime• you cannot aettle thing• any other way than by a strike. You cannot say too glibly who wins a strike. No one wins a atrike unless it is against an intolerable situation. "'1l. MURPHY: In a hospital you know who loes. HR. CROSBIE: In a hospital, of course, it is the people who need care who are the real losers.

It ia a difference in approach and we hope that with the essential services thing working properly there will be no emergencies and the strike weapon can be fully utilized. t-'R. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I just want to add one further word, The minister stated our position. 1 do not think he tated it correctly and I do not want to leave !t atanding on the record. We are not in favour of an unrestricted right to strike and juat leave it at that. '?he government's position seems to be that they favour a right to strike specific to an essential services

section or clause or procedure. Our position would be that we would think that the es•ential services procedure is u~rkable and irrelevant, We thi.nk that if you are going to have a right to strike, you have a right to strike but not unrestricted, Sir. The final power to end any s~tuation rests right h~re in this Bouse. As I aaid at second reading and will say again in ·a few minutes, the House can be brought together at any time. No riiht to strike, .

Sir, is unrestricted, The right of the people of this province• to basic public services is surely something on which everybody in this province, unions, management, government, opposition, anybody vould agree. That muat be protected. I think that the essential services clause will not in any way help, it will hurt in a situation. On that the minister and I or the'govenaent and my party will have to agree to disagree. I only ho~e that in finding out the answer to the question we do not come to the position of having people suffer and people be hurt but that is beside the. u399

October 30, 1973. Tape 109, Page 4 -- apb ~orninp, point, The point now is that the two sides cannot agree and we will just have to let it go to a vote. I can predict the vote but my party are not in favour of an unrestricted right to strike. We are not in favour of any unrestricted action by anybody. Rights must be balanced against responsibilities. ~R. CHAIRMAN_(STAGG): It is moved that section (2) - (i) - (7) be deleted. Is it your pleasure to adopt the said motion? Those in favour · Aye," those opposed ''Nay,' I think the "Nays' have it,on division. Shall clause (2), carry? Wl. ROBE'PTS: ·- ---- ----· ..

I have a question on (.i). The word 'influence,' ' is in there in the definition of employee organization. In essence it is in there to ensure that an eMployee orpanization is a genuine union and not a sweetheart or a company union or a yellow-dop union of some sort. That is what (

j) means. It is copied from the Labour Relations Act but the word influenced is in there. The advice I have, not from the union, not from management but from knowledgeable third-party sources, is that even though it is in the Labour Relations Act, that is a very broad word. I wonder whether the minister could tell us anythinp about it. Influenced is influenced and obviously there are acceptable influences and unacceptable. I wonder what it would mean if the word dominated - I wonder if any thought were given to change if we ever get this new labour code we hear so much about? !"Y:.:_ CR~~_!._E_:_ Mr.

Chairman, all I can do is assure the honourable gentleman that I have no influence over these employees associations. I do not. Dominated is easy to understand or influence means - although they are not too dominated or too much under the influence of an employer. Really, it is only a matter that could be decided when the facts of an actual case were before you. I have not heard of any organization being found employer-dominated in recent years here, although I know it used to occur quite a bit in the past and 701)0

October 30, 1973, Tape 109, Page 5 - apb Horning that there would be company unions and so on. I cannot really offer the honourable gentleman any help on it. MR. ROBERTS: Can the Minister of Manpower say anything on it? It is not strictly relevant to this bill but it is in this bill and therefore it is relevant to the debate. It is a very broad definition. Is it the sort of thing that is being looked at if we ever get the new labour code? t-m. ROUSSEAU: There are a number of items in this bill that we are looking at as a matter of policy.

Of course, as we suggested we vill be looking at them with interest in the working of this bill. Whetherindeed or not they will be included eventually in the new labour code or in the labour standards code or any other new piece of legislation, it will be determined to a great extent on how workable they are in this.bill. MR. ~ARTIN: Subsection (

p) which deals with the

interpretation of the word "strike:" Now for those who have any knowledge whatsoever of the bargaining · process, we must understand that it is a aeries of checks and counterchecks and that at any point of the proceedings the parties may or may not reach an agreement. Therefore I think we should not restrict this system to the point where we suddenly, without any checking and counterchecking,arrive at a strike situation. One of the checks which a bargaining unit will use is to slov down their work effort. A work to rule or a general slowdown so that it will have an affect on the total output of that work unit.

This is in effect telling management that tht!7 are approaching the point where it is beC0111ing intolerable and that very, very soon strike action will be considered. What subsection (

p) does is to eliminate this intermediate step. In the Labour Relations Act from which I gather much of this was lifted, the

interpretation of the word "strike" stops with the phrase; ''With a conmion understandinR." In this

interpretation it goes on to say; " ••• or• •lowdown or other concerted activity on the part of employees designated to restrict or limit out~t.n 7001

October 30, 1973 Tape No. 110 NM - 1 I would like to see that whole last

section deleted after the words, ''common understanding.'' I would so move, Mr. Chairman, that we delete everything in subsection (

p) after the words, "common understanding." MR. ROB_!RTS: I realize that too, Mr. Chairman, that merely means the definition of strike would track with the definition presently found in the Labour Relations Act which now ends with the words, "with a common understanding," and leaves it up to case law to decide what all that may mean. Until such time as we get a new definition of strike, which I assume will be an integral and central part of any labour code, why clutter it up with meaningless

definitions? I had a note to speak at some length. I will not bother but that (p) - again I do not know who drafted this act. Mr. Chairman, it really is one of the worst, the sloppiest pieces of draftsmanship in the technical sense that has come up. To make an argument, Mr. Chairman, I have had it made to me, that the words, ''after a common understanding," the words from there to the end of that definition of strike are absolutely meaningless. They can be interpreted a hundred ways and surely to heavens! in

definitions ot all places, we should be as precise as possible. I think it makes sense to adoot a definition of strike, found in_ the Labour Relations Act, surely that is bound to be fairly adequate and where it is inadequate, a new labour relations code will obviously apply to this bill and to any other bill that has a definition of strike in it, MR. A. J. MURPHY: Mr.

Chairman, if I may just ask a question for my own information - slow down here- in other words in my department I have a man who sees twenty-four clients a day, so all right he does not like the way the government is treating him so he says, "Look, I am only going to see twelve clients a day." Is this what slow down means? In other words he will still expect full pay for doing a day's work but he is only going to do half the work. 7002

October 30. 1973 Tape No. 110 NM - 2 Just to set the thing on record, you contract to do a job, a job calls for certain things to do, in my opinion, an honest day's work for an honest day's pay, an honest day's pay for an honest day's work, you either do the job you are being paid for or you do half of it and you say, "Look, we want someone to do the full job." Am I right in this? Is this what you say that it is perfectly legal to do half the job? MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is right as such. MR. MURPHY: Am I right or wrong?· That is all I want to know. MR.

ROBERTS: You have asked the question, now let me try to answer it. MR. MURPHY: Well all right, go ahead. MR. ROBERTS: The gentleman is right when he talks of such principles as an honest day's pay for an honest day's work and an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. The problftl of course is that nobody knows what a slowdown is,unless it was written down sOMWhere that a man must see or should see twenty clients or twenty-five a day. Taite the minister's example. He would be months before the Labour Relations Board or in a court or whatever form we have trying to settle whether it was a slowdown or not.

That is th• whole point of it. MR. MURPHY: Th• head of a department wo'!ld have ao authority to say that. MR. ROBERTS: The head of a department might say it but I can assure the minister and he will be,as a management type now when this thing comes in, he may r1.m into it. If a deputy minister says so and so is slowing down, he is liable to have the bargaining agent in saying,_ "Grievance, red flag." That is the ·sort of thing that touches off grievances. MR. MURPHY: That is their right. MR. ROBERTS: Oh sure, it is their right - MR. MURPHY: Inaudible. MR.

ROBERTS: The gentleman aaka,doea the minister or deputy minister have the right to say it is a lowdc,wnt He has the right to say it but that is a long way from proving it. The whole point of this section, you know - AH RON. ~ER: Inaudible. 7003

October 30, 1973 Tape No. 110 NM - 3 MR. ROBERTS: Well that is fine. We carried oar point. I was only trying to elucidate for the honourable gentleman's colleague and that is a difficult job. MR. CHAIRMAN: Are we ready for the motion? It is moved that the words following "A collllllon understanding" in subsection (

p) of

section 2 be deleted. On motion amendment carried. On motion

section 2 as amended carried. !'fR· RO!f:RT~ Mr. Chairman, a point here on clause (3) it is a point which comes up in one or two other clauses and perhaps we could dispose of it here and we would not have to deal with it under (12) or some other place. This is as good a place as any to deal with the problem of management and employers in the hospitals now that the government insist that hospitals be covered by this or hospital employees. The minister and I exchanged views on it earlier and I think there is a measure of agreement and a measure of disagreement but I wonder if it is possible, certainly desirable in my eyes to write in to this

section words to the effect that perhaps a subclause (3) ''The president of the Treasury Board shall consult with the employers,·• I am thinking out loud, I certainly have not prepared an amendment in draft terms. I do not have access to the draftsmen , but something along thnse lines. I think it is a very serious problem and while I have no doubt that in practice it will presumably be as the minister indicates, it always has been and I see no reason for it to change, I think it would be a very helpful thing for a_ll concerned if it were to be stated as a principle, as a requirement of the legislation.

I do not think that so to state would in any way hamper the government in their negotiations. In the long run thev have the cash and he who pays the piper still calls the tune. I have not got the formal words, if the principle is - Well perhaps we could let the clause stand and I would try to work out a few words and bang them over to the government side. 7004

October 30, · 1Y --; Tape No. 110 NM - 4 MR. CROSBIE: ~r~aker, we cannot accept an amendment to that effect at this time. As f~r as we know I cannot remember any request from the Hospi~al Association or anyone else that this should be ,,: ,,:. done. l haw explained how the system works now and the fact that there is no way in which we can force these other employers to do what they do •iot want to do, to do things that they do not accept in connection with collective bargaining.

If, however, the Hospital Association does raise a point or any of these other bodies and they f_eel there is some inadequacy here or it is not working properly and they want some sections put in the act, then we would be glad to consider it but right at the moment I think it would be very perilous just to accept some wording of our own here. So I can just say we shall constder that if it should appear to be SOlllething:that needs to be corrected. On motion clause (3) carried. ~WM_:_MARSHALL: Clause (4), Mr.

Chairman, there is an amendment, to move that this clause be renumbered u subclause (1} and to be added as subclause (2) ",Every employer has the righ_t to be a member of an employer's organization and to par.ticipate in the lawful activities thereof." MR. CROSBIE: The purpose of the amendment, Mr. Chairman. :ft appeared to be something that we should put in because there are associations, for example, there is the Hospital Association, which is an employer's organization, and that is the reason why we prepared this amendment. I believe similar wordin~ appears I think in the Labour Relations Act. HR.

ROBERTS: We are for it. We suggested this originally so we support it. We are glad the government are putting it in. On motion clause (4) as amended, carried. HR. MARSHALL: Mr. Chairman, in clause S (5) (b), that is subclause (S), paragraph (b), I move that the words, "for proper and sufficient c•use," be added at the end of paragraph (b). I think the amandment is self-explanatory, one . cannot "suspend, transfer. lay off. discharge or otherwise discipline an employee but for proper and aufficient cause It has to be done with proper and sufficient cause. 70il5

October 30, 1973 Tape No. 110 NM - 5 MR. CROSBIE: There has been, Mr. Chairman, some worry for some reason I cannot quite fathom about suhclause (5) of

section 5, worry by the unions involved. As I see it, all it says is that nothing in the act affects the rights or authorities of the employer to do certain things and to fix the term and implement the or~anization of his business and to assign duties and classify positions or to suspend, transfer and lay off employees or otherwise discipline them. The

section just states what is a fact. This act itself does not effect any of that. What effects the employers' rights that he always had,to do what he wanted, are the collective agreements that are worked out under the provisions of the act. So subsection (5) does nothing for the employer as I see it, and nothing against the union, but there has been some disquiet felt by the unions involved. The comparable

section of the Labour Relations Act does not include the subsection (

a) and therefore the Minister of Manpower and Industrial Relations and I feel that in addition to the amendment moved by my honourable friend, the House Leader, that the subsection should also be amended to remove (a), take the (

b) out so it would read, "Nothing in this Act shall be construed to affect the right or authority of the employer," and then go on, "To suspend, tran~fer, lay off, discharge or otherwise discipline an employee for proper and sufficient cause." It would then be ~·006

October 30, 1973 Tape 111 (moming) PK - 1 the same as the clause in the Labour Relations Act. Now if the Honourable the House Leader does not mind moving that rather than just the amendment that was moved~ (

A) Would be to delete it entirely. MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendment carry? On motion amendment carried. MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Clause (5) as amended carry? MR. W. N. ROWE: On Clause (5) generally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to say a word or two. The Minister of Finance ••Y• that the labour side seems to be a little concemea about this,that and the other thing in this bill.

In other words, he has indicated, he has pointed UII something which is wrong in this province, namely; a mistrust by labour of this government and the minister as President of tbe Treasury Board and whatever goes on in the province when there are negotiation• going on.

Clause (5) of the bill, "No employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall participate in or interfere with the election, fomation or administration of an employee organization etc. etc." Now, Sir, some of the things that we were mentioning last night which caused the Minister of Finance, the President of the Treasury Board, to open up his soul and confess his sins as to the strong tands he hu been taking in negotiating with the public.. employees, is indicated by this section.

Last summer the NAPE negotiating team indicated to the government that they had accepted something or were willing to recommend to the executive and the membership that something be accepted. When it vu brought back to the membership or the executive as the case may be, it was not accepted.

We had the Minister of !inance c0111e out in a public statement which could have no other effect, which IIIU8t have been calculated to irritate labour generally in the province, come out with aoa kind of a statement aa to how can we negotiate with NAPE or how can we negotiate with anyone if they are going to be doing this sort ot thing. I made a p'1blic statement at •that time ;in my opinion ·, Sir, I believe in the opinion of the members of this aide of the House it was '1m. ' I unwarranted intrusion by the Minister of Finance in the internal operations 7007

October 30, 1973 Tape 111 (morning) PK - 2 of a labour organization. Now I sincerely hope, Sir, that kind of a public statement by the Minister of Finance will cease in the future. I will hope as a result of what he had to say last night where he admitted that he had made statements in the past which were not calculated to soothe and to bring parties together but were more calculated to divide and to raise the hackles of all the parties involved in negotiations, I hope he ceases that kind of a statement, Mr.

Chairman, because this more than anything else in this province I believe has raised the suspicions and mistrust of labour. MR. MARSHALL: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We arc> engaged in committee now and clause by clause consideration of the bill, and the honourable the member for White Bay South is getting of into a long-ranging debate which is irrelevant to the present topic under discussion, which is Sub-clause (5) of Clause (5). MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman,to that point of order. The topic under debate is not Sub-clause (5) of Clause (5) it is Clause (5). MR. MARSHALL: All right, Clause (5). MR.

ROBERTS: My colleague is speaking on Clause (5). He is speakinr of the requirement of employers not to interfere with employee organizations. To refer to a side note; Surely what he is saying is quite in order, he should be permitted to carry on. He is not referring to anything txcept the principles set forth in Clause (5). MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Chairman, nonsense. MR. CROSBIE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I cannot see any anything relevant, and I do not remember making such a tremendous confession last night as that.

But in any event I cannot see the relevance as Section (5) deals with employer not interfering with employee organization, allowing them to confer on working hours and attend to their business during working hours. Not to discriminate for race and so on. Not to force membership. What the honourable gentleman is talking about has no relevance to this clause whatsoevPr. 7008

October 30, 1973 Tape l!l (mom1ngJ l'l\. - .J MR. W, N. ROWE: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman _, "No employer ahall participate or interfere with (le&ving out aoma of the worda) th• administration of an employee organizaeion," Now part of the administration of an employee organization is the give and take, the negotiations and discussions which take place between a negotiating team and the membership or the executive of that union- Surely that is part of the administration.

The point I will make now, Sir, and sit down, I mean the point need only be made that the Minister of Finance publicly geta involved in things that he should not get involved in and baa disturbed good relations between the government and the representative• of public employee  in this province, Well he admitted it lut night, Mr, Chairman, MR, CROSBIE: Inaudible, MR. ROWE, W.N. He admitted it last night. ·He got up here, I thought, I did not know what was going on,a reviv,1 meeting or what.

He got up and confeaaed, he even said that his wife had joined with the unions in requesting him not to take such strong stands. MR. ROBERTS: Inaudible • . MR. ROWE, W.N. I will not go into a strike action there or a withdrawal of services. KR. CROSBIE: Always threatening a speed up. Ml.. ROWE, W.N. Always a speed up or a slow down or a complete withdrawal of services. Maybe that is the reason why the honourable gentleman vu ao jumpy. Withdrawal of service  had been threatened by certain partiea mentioned by himself in the House. The only point 1~~ Sir, that the honourable minister has made it himself.

He is too arrogant, too abrasive in dealing publicly with the other side in labour negotiations. That has led, more than any­ thing else in this province,to the uproar we have presently in all public employee negotiations by this government. AN HON. MEMBER: In other words, he ie too 1110deat. KR. CROSBIE: I will not answer that, MR. CHAIRMAN: The honourable member hae had his ••Y• It is very difficult to have it retracted. Even if we attempt~d to, it would be impoasible. I 7009

October 30, 1973 Tape 111 (morning) PK - 4 do not think he was really dealing with Section (5). But however, these meanderings are well documented in the history of this chamber. Probably the new rules might deal with just such a speech. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. On motion Clause (5) as amended carried. MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Clause (6) carry? MR. ROBERTS: Do not be in such a hurry to railroad it through ''Willie· • When you get your new rules you can railroad things through because I have not p,ot them yet. This one has the open-ended period, the waiting period. I understand it is Sub-section (4), Mr. Chairman.

I understand that the Labour Relations Act has a similar clause but that does not make it right or it does not make it wrong, it is merely to say there is one in the Labour Relations Act. I would rather and I suggest instead of the present provision here which says that there is an open period at anytime after ten months of the term of the collective agreement, in other words, if it is a three year agreement you have a twenty-six month waiting period.

I think we should adopt the practice of other jurisdictions such as Ontario where,as I recall it, they open a two month period at the end of each year or at the end of each bargaining period, the peroid of each collective agreement for waiting,in the sense of a decertification or an application for another certification order. Of course, the board always have the supervening power at any time they are convinced on applications before them that the largaining agent does not in any way truly represent the employees of the nnit,then they could take the appropriate action. I think this is just asking for trouble.

The mere fact that it is copied from the Labour Relations Act, if in fact it is,that does not remove the fact that it could cause trouble. MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Chairman, just on that point: The Minister of Labour as we all know is working now on a revision of the whole labour laws and are ~ 010

October 30, 1973 Tape 111 (moming) PK - 5 we therefore prepare to leave thi• now,•• it i• comparable with the Labour Relation• Act? What we have said to the union• involved under thi• legislation is that where the Labour Relation• Act hu changed relevant to this act,here we will make the same changes in thia. So we prefer to leave it as it is at the moment. It will be revised as the Labour Relations Act is. On motion Clause (6) carr~ed. On motion Clauses (7) through (9) carried. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Chairman, there are certain amendment• which I presume will be debated so perhaps I can - MR.

ROBERTS: Why not move them and call it 1:00 o'clock? ffil.. MARSHALL: I will move it and call it 1:00 o'clock. Clauae

(10) Sub-clause (2) Sub-paragraph (

a) that the word• "Or other­ wiae in the public interest" at the end of Sub-clause (1) be deleted. . Nov that ia a misprint here. Thia is in Sub-clause (1) of Clause (10), Mr. Chairman, "Or otherwise in the i,ublic intereat," be deleted. Then under (

b) of (2) that a new sub-clause be added aa follow• which reads, "If a majority of the employees in a unit are clasaifed as or determined to be essential employees mi.der this

section every employee within such unit shall be deemed to be an essential employee for the purpose of this act if the bargaining agent so adviaea the employer and the board." MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall the amendments cany? MR. ROBERTS: No, Sir, we now call it 1:00 o'clock. MR. CHAIRMAN: It now being 1:00 o'clock I do leave the Chair until 3:00 o'clock this afternoon • .. , 011

October 30, 1973 Tape 112 (afternoon) The House resumed at 3:00 P.~. l,fR. CROSBIE::_ Before we ad.ioumed the House leader had moved two amendments to clause 10. I am not goin? to speak at any length on TB-1 :It. The clause 10, of course, is the one that deals wfth the rruestion of essential employees which in the case of disagreement is to he decided hy the Labour Relations Board.

To tighten it un, the first amendment is to remove the words in the last line of the first paraj'!:ranh, ''or otherwise in the public interest'', which will make it cle~r that the only reason why an employee or employees can be declared essential is that their duties involve duties necessary for the heal th, safetv or securi tv of the public. There might have been some argument that if the words, 'or otherwise in the public interest," were left, that it was too \,•ide. The onlv three reasons we are suggestin~,necessary to deteTil'ine,essentiality are health, safetv or security.

So, that is the nurpose of that amendment. The purPose of amending to add subsection 5 was SUf?ges ted to us hv NAPE as somethinf!: that was missing in the hill. In other words it is possih]e or conceivable that the Labour Pelations Board might decide that in some particular unit such as a hosnital or in sowe unit thev might find that more than fifty per cent of the emp]oyees were essential. So, they said that if that happened and over fi ftv ner cent were found to be essential the point that the others could p.:C' on strike might not be of much use to them.

So, there would he no remedy there in the original form of the bill. They said that we should provide arbitration in that case if that s:ltuation occur. So, the new subcJause would say that if a majority were classified as essential every employee would be deemed to he essential if the bargaining agent so advises the emoloyer and the board. Then under a later amendment to

section 29, after the normal period of negotiations are over, after a conciliation board has reported or if one is not appointed, they could go to arbitration. So, that is the purpose of the subclauses. If the union involved do not want that to be the case, they do not have to advise the employer and the board that they want this to apnly. Otherwise clause 10, of course, is

October 30, 1973 Tape 112 (afternoon) IB-2 what we have been discussing for the last several days. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, before we get into a discussion of clause 10 - and as the minister said, it has been well canvassed in the debates at second reading and presumably we will not need a long time on it - I vonder if he could first of all address himself to a point where I am seeking information. I genuinely do not know the answer to this. The actual structure of the bill is that some employees may be deemed essential.

I think we can assume that the government or the employers will try to have some employees deemed essential, Let us assume the Labour Relations Board agrees that some are essential, thoae employees are then denied the right to strike. That is in the bill and that is straightfo-rward and whether you like it or not there it ia. Now, what I want to know is whether those people then get arbitration. My miderstanding of the bill 1s that they do not. I may haw misread it but would the minister se.t me straight on it. Where an employee is eligibl~ to strike and dnes strike and in due courae

section 27 comes into force, then by virtue of

section 29 then would be what amounts to binding arbitration. . My reading of

section 29 - I am not debating

section 29, Sir, but ,I have to refer to it to make my t)Oint clear - does not deal with the essential employees as • such. It deals with only the proclamation of the order authorized mider

section 27. I wonder if the minister could first of all set me straight on that point? MR. CROSBIE: AIJ we visualize it and as we think the pact will be ·- let ua take a unit that has a hundred employees and perhaps the board finds that twenty are essential - as I said last night, ve ~o not expect .. the board to say that John Jones·and Tim Smith are essential but twenty would have to remain on duty as essential if there were a strike in that aen••• Well. these people are members of the bargaining unit ao there is DO arbitration 'Provided for them. The~r ,bargaining agent negotiates for them.

They go through conciliation and they go through a conciliation board and if that is all unsuccessful. then there vould be a strike, They will get whatever the outcome is of that strike. They can rotate or, you 7013

Octoher 30, 1973 Tape 112 (afternoon) Tfl-3 know. I do not visualize that :!_t is going to be names. It will be a certain number that would be deemed to be essential. We can see no reason why they would not rotate during a strike. In other words, the order would be that so many are essential. 'T'hat is the way we think that it will he. It may be a percenta!?e. That 1.s what we would expect.

Now, the reason for subsection S is that it was the feeling expressed hv NAPE that if the board said that half of them are essential or more, then if the strike went from there it wciuld not he a strong one if half are remaining on ancl only half r,oinr, on strike. Therefore thev should have the o!)tion of goinf! to arr-ftrat:lon in that situation if thev want to. Now we do not visualize that that will hapf)en,as I say, except there is a nossihilitv that in two or three or four institutions that might he found to he the case - primarily the custodial ones.

I do not know if that answers the Leader of the Oppm,i ti<'n 's question. >-m. RORERT~: I thank the honourable pentleman. It makes clear the situation as it exists in the b:111. That only makes it, in our eves, al 1 the more wrong - I w-111 take 111y svntax out ,"wronp:er';"wronp.est"- anvwav 1.t make it all the less des:! rab le that we shoul cl have sectiori 10 i. n 1 ts present form. The section, ~r.

Chairman, Section (1) which is the essential part of the essential employees section, it says that the board shall ask the employers and the employers shall nrovide the hoard and the a~ent with a statement in writing of the emoloyees or classes of employees in the unit represented by the bargain:ln~ agent who are considered by the employer to be essential employees, that is to sav employees whose dut:1.es consist in whole or in nart of duties the oerformance of which at any narticular time or during any specified period of time is or may be necessary for the health, safety or security of the public.

I have left out the last six words because the government oroposed to amend the sub clause by droopinii; those words. Let us assume that is done ancl we shall support it and they will support it and well, there will be no argument on that noint.

October 30, 1973 Tape 112 (afternoon) IB-4 , Mr, Chairman, let me approach this from two point• of view. First of all, the question of whether any employees whould be essential, Well, this has been extensively canvassed and I do not think I need to go over it again except to say that our view remains unchanged.

Now, if the government remain adamant on this point - and certainly they have given e:very indication that they do not propose to chan~e it except two further amendments on it even though we were prepared to move them - then let us _look at the question of assuming they are going to have a category of essential employees. I would then take the position, Mr, Chainrum, that the definition of essential in this bill is entirely too broad, entirely too loose.

I realize it is up to the Labour Relations Board to decide who is essential and who is not but they will naturally look to the bill, They have no place to look in the initial instance except to the bill. Eventually case law will develope. There will be precedents. There will be standards and principles and rules but these may be years getting worked out. I do·not know what the experience has been in other jurisdictions but I can visualize long months of discusai011 and negotiation and argument and finally decisions.

Then, of course, I can see the inevitable appeals to the courts even though we have the privative , clauses here. We all·know what the courts do with privative clauses in bills when they are so minded to do it. I would favour, if we are going to have it and I do not like the clause but if we are going to have it, if it must be at least for the time being, then I would think th~ government would be better advised just to say essential ~loyees and leave the matter entirely open to an

interpretation of what is the word "eHenti111.• Because vhat the draftsman has done here, as draftsmen inevitahle do, is throw a net which ia sufficiently wide to catch every fish in the sea in these words: 7015

October 30, 1973, Tape 113, Page 1 -- anh Afternoon Employees whose duties consist in whole or :In part of duties the performance of which at any particular time or durinp, any specified period ot time is or maybe necessary for the health, safety or security of the public. Mr. Chairman, that is an incredibly hroad definition . It is the sort of definition that a le~al draftsman, a lawyer would come up with trying to cover every possible contingency. I am not so sure that that is what we should be doinp, here.

I would th:fnk that if we have to leave it to somebody, then the board are probably as good as anybody else. I do not envy them their task. I still query the amount of time that they will need to put in this and whether we should not make the board full-time or certainly much more part-time th;m they are now or much less nart-time to p;ivP them more time at their duties. Those are very broad words, Sir. They are too hroad. It would he hard to think of any employee in a hosnital who could not he included under those words. I do not pronose to go over the ~round again.

J think it has been well trod, it has been well established. We do not think this

section adds anythinl!' to the hill. We think that it will prove difficult to administer. We think it will prove very hard to put into practise and to work with and we believe further that it will be the cause of a vast (is there any reason the pap,es are standing? Do not be uncomfortable boys unless you have to stand for some reason) we believe that it will cause and it is causinp, an era of bad feeling. While I am on that point let me say something now that I shall say again later. Well,let me say it now and I will say it again later.

I hear outside the House, I guess we all do, that thPre is some talk that CUPE may feel they have to walk out or sornethin~ if this bill become law. I predict this bill will become law, not with our support, but the eight or nine of us on this side do not have the majority, we do not have the controlling voice. I hope 't' 016

October JO, 1973, Tape 113, Pa~e 2 -- apb Afternoon , quite •incerely and genuinely that CUPE or any other .union do not withdraw their services illegally or unlawfully or against the bill. Their cause is just in much of what they say and I am not saying everything they say is just but their cauae I think is just. They have a cause but there are means to fi~ht these cau•es. There are ways to fight them but I do not think walkouts are. I am scared that if we get a ~eneral walkout or even the talk of one, I am scared of the atmosphere that could produce in this province today and of what could come of it. ~r.

Chairman, the point of this clause is that it adds nothing to the bill. In our view it does not solve the problem. ·It is going to cause difficulty and bad feeling. All this could be solved if it were taken out,bearing in mind always that if a strike become intolerable.in the public interest the legislature can act to end it. The legislature can act quickly, speedily and effectively and the government themselves admitted that the legislature are the proper body to end this.

When we come down belO\l' we will deal with their amendment under which they agree to leave that power here in the hands of this House and not to abrogate it under tbemaelves as a cabinet as the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council. So we shall move that clause (10) be deleted and we support that position.

If the government do not accept the position and I candidly confess that I do not expect them to, they have made it clear they have not,unless there has been another conversion over the lunch hour, then I would appeal to them to think and give every consideration to taking out those extra words in the definition • .Juat leave it at ''essential employees" and let the cae lall' develop, let the board aet the tandards.

The word in the bill and the board must refer to thoae, the board would have to refer to them when argument was led before and when they C8:ffle to take their decisions, Those words •re so very broad that anybody in a hospital, everybody in a hospital would be 7017

October 30, 1973, Tape 113, Page 3 -- apb Afternoon considered essential. If everybody is essential then nohody is essential and vice versa. I think it is a badly drafted

section and I suspect it is going to be that is going to be very contentious for years to come. Our basic position,as my colleague outlined it last night and I agree and we all agree with what he said, is that we do not think this

section as a whole adds anything to the bill and so we move that it be deleted. MR. CHAIRMAN (STAGG)_:_ Is the honourable member proposing an amendment to the amendment? MR. ROBERTS: They want to dispose of the amendments and I want to make sure that in disposing of the amendments - we are goinp, to accept the amendments if they do not make it any more offensive. MR. W.N.ROWE: Why do we not pass the 3JTlendments and debate clause (10) as amended? MR. ROBERTS: ... --- -- -- -· - Would that be in order, Sir? It is okay by us but Your honour is the boss, temporarily. On motion amendments, carried. MR.

ROBF •• RTS' I now make the motion that clause (10) he deleted. t-'R. CHAifil'IAN (STAGG)_, The honourable member for Labrador South. MR. MARTIN: !!r. Chairman, I have a very few words to say on clause (10). Again I would direct the attention of the Committee to areas other .iurisdiction wherein the question of essential employees or employees who are performjng essential duties, employees who at one time or another may be classified as essential.

In the case of fish plants,for instance, there is a ouite work.able arrangement now in fish plants under the Labour Relations Act or whatever they happen to be working with at the present time. We all recognize the fact that this is a highly perishable co1T1I11odity and that at any point sizable sums of money could be lost simply by virtue of having the whole work force walk out letting three or four trawler loads of fish spoil. Nothing has happened in this regard ~·018

October 30, 1973, Tape 113, Page 4 -- apb Afternoon simply because employees who are considered to be es~ential to the running of these plants have been recognized and defined across the bargaining table. I would suggest.that we delete claus~ (10) altogether and let this be an negotiable item. Who better than the parties concerned can tell who are essential employees at any particular time?

I submit too, that it is not within the competence of the Labour Relations Board, no matter who may comprise that board,to determine at any one particular time, at any stage of negotiations, who are or who are not e•sential employees. I think it would be well within the spirit of the bill and quite safe for all concerned to allow thia to be an negotiable item, the essential employees. MR. CHAIR."'i