VOL. 2 PRELIMINARY UNEDITED TRANSCRIPT HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY FOR THE PERIOD: 3:00 P.M. - 6:00 P.M . TUESDAY, MAY 31, 1983 NO. Sf

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2743 MJ ~ 1 The House met at 3:00 p.'m. Mr. Speaker ,in the Chair MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! ORAL QUESTIONS ltr. Speaker. The han. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, this is what we call a mopping up operations, a clean-up day in Question Period. We have a whole raft of questions we have been unable to get in because of the larger issues. I would like to start out with the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan). I would like to ask the Minister of Fisheries,because there was such a hullabaloo, Mr.

Speaker, about the $500,000 offer of a loan and guarantee to Carino for the purchase of seal pelts this year,and the administration were patting themselves on the back for this great effort, could the han. gentleman tell the House if indeed the $500,000 guarantee will be necessary, will it be picked up by Carino? Because it was designed,as I understand,to purchase pelts over 60,000. I believe therewere only 40,000 pelts taken this year,so, Mr.

Speaker, could the han. gentleman tell the House if the $500,000 that he was crowing about there a couple of weeks ago will be necessary and,if not,what will happen to the $500,000? MR. MORGAN: MR. SPEAKER: MR. MORGAN: Mr. Speaker. The han. the Minister of Fisheries. Well, Mr. Speaker, the $500,000 programme was indeed a government loan guarantee programme and, as mentioned by the Opposition U:ader in asking the question it was to purchase pelts over and above what the company felt they could buy on their own. And the company,of course 1 had agreed to buy 60,000 pelts and that was not near the quota 5816

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2743 MJ - 2 MR . MORG.A.'\1 : that cou .ld be taken . thth the projections being at the time for a good seal fishery, we agreed to fund, through a government guaranteed loan and engaged Carino Limited to purchase pe lts, to process them , and we would pay for-the processing , and then to store the pelts until we, the two government s, could find markets . So that programme was put in place but up until now - and , of course, the season is over now - the programme was not availed of becau se the harvest of sea ls this year was down substantially compared to other years.

At the Front in particular , only one large vessel went to the Front, they had a very poor Sprin g. I t hink the total number of seals taken was around 6,000 or 7,000 pelts ta~en by that vessel , if I recall . The landsmen kill was also down because of heavy ice conditions and the longli ners being unable to maneuver through the ice, 5819

May 31, 1983 Tape 2744 EC - l MR. MORGAN: and therefore, because of that, the $500,000 programme put forward by the Newfoundland Government was not activated. However, the $50,000 grant that we indicated was available to the association has been processed and supplied to the Sealers' Association for their operation. In the same manner as the $50,000 grant provided at the federal level of government, we matched that grant, making a total grant of $100,000 to the Sealers' Association. But the programme itself, the $500,000 programme, was not activated because of the poor Spring for the seal fishery. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker. :MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Well, Mr. Speaker, that confirms the information that we have that the whole thing turned out to be a gigantic hoax and a bluf£. No doubt the han. gentleman had advance notice that - MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, please! The han. the Leader of the Opposition is proceeding to make a speech. I would request that he pose a question. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, my question: Because the whole thing turned out to be a hoax and a bluf~ and the han. gentleman probably had inside information anyway that they would not take 60,000 pelts this year, could the han. gentleman tell the House now, will this $500,000 that has been saved by the administration be turned over to the Sealers' Association to help them to set up a processing method in this Province for processing the seal pelts here in Newfoundland? MR. SPEAKER: The han. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. MORGAN: Well, ftr. Speaker, to comment on the

preamble to the hon. gentleman's question, the fact that I had inside information on what was going to happen 5820

May 31, 1983 Tape 2.744 EC - 2 MR. MORGAN: this Spring, I guess it means I am talking to God because it ~as

an act of God when the ice conditions came in to the point where the fisher­ men could not participate in the harvest of seals. MR. NEARY: were you? MR. MORGAN: You were talking to the Premier, And surely, nobody could prejudge that, whether there would be bad ice conditions or good ice conditions. They could not prejudge what would be the catch this year. So it was not a hoax and it was not any presumption on the part of anybody what was going to happen.

The fact is in a normal sealing season, a normal seal fishery, you would have seen more than 100,000 pelts bought by that same company, : This year they felt they could not afford to buy any more than 60,000 pelts so we were going to cover the cost of buying and processing the remaining amount over 60,000. So it was not a hoax, it was a very sincere programme. It was put forward to help the sealers and,if they had had a good Spring, it would have been indeed a good help to them in the buying of their pelts. But, as I say again, it was, I guess you can term it,

an act of God that the ice came in in such a way as it did, the :most severe ice conditions we have had in the last twenty years, 5821

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2745 SD - 1 MR. MORGAN: with the exception of 1974 even, there were worse conditions this year than in 1974 and it was beyond the control of any man. As it pertains to helping the Sealers' Association, we are working hand in hand with the federal Minister of Fisheries (Mr. De Bane) and the federal Department of Fisheries in conjunction with the Sealers' Association to do a~~ we can to help revitilize the sealing industry.

And what has now been suggested and agreed to by the federal minister, we suggested the establishment of a revitilization committee or commission, a Sealing Industry Revitilization Committee, whereby we will not sit by until next year's seal fishery, we will work over the next number of months,throughout the Summer and the Fall in particular, in ensuring that every step is taken to revitilize the sealing industry. If that means further processing here in Newfoundland, it will be looked at in a very sincere and a very deep,analytical way, we will analysis all aspects of it.

We are looking at, in fact, a partially constructed plant located down in Fleur de Lys initially built for the purpose of a crab processing operation. And because the federal government are not going to issue any more licences MR. NEARY: Is that a Montreal firm? MR. RIDEOUT: MR. NEARY: No, that is Newfoundland. Well 1 what about the Montreal company? Where are they trying to set up. MR. SPEAKER (Russell}: Order, please~ AN HON. MEMBER: MR. NEARY: MR. SPEAKER: MR. MORGAN: Seal Cove. Seal Cove. Order, please! It is a plant, Mr.

Speaker, partically constructed by a company that was going to process crab and the federal government did not issue the necessary 5822

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2745 SD - 2 MR. MORGAN: harvesting licences to the fishermen in the area to enable the plant to be completed and carry on processing operations. The Sealers' Association, Mr. Speake~, are looking at that building in a serious way and it has made proposals to both governments with the possibility of taking th .at partically completed plant in Fleur de Lys and turning it into a processing operation on their own in the form of a co-operative. And we will work with that Sealers' Association for that purpose. But more importantly, Mr.

Speaker, we have agreed, despite the fact the Opposition is always complaining about the present Minister of Fisheries and his travels and selling fish and promoting the sale of fish, we indeed intend to travel extensively this coming Fall. The federal minister and his officials have agreed to it,and the officials of the Newfoundland government, the Sealers' Association and myself may very well take a worldwide tour in all the countries we can think of where there are potential to sell seal skins. And we will have no apology to anyone.

If we go to Russia, if we go to Japan, if we go to Taiwan, if we go to Yugoslavia, if we go to Czechoslovakia where else can I think of? - Hungary and South Korea. All of these places, Mr. Speaker, yours truly will be travelling to this Fall if everything goes well. MR. SPEAKER (_Russell): Order, please! I must remind the hon. minister that answers to questions should be brief. SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave. 5823

May 31, 1983 MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : MR. NEARY: Tape No. 2746 NM - 1 The han. Leader of the Opposition. I hope if the han. gentleman travels to all these countries that he will not be telling any more jokes. Mr. Speaker, I noticed when the han. gentleman said he did not confer with God 1 he looked at the Premier's seat, he looked up at the vacant seat. Mr. Speaker, I have disposed of the hon. gentleman and his charade on that $500,000, now I want to come to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Dawe) about another matter that is of concern. MR. MARSHALL: I would like to hear the question. MR.

NEARY: Well 1 of course!Tell your coll ·eagues just to restrain themselves. Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the Ocean Ranger for a moment with the han. gent'leman. A lady out in Corner Brook, and I agree with this lady, would like to have the Ocean Ranger searched, a thorough search done, to see if there are any bodie:s aboard of the Ocean Ran ger before it is moved. Now would the hon. gentleman tell the House if the administration have made any representation to Mobil, to ODECO and the c_ompanies involved, to see that that is done?

Because I think there are a lot of people in this Province who would like to see one last,thorough search made of the Ocean Ranger before it is moved out in deeper water and put on the bottom. MR. SPEAKER: The han. President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, in connection with this whole situation, and this whole question, the Province has addressed this with the sensitivity that this particular issue requires. Its consultation has been with the oil companies, with 5824

May 31, 1983 Tape No . 2746 Nl-1 - 2 MR. MARSllAL .L : the federal government, and, I suppose, last but not least , as a matter of fact foremost, with the Ocean Ranger Foundation and with the families of the Ocean Ranger Foundation . Now, Mr. Speaker, we have consulted \o~ith the bereaved primarily with respect to this .

All I can say to the hon . gentleman is that measures that have been taken have been taken after the fullest consultation , and, whether the hon . gentleman realizes it or not, the fact of the matter is the issues involved are issues that are very sensitive to people concerned, and I \o~ould say to you , Mr . Speaker, and to members of the hon. House that I thin.l< \o~ithin the realm of good taste, and within the realm of sensitivity of the people concerned, that I do not intend to 5825

May 31, 1983 Tape 2747 PK - 1 MR. MARSHALL: respond any further to this question, other than to indicate to the han. gentleman that the wishes and the concerns of all people -concerned have been taken into account with the sensitivity that the question desires. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The han. Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I realize it is a very sensitive matter 1 but I believe the han. gentleman should tell the House 1 and,Mr. Speaker, we have the right to ask questions about this matter - about this very sensitive matter which is something that should be dealt with.

I am asking the han. gentleman to tell the House if indeed representations were made to the various authorities to have this search made before they go out to move the Ocean Ranger? And would the han. gentleman also tell the House if the administration is prepared to take the initiative and have a memorial service, Mr. Speaker, before the rig is moved out into deeper water? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr.

Speaker, the representations that have been received have been representations that have been received very sensitivel y by this government after conferring primarily with the Ocean Ranger Foundation. With respect to taking the initiative, the initiative, Mr. Speaker, I think 1 as all Newfoundlanders will be aware 1 the initiative is within the province of the survivors of the people concerned, and it is to these people that the government has related.

As to the situation with respect to memorial services or any services of that nature, I can only repeat once again that the wishes of the Ocean Ranger Foundation have been taken into account. I attended about three or four weeks ago the first annual meeting of the Ocean Ranger Foundation at which time the 5826

May 31, 1983 Tape 2747 PK - 2 MR. :MARSHALL: particular question was addressed? and I have no intention of debating it at this particular time in the Public Assembly. Certainly the Public Assembly is the place for public information of public import to be debated and to be brought before the public, but there are times, Mr. Speaker, when that has to be balanced against the private concerns, and the private feelings of people concerned. And this is what I do when I respond to this question.

I can tell the hon. gentleman that the provincial government ' the federal government, indeed everybody concerned has been very, very concerned and sensitive to the wishes of the survivors and people concerned and that is who we are responding to. And I do not care, with all due respects to the hon. gentleman and his right to ask questions in a public forum1to respond any further than I already have to that question. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER (Russell): The hon. member for Terra Nova. MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education (Ms.

Verge), In view of the fact that Summer is fast approaching, and before we know it we will be into September and many students will be planning to attend post-secondary institutions,and their plans to do that will be contingent upon what is happening with respect to student aid, whether the government plans to change some of the oppressive changes which they initiated with respect 5827

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2748 MJ - 1 MR. LUSH: to student aid,and in view of the fact that students have presented a brief many many weeks ago, I wonder if the minister can indicate what favourable changes will be made in that student aid programme to assist students in ~he next few weeks in making up their minds whether or not they will be attending university or some of the other post-secondary institutions in the Province ? Because if changes are not made many of them will not be able to attend. MS .. VERGE: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : MS. VERGE: The han. the Minister of Education. Mr.

Speaker, later this week I will be making a public announcement about the changes in the Province's student aid plan that will become effective September 1983.

As the hon. member indicated 1 l did receive a formal submission from the Council of the Student Union of Memorial University, that was on Tuesday,May 10, when I had a lenghty meeting with representatives of the CSU, Following the meeting, it was on May 10, .three weeks ago, as I indicated to the students I had copies of the~r submission distributed to each and every member of the Cabinet- Following that there was careful consideration of the contents of the document and the precise recommendations made therein by Cabinet and all of that process,which has just recently been completed,will lead to final decisions wh~ch,as I have said, I will be announcing publicly later this week- I should say, Mr.

Speaker, that I will at the same time be responding in writing to the CSU commenting point by point on the contents of their formal submission. MR, LUSH: Mr. Speaker. MR . SPEAKER;: The han. the member for Terra Nova. MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, to help relieve the frustrations of parents and students throughout the Province, 5828

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2748 MJ - 2 MR. LUSH: I wonder if the minister can indicate what dir-ection some of these changes will take, whether they will be in the form of reducing the ceiling loan or just what the nature of the changes will be? MS. VERGE: Mr. Speaker. 5829

Ma y 31, 19 83 MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : MS. VERGE: Tape No. 2749 SD - 1 The hon. Minister of Education. Mr. Speaker, I will give full information on the details of the changes in the student aid programme that will become effective in September later in the week. I will make a public announcement later in the week and will be glad to answer any questions about it after that. MR. LUSH: MR. SPEAKER: MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Terra Nova. Mr. Speaker, The Daily News carried a rather star ~ ling story today about the St. John's firemen. Therefore, I have a question for the Minister of Justice (Mr.

Ottenheimer) as to whether or not he has received any formal representation from citizens of St. John's or from any other group that would give any substance to the story today carried in The Daily News mainly to the effect that the St. John's firemen are undermanned and that the city could be in great danger if a fire started and many other items referring to the low morale of firemen. I wonder if the minister can give a general comment on that situation? MR. SPEAKER: MR. OTTENHEIMER: The hon. Minister of Justice. Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to respond to the han. gentleman's question.

The question, of course, is based on a report in The Daily News of today •·s date and quotes a source, unidentified, who was not a member, apparently, of the Fire Department. So, of course, we have The Daily News ,and I think the hon. Leader of th .e Opposition (Mr. Neary) will agree that he is not always in agreement with what is in ~he Dail y News. SOME HON • MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. OTTENHEIMER: We have the source unidentified, but being unidentified as being an unidentified person who is not in the Fire Department. So that would be one out of 5830

May 31, 1983 .Tape No. 2749 SD -2 MR. OTTENHEIMER: 560,000 Newfoundlanders that t·Tould be the source. But, tlr. Speaker, I can certainly give the gentleman assurance. that,to the best of my knowledge, morale is high 1 to the best of my l<no'tlledge, and indeed I have made inquiries , the force is not undermanned or the shifts are not undermanned, nor is there any great imminent danger to which the hon. gentleman referred. MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : MR. LUSH: The hpn. member for Terra Nova. Mr. Speaker, because the source, of course, t'las unidentified and was not a part of the St.

John's Fire Department. as I am sure the minister t·Tould agree there is no necessity or no reason to dismiss this situation which seems to be very serious,according 5831

May 31' 1983 Tape 2750 EC - 1 MR. LUSH: to the write-up and, as I have said, it is certainly no reason to dismiss it because the source is not identified. Indeed, there is probably a real reason as to why the source is an unidentified one insomuch,again 1as the

article suggested that these men are not allowed to speak out because of the nature of their Collective Bargaining Act, that these people are suppressed, they are not allowed to voice their own opinion. MR. MARSHALL: MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Order, please! The hon. the President of the Council on a point of order. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is making wild accusations and innuendoes that are completely outside of the rules of this House. If Your Honour will consult with Beauchesne, he is also making a speech - MR. LUSH: MR. MARSHALL: MR. NEARY: MR.

SPEAKER: A good one, too. - and once again, a very bad one. To that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition,to that point of order. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the hon. gentleman had his nasty pills again today before he came into the House. My hon. colleague is merely giving a

preamble to his question, Mr. Speaker. How can the hon. the minister understand the question if my hon. colleague is not allowed a brief

preamble? That ~res what my colleague was doing and that is allowed in every legislature throughout the British Commonwealth, Mr. Speaker. SOME HON. MEMBERS : MR. NEARY: Wrong! Wrong ! Right! 5832

May 31, 1983 Tape 2750 EC -2 MR. SPR~ER (Russell): Order, please! Order, please! The non. the member for Terra Nova (Mr. Lush) was recognized on a supplementary question. MR. MARSHALL: Your Honour 1 Mr. Speaker 1 5833

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2751 NM - 1 MR. MARSHALL: has drawn the hon. member for Terra Nova {_Mr. Lush) to order. The hon. member for Terra Nova has been advised, in accordance with the established rules, that he is not to ask questions that have imputations connected with them. And he is just continuing the imputations and the wild accusations in another text without asking the question. So I think the hon. gentleman, Mr. Speaker, should be directed to ask his question, or to resume his seat. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : to that point of order. SOME HON. MEMBERS: The hon. Leader of the Opposition Oh, oh! MR.

SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious now that the Government House Leader Utr. Marshall) is trying to manipulate the Chair, trying to direct the Chair how to rule. In actu~l fact.Your Honour is quite capable of enforcing the rules in this House. Your Honour let my colleague go ahead because Your Honour knew that he was in order. My colleague is merely saying, "Is the government aware of this? Is the government aware of that?" And these are questions, Mr. Speaker, that are in order. MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! The Chair can only repeat that in asking a supplmentary question no

preamble should be necessary and I woul~ for a second time, request the hon. member for Terra Nova to be very precise with his question, otherwise I will have to rule him out of order. MR. LUSH: A question to the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker, Can the minister confirm whether or not fire alarm boxes have been removed from their places of location in the city as a cost saving measure? MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Minister of Jus.tice. 5834

May 31, 1983 Tape No . 2751 NM - 2 MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hon. Minister of Justice. MR . OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, I am glad we got to the precision of the question . First of all,in the first questi on the hon. gentleman was totally 1...rong by referring to imminent danger of the city, a conflagration about to boil us all up. And then 1 in the second question, he refers to the supression of the firemen, tllat nobody can speak and he was equally inaccurate.

But finally, t1velve minutes later, we came to the precise que .stion, could I confirm that the fire alarm boxes have been removed and that this has been done to save money? N01o1, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious where the hon. gentleman got his information . The fire alarm boxes are not on salary . They do not eat much . The.y need a bit of paint, a bit of oil occasionally. I am very pleased to confirm that the number of fire alarm boxes from 1980 to 1982 has been reduced from 507 in 1980 to 90 in 1982. 5835

May 31, 1983 Tape 2752 P.~ - 1 MR. OTTENHEIMER: 417 fire alarm boxes are no longer in existence, declared redundant. An example of the callousness of this government in its treatment of fire alarm boxes. SOME HON. MEMBERS : Hear, hear! MR. OTTENHEIMER: They did not get severance pay now. Did we do it to save money? No. I will tell the hon. gentleman why we did it. The fire alarm boxes were originally put in years or decades ago when there were very few telephones. Then,when the telephones got more plentiful, the fire alarm boxes came out of the areas in which there were telephones.

And it was found that the fire alarm boxes were the cause of a great number of false alarms. That is the reason we took them out. Because from 1980 to 1982 1the number of these poor fire alarm boxes which have been dismissed from service, having gone from 507 down to 90, low and behold; the number of false alarms has gone from 615 down to 270. SOME RON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : The hen. member for Terra Nova. MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed at the arrogance of the members opposite, Mr. Speaker, talking about such a serious matter , Mr. Speaker, as the lives of people of St. John's.

And I have heard of examples before where hen. members opposite laughed, Mr. Speaker, but they did not get to laugh last. Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very serious matter and I am surprised - SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh! MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! MR. LUSH: - at the jovial way that hon. members are treating this very, very important topic. And, Mr. Speaker, if it lacks substance, we on this side of the House are delighted. If it lacks substance 5836

May 31 , 1983 Tape 2752 PK - 2 MR. LUSH: that is fine, but at least the people of St. John's have a right to know what the situation is. Mr. Speaker, another reference was made to the situation 1 It said that it was considered that fifty-six men be the minimum to be on duty at 5837

'- May 31~ 1983 Tape No. 2753 MJ- 1 MR. LUSH: any one time · and the source says that there was a situation where ther~ were forty-six people on duty. Mr. Speaker, that is ten or so - I think it was forty-seven, fifty-six was the minimum and on a particular situation there were forty­ seven men on duty so that is nine below what the minimum recommendation was. SOME HON. MEMBERS: MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : MR. LUSH: MR. SPEAKER: awaiting a question. MR. LUSH: Oh, oh! Order, please! So, Mr. Speaker, when the minister - Order, please! Order,please! The Chair is very patiently The question is, Mr.

Speaker, can the minister verify that this indeed was the circumstances or is the minister a.ware of it? Did he receive any representation from anybody to this regard, that there were less than the minimum number of people of the St, John's Fire Brigade on duty working with less than the men required? MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: MR. OTTENHEIMER: The hon. the Minister of Justice. No, Mr. Speaker. The manning requirements of the St.

John's Fire Department and of the various stations under it, there is a policy with respect to that and that policy is implemented by the chief of the Fire Department and his Deputy Chiefs. And the policy is a good one, they are professional people, they know their job and I am confident they are doing it well. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear , hear! MR. SPEAKER: Order,please! The time for the Question Period has expired, Before we proceed with the other 5838

May 31, 1983 Tape t-To. 2753 MJ .,.. 2 MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : business of the day 1 l would like to welcome to the galleries today a delegation from the Buchans Town Council led by Mayor Walsh with Councillors Power and Lane. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear! PRESENTING REPORTS BY STAND;I:NG AND S:PE~l'AL COMMITTEES MR. SIMMS: MR. SPEAKER: Recreation and Youth. MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker. The han. the Minister of Culture, In accordance w;i, th . ;=;ection 19 (4) of the Canada Garnes Park Commission Act, Mr.

Speaker, I wish to table the Canada Game~ Park Commission financial ptatement for the year ending Ma;rch 31, 1982. MR. OTTENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, MR. SPEA,KER: MR. OTTENHEIMER: The han. the Minister of Justice. Mr, Speaker, I would like to table a copy of the Thirty-second Annual Report of the Board of Commissioners of Public Utilities,and a1so the latest report of the Newfoundland Legal A;i,d Commission for the year ended March 31, 1982. ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS FOR WHICH NOTI~E HAS BEEN GlVEN MRS • NEWHOOK: Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAXER: The hon. the Minister of Municipal Affairs. MRS • NEWHOOK: Mr.

Speaker, I wish to sub~it the answer to Question 87 put by the M.H,A. for Eagle River (Mr. Hiscock). 5839

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2754 SD - 1 ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. MARSHALL: Motion 39, Bill No. 53. Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act, 1976". MR. SPEAKER {Russell): The hen. President of the Council. If the hen. minister speaks now he will close the debate. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, the hen. member for the Strait of Belle Isle {Mr. Roberts) ,when I introduced this bill yesterday 1 asked certain questions pertaining to the purpose of this act.

I outlined most of them yesterday,but the real reason why this bill has to be passed through the House at this particular time is that it would enable the government to declare the reversion of the mineral and surface rights in the St. Lawrence area held by the Aluminum Company of Canada from which production of fluorspar was obtainable, and the proposed amendment makes it clear that the government is not obligated to pay any compensation for the reverted mineral or surface rights to this particular company.

I emphasize again, generally speaking, it is a general policy of this government that companies coming into this Province for the purpose of exploration and development of our natural resources come in on the understanding that they will, in fact, explore and develop these resources for the benefit of the people of the Province 1 who in actual fact own the mineral rights themselves. And where,aswasthe case of the Aluminum Company of Canada, that it walked off and left the situation which it left in St.

Lawrence, that this government has no hestitation whatsoever in bringing in the measure 1 which it indicated it would bring in at the time,which is confirmed by this bill 1 to seek reversion of the mineral rights 1 which it h~ld,without compensation. . - Clauses 7 and 8, the clauses in question, Mr. Speaker, will assure that whatever compensation is derived from this resource 5840

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2754 SD - 2 MR . MARSHALL: is going to be compensation to the people who are entitled to it , that is,the people of Newfoundland and Labrador 1 and the people of St . Lawrence in particular. I move second reading . On motion, a bill , "An Act To Amend The Mineral Act, 1976", read a second time, ordered refe rred to a Committee of the Whole on tomorrow . (Bill No . 53) . Motion, second reading of a bill , "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statue Law". (Bill No. 57) . MR. SPEAKER (Ayh;ard) : MR . MARSHALL: The hon . President of the Council. Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the 5841

May 31, 1983 Ta pe 2755 EC - 1 MR. MARSHALL: Minister of Justice (Mr.Ottenheimer), I move the adoption of this bill. Now, there is no bill which this government brings in which is housekeeping, it is sa£ekee~in0, all bills are, but this is not really a routine housekeeping bill but occasionally there arise certain errors in various statutes which have to be amended and the purpose of this bill is to give effect to these particular amendments. There are amendments here, for instance, to the Landlord And Tenant Residential Tenancy Act to correct a mistake in

section reference; there is an amendment to the Mining and Minerals

section which will correct the wording of

Section 10 of the act to correspond with the wording in the heading of that section. This is the general type of amendment, Mr. Speaker, that the bill addresses itself to. · I would move second reading and if the hon. the Leader of the Opposition (~tr. Neary) or any member of the House has any questions withxespect to itJ I would be glad to xespond to them. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. .MR. SPEAI<ER (Aylward): The hon. the Leader of the Opposition. "MR. NEA~Y: No, Mr. Speaker, we have no questions. As the hon. gentleman said, if there is an example of a housekeeping bill in the Legislature, this is it.

All it does is correct mistakes, omissions and things that were put in in error in previous legislation. For instance, in clause 2, it says, 'This amendment would correct a mistaken cross-reference in the Animal Protection Act.' MR. SIMMS: MR. NEARY: That is for your protection. That is for the protection of hon. gentlemen on the other side, Mr. Speaker. 5842

May 31, 1983 Tape 2755 EC - 2 t-1R . NEARY : Mr. Speaker , we will whole- heartedly support this bill, but in so doing, we have to say that this will not put bread on the tables of the ordinary people in this Province who are without jobs , people \oTho are faced with high ele ctricit y bills, people who are faced with high taxes, peopl e who are unemployed, especially young people, Mr . Speaker . It will not help the crisis in the fishing industry , the crisis in Lab rador West, Corner Brook, Buchans, the Baie Verte Peninsula, Bell Island, Goose Bay and all the other areas of New found land that are on the misery list, Mr. S:9eaker. Thi s is the kind of insignificant legiBlation 5843

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2756 JV - 1 MR. NEARY: that we are forced to debate in this House. Possibly, as the hon. gentleman says, it may be essential, but I have grave doubts about that. In this whole session, Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of legislation we have been forced to debate. They will not give us anything to get our teeth into, they will not produce any plans to deal with the horrible state of the Newfoundland economy, they will not lay anything on the table of the House to stimulate the Newfoundland economy or to deal with record unemployment in this Province. This is the kind of nonsense, Mr.

Speaker, all during this session of the House that we have been forced, by han. gentlemen there opposite, to debate. So, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the sooner we dispose of this the better and let us get on to something more positive and constructive that will help the people of this Province. MR. CALLAN: MR. SPEAKER (Aylward): MR. CALLAN: Mr. Speaker. The han. the member for Bellevue. Mr.

Speaker, I want to have a few words on this Bill 57, 'An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law.' It says, "The purpose of this Bill is to bring before the Assembly matters in statute law that require legislative correction." Mr. Speaker, as long as the minister is on housekeeping bills, and as long as the minister is dealing with errors in the statute law, perhaps I may suggest a couple of other amendments or perhaps new bills that at least should be brought in to this Legislature. For example, one of them, Mr.

Speaker, concerns a constituent of mine who was accused by a wildlife officer of taking moose in an area - 5844

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2757 NM - l MR. CALLAN: that he did not have a licence for, that was the accusation, the ~entleman went to court, Mr. Speaker, it cost him $1600 , and the case was dismissed. Then the Department of Justice, not satisfied with that, appealed the decision, The case went before the court a second time and was dismissed again. Mr. Speaker, not only did this cause great inconvenience, great embarrassment for him and his family, but it cost him $1600 out-of-pocket when obviously, Mr.

Speaker, the whole thing was predicated on wrong information, information that did not stand up in a court of law, and it did not stand up in the appeal process as well. So, Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about amendments and housekeepi~g bills, obviously there are many, many other examples of - MR. MARSHALL: Anomalies. MR. CALLAN: - we are talking about errors as :well, and we are talking about bills and about laws that are unfair to people in this Province. Mr. Speaker, while I am on the topic, I might suggest another possible - DR. COLLINS : Read the bill. Read the bill. MR. CALLAN: I read the bill. DR.

COLLINS: Read it again. MR. MARSHALL: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : A point of order, the hon. President of the Council. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman has any particular concerns about his constituents, any injustices that he feels have been visited upon his constituents, all he has · to do is advise the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) ., and the Minister of Justice will respond to it. The hon. gentleman may from time to time 5845

Mi!Y 31, 1983 Tape No. 2757 NM - 2 MR. ~..ARSHALL: have injustices that he feels should be brought up in the House, but they should be brought up at the proper time. Mr. Speaker, this bill relates to anomalies and errors in legislation and it brings before the House the particular errors that are here. MR . CAL LAN : Th at is ri ght . MR. MA RS HALL : Well, the hon. gentleman is in bringing up matters that he feels should be in it, but are not anomalies or erros. What he seeks to do is to have a redress of some grievance which he is advancing, so he is the nature of Address in Reply.

I.f the hon. gentleman wants to bring any particular grievances to my colleague 's attention, I am sure he would be quite prepared to look int .o them. But in the :meant ·ime I do not think it is appropriate to be debating it under the heading of this particular bill. 5846

May 31, 1983 Tape 2758 PK - 1 MR. SPEAKER (Aylward ) : Order, please! To that point of order 1 the hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, obviously the hon. gentleman is rather testy today, MR. CALLAN: closed. MR. NEARY: anxious to get the House closed. The general title He wants to get the House Yes, the hon. gentleman is We are debating Bill No. 57, Mr. Speaker, of this bill is, , "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law". !"Iy hon. colleague is raising a couple of items that he thinks should be included in any future bills that are brought into this House.

He is making suggestions, observations and recommendations to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Ottenheimer) and to the Minister responsible for Culture, Recreation and Youth (Mr. Simms) on the government benches, and I think my hon. friend should be allowed to carry on uninterrupted, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : To that point of order. I have to rule that there is a point of order. The hen. member might well have specific cases that he would like brought up. I would suggest that ~they could be brought up in a wider debate such as the Address in Reply or the Budget debate.

If he has any further comments on the :specifics of this bill 1I certainly will hear them. The hen. President of the Council speaks now he will close the debate. MR. MARSHALL: the hon. gentleman said. I want to refer to what You cannot allow what the hon. gentleman said to go unanswered no matter what the lateness, if there is any lateness of the occasion. There have 5847

May 31, 1983 Tape 2758 PK - 2 MR. MARSHALL: to be times with any efficient operation of a government, as an efficient operation of a household,where there have to be bills of this nature that correct anomalies or errors. The han. gentleman should not paint this session as being one that has not been full of meaningful legislation,as well as a meaningful Budget and a meaningful Throne Speech.

We have had the advisory council on the economy bill enacted, we had a bill yesterday that related to the Petroleum and Gas Act 1 and we have other measures that are before this House and have already been considered that are going to have a real impact on the people of this Province. Just because we pass one bill which is necessarily a housekeeping bill is not an indication that this session and this sitting of the House has not been one that has been full of very positive measures which are beneficial to the people of this Province. MR.

SPEAKER (Aylward): Is it the pleasure of the House that the said bill be read a second time? On motion, a bill, "An Act To Remove Anomalies And Errors In The Statute Law", read a second time,ordered referred to a Committee of the Whole House presently by leave. (Bill No. 57). MR. MARSHALL: I move the House resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker. On motion, that the Hou~e resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair. 5848

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2759 MJ - l COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MR. CHAIRMAN (McNicholas) : Order, please! MR. MARSHALL: MR. CHAIRMAN: DR. COLLINS: MR. CHAIRMAN: DR. COLLINS: Motion 2, Bill No. 48, Mr. Chairman. Order, please! Motion 2, Bill No. 48. Mr. Chairman. The han. the Minister of Finance. Mr.

Chairman, under this motion we are debating the resolution, "That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend The Loan and Guarantee Act, 1957, the Act No. 70 of 1957, to provide for the advance of loans to and the guarantee of the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by or loans advanced to certain corporations." In a word, Mr. Speaker, each year the government has to report to the House any loans or guarantees it entered into since the last report. These loans are contingent liabilities on the Province, they are part of the indirect debt of the Province and they are laid out in the bill, Mr.

Speaker. I would comment on one or two of them and 1of course,if hon. members wish 1 I would be glad to answer any questions on the others but it will be noted that in regard to Marystown Shipyard and the Denominational Committees and the Computer Services, government had previously given these organizations letters of assurance which are somewhat less than formal guarantees. 5849

May 21, 1983 Tape No •. 2 760 NM - 1 DR. COLLINS: The Auditor General raised some question about whether government should have a pnactice of giving letters of assurance, because strictly speaking they were contingent liabilities, and if they were contingent liabilities why not make them formal guarantees. Mr. Chairman, that is what we have done in regard to those three organizations. We have converted what were essentially letters of assurance into formal guarantees behind which the Province stands. Many of the others relate to the fisheries, Mr.

Speaker, where government stood behind certain fishing operations,particularly in terms of their working capital. As hon. members know, many of the fishing operations in this Province have obligations towards the fishermen who supply them raw product 1 and they have to discharge those obligations to the fishermen sometimes before they obtain revenues from their outlets, where they sell their product.

And during that intervening period they have a need for working capital and they go to the banks typically for that working capital,and the banks frequently ask them to have the government stand behind them during that brief period 1 between the time when they pay the fishermen and the time when they get their revenues in, and some of these guarantees are of that nature. I think tho.se are essentially the main points, Mr. Chairman, but if there are any other issues that arise I will be glad to try to answer them. So I move the resolution. MR. CHAIRMAN (McNicholas): MR. NEARY: The han. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. (l}ainnan, it is obvious that the strategy now of the administration is to clean the deck before we get to Bill 59 where han. gentlemen there opposite anticipate that we are going to dig in for the next couple of weeks. What they are doing now is they are clearing the deck, Mr. Chairman, leaving Bill No. 59 until last. The House 5850

May 21, 1983 Tape no. 2760 NM - 2 MR. NEARY : was in session, the Speaker was in the Chair but . the Government House Leader (Mr . ~!arshall) decided to put the House into Committee of the tihole so we could have an item by item analysis of certain bills in Committee and we could deal with this bill, ~o Amend The Loan And Guarantee Act . So, Mr . Chairman, they can use all the strategy they want , there is no way that they are going to shove through this devious piece of labour legislation at the last minute. There is no 1t1ay . 5851

May 31, 1983 Tape 2761 EC - 1 MR. NEARY: There is going to be a gigantic struggle. We will hang her down if we have to. We realize, Mr. Chairman, that there are forty-four against eight and they can outvote us and there is a limit, I suppose, there is a limit to how long we can debate. But we will debate as long as is necessary. They can clear the deck all they want, Mr.Chairrnan, and make way for the Minister of Labour and Manpower (Mr. Dinn) to bring in this anti­ labour piece of legislation, this obscene bill that the hon. gentleman is going to bring in, Mr.

Chairman, this insidious piece of legislation that the hon. gentleman is going to introduce now as soon as we get all the bills through Committee and get the Loan and Guarantee Act passed. Now, Mr. Chairman, in connection with the Loan and Guarantee Act, on item number one, I would like to ask the hon. gentleman a question or two: Blue Ocean Products Limited - $25,000, a loan guarantee to Riche Foods of Canada Limited; this guarantee allowed Blue Ocean Products Limited to purchase the plant at Branch from Newfoundland Quick Freeze Limited. Now, it is my understanding, Mr.

Chairman, that when the government entered into this deal to dispose of Newfoundland Quick Freeze, they gave the money to the company, they put up the capital neces­ sary for the company to purchase Newfoundland Quick Freeze and then they also gave the company $300,000 or $350,000 operating capital. Now, Mr. Chairman, we were told in this House, I believe by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) ,that the reason the administration entered into this arrangement was so that the new owners of Newfoundland Quick Freeze could renovate the plants that they had like the one in Branch.

We were told that was the whole idea of giving this loan and guarantee to the 5852

May :n , 1983 Tape 2761 EC - 2 MR. NEARY: new owners of Newfoundland Quick Freeze, so that they could renovate and upgrade the plants in Branch and St. Bride's . Now , Mr . Chairman, what did the new owners of Newfoundland Quick Freeze do with these two plants? What did they do with the plants? They disposed of them . So, as far as I can see, Mr . Chairman, there is a breach of an agreement here . Now we have Blue Ocean Products, another company, asking for $25,000 to purchase the plant at Branch, to buy the plant from the new owners of Newfoundland Quick Freeze, \>lho have already been given 5853

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2762 JV - 1 MR. NEARY: money to operate these plants, the one in Branch and the one in St. Bride's. So what are the ·new owners of Newfoundland Quick Freeze doing now are they just operating the one plant at Bay Bulls? Is that what they are doing? Mr. Chairman, I believe the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins) owes it to this House to straighten us out on this matter. Somebody is pulling the wool over somebody's eyes here. The Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Morgan) will recall telling us about this deal. Cape Pine Fisheries I think is the new name .of the company.

Cape Pine Fisheries purchased the assets of Newfoundland Quick Freeze and the money was put up by the taxpayers of this Province and then they were given $300,000 or so working capital and the deal was that they had to keep these two plants, Branch and St. Bride's, intact and operate these plants as well. Last year the plant in St. Bride's became the subject of controversy because the Cape Pine Fisheries did not want to operate it and they farmed it out to a new operator.

They entered into some kind of a deal with a new operator and they farmed it out, even though they were given government loans and guarantees and grants to operate that plant. There is something wrong here, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to hear the hon. Minister of Fisheries comment on this matter. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN(McNicholas): The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. MORGAN: Mr.

Chairman, for clarification on that item on Blue Ocean Products, the guaranteed loan for that company, the plant at Branch was not owned by Newfoundland Quick Freeze when they went into voluntary liquidation or receivership, call it what you wish, 5854

May 31, 1983 Tape No . 2762 JV - 2 MR . MORGAN : the plant wa~owned by the Newfoundland Government .However,there was equipment in the plant that was placed there to enable the operation to continue at the time it was leased to Net-1foundland Quick Freeze. When Newfoundland Quick Freeze went into voluntary liquidation,and we tried to find buyers or a buyer to buy the assets of Newfoundland Quick Freeze I' in this case Blue Ocean to~as the company that was interested in moving in to operate , this plant under a lea sed basis from the Newfoundland Department of Fisheries ,the plant at Branch. 5855

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2763 SD ~ 1 MR. MORGAN: This $25,000 here is in connection with the plant at Branch 1 owned by the Newfoundland government. It was earlier leased to Newfoundland Quick Freeze, when Quick Freeze went into liquidation the new company moved in and they wanted to acquire the equipment in that plant. This was the main purpose, in fact, the purpose for that loan guarantee. Riche Foods of Canada, of course, is the principal owner of Newfoundland Quick Freeze as it was called, and the assets were purchased by, in fact, three different companies.

Blue Ocean was only one player at Branc~ - they only took the Branch 'operation and that was, as I say, just the equipment in the plant, the plant is owned by the Newfoundland government. At St. Bride's, Cape Pine Fisheries took it over. MR. NEARY: And last year they did not operate. MR. MORGAN: And last year they did not operate, that is right, there was a real problem there. And this · year Cape Pine Fisheries is in the process of selling that plant at St. Brides and having a new owner operate the facility. But at Branch the situation is a bit different, as I just said.

And at Witless Bay the plant again is owned now by Cape Pine. Cape Pine took St. Bride' ·s, took Witless Bay - my c?lleagu~ from that district is not here in the House - I am sure those are all the operations they took over. The one at Dildo which was also owned by Newfoundland Quick Freeze, was taken over by a company called Atlantic Fisheries. And, in fact,one of the principals of this new company was ~n earlier employee of Newfoundland Quick Freeze.

So this· $25,000 guarantee to Blue Ocean was for the equipment at Branch which was owned by Riche Products, in other words, Newfoundland Quick Freeze, and was being installed in a plant owned by the Newfoundland government. And this loan guarantee covers the acquisition of that equipment by Newfoundland Quick Freeze •. 5856

May 31, 198'3 Tape No. 2763 SD - 2 MR. MORGA.~ : Cape Pine Fisheries got a similar loan guarantee last year as was mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary}, for the other parts of the operation -St. Bride's and Witless Bay. However, in St. Bride's they had a problem that is being ironed out now. But as for the other parts of the Newfoundland Quick Freeze assets there seems to be no furth~r problem. MR. NEARY: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN (McNicholas}: MR. NEARY: The hon. Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the hon. minister could tell the House if Cape Pine Fisheries have .received any roan guarantees in this fiscal year? 5857

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2764 MJ - 1 MR. NEARY: Before the election they were given grants . and loans and guarantees to purchase the Newfoundland Quick Freeze Operations and to operate these two plants. Have they received any loans and guarantees this year? MR. MORGAN: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN (McNicholas): The hon. the Minister of Fisheries. MR. MORGAN: Mr. Chairman, I assume we are dealing just with the items here 1 which are listed.

Of course it is obvious that the Cape Pine Fisheries is not listed in this Loan and Guarantee Act,which covers the loan guarantees during the past year,but I will answer the question. The question is that the company, Cape Pine Fisheries,has indeed applied for assistance from the Newfoundland Government recently in the form of a governrrent guaranteed loan and that application is being processed by the Newfoundland Government through the three Departments, Fisheries, Finance and Development. The application is being processed and they are asking for - MR. NEARY: MR. MORGAN: How much are they asking for?

I do not know the exact amount but if I recall it is in the vicinity of $150,000 to $200,000 MR. NEARY: But it has not been finalized yet? MR. MORGAN: - asking for that kind of assistance to enable them to operate as a company, to operate groundfish operations and to tie into the Witless Bay plant. And at the time the decision was made ,of course,for the Cape Pine Fisheries the Cabinet decided that a crab processing licence would be issued to that company to make the plant at Witless Bay viable,because from the information received from Newfoundland Quick Freeze the plant would never be viable on groundfish.

The company was granted a crab processing licence and that licence was not utilized last year because they were getting the plant renovated and equipment installed etc .. So it is primarily for the purpose of getting 5858

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2764 MJ - 2 MR. MORGAN: a start-up on the operations which were not in operation last year,earlier owned py Newfoundland Quick Freeze. 5859

May 31, 1983 Tape 2765 PK - 1 MR. CHAIRMAN (McNicholas): The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: Mr. Chairman, I understand from the han. gentleman that there has been no decision on that application yet. Is that what the han. gentleman said? MR. MORGAN: It is in the final stages. MR. NEARY: It is in the final stages? It looks like it will be approved. Any other loan and guarantees on the table at the present time, could the han. gentleman tell us? MR. CHAIRMAN: The han. Minister of Fisheries. MR. MORGAN: Mr.

Chairman, there are a number of our inshore companies that found themselves in some financial difficulty last year which we assisted by giving out government guaranteed loans , in fact, I think a total of something like sixteen or seventeen companies operating individual plants and operations. And there are a number now, but the number is much smaller.I think there are only three or four, or four or five - I think there are four maximum companies - MR. NEARY: Who are they? MR. MORGAN: that have applied - I do not think it is fair at this time, really, for us to mention their names.

They made application in a sincere way. They found themselves in financial difficulty. We will assess the applications on their own merit, and will use some very strict criteria with regards to giving them assistance 1 the same way as we set down the criteria last year. If the companies meet the criteria 1 they will be judged on their own indiV.idual merit and assistance put forward accordingly. But 5860

May 31, 1983 Tape 2765 PK -2 MR. MORGAN: it will be only on the basis that we feel that these companies can survive in the future on their own. They have had a difficult year, or the last two years in particular. MR. CHAIR.111A..f\l (McNicholas) : Opposition. MR. NEARY: The hen. Leader of the Well, Mr. Chairman, it looks to me like we will have. to \llai t until next year before we can find out who is going to get any guarantees or loans from the government in this fiscal year. Mr.

Chairman, the hen. gentleman woul.d be perfectly within his right to tell the House who has applied for these loans and guarantees and how much they have asked for. There is nothing wrong \-Ti th that. The hen. gentleman there a couple of w·eeks ago told us that \'lithin ten days Fishery Products would be bankrupt. And if the hen. gentleman can make a statement like that outside of the House, certainly the hen. gentleman could give the House information as to how he intends to spend taxpayer money1. how he 5861

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2766 NM - 1 MR. NEARY: intends to use the taxpayer dollar, Mr. Chairman. I am going to ask the hon. gentleman, again, would he care to list the companies that have applied for government loans and grants and guarantees and give us the amounts? MR. MARSHALL: MR. CHAIRMAN (McNicholas) : Council. MR. MARSHALL: If I may, Mr. Chairman - The hon. President of the - just before the hon. gentleman gets up, the Minister of Finance (Dr. Collins}, wished me to introduce an amendment to Clause 1 of the bill, It is a substantial amount of money. It is no small change.

But I move that Clause 1 of Bill 48 be amended,'bY adding immediately after Item 11 the following, Item 12. MR. NEARY: MR. MARSHALL: After item what? After Item 11, the following, "Item 12, Newfoundland and Labrador Computer Services - $2 million." The purpose for this, Mr.

Chairman, is the previous $2 million in the act is with respect to the guarantee that was given,but this is with respect to the long­ term debt because the government wishes to put this Crown corporatio~ which has been a very effective corporation and is performing so well on a firm, solid foundation, and to supply it with the adequate funds on a long-term basis. So I move the amendment. MR. NEARY: MR. MARSHALL : $4,600,000, right? Well,it is $2 million for the guarantee, $2 million direct borrowing by COmputer Services. MR. CHAIRMAN (Aylward) : The han. Minister of Fisheries. 5862

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2766 NM - 2 MR. MORGAN: Mr. Chairman, just to comment further on the applications by the fish companies for assistance: Of course, as will be the case, any guaranteed loans we approve and any funds we put forward under the restructuring would all have to be brought forward to the House of-Assembly upon the first opportunity after these transactions are made. So the companies that have made application now, again I say I do not think it would be fair to the companies to mention their names, not knowing whether or not we are going to assist them, if we have not made decisions. MR.

NEARY: How about the total figures that they are asking for? MR. MORGAN: Well, the amounts involved are amounts ranging from $50,000 up. I think the highest would be $300,000, in that range. The amounts involved in the applications show the size of the companies.

They are inshore companies wanting some financial assistance to tide them over and get them going for the insore fishing season this year, because of some difficulties in the marketplace or their marketing procedures and, in some cases, over-expansion of their capital by using their own funds and not borrowing money to do it, and these kind of things, and wanting for an interim period some financial assistance. 5863

May 31, 1983 Tape 2767 EC - 1 Now, let me say one thing about the comments I have made about the fish companies, including Fishery Products. I think it is obvious to everybody in Newfoundland who follows the fishing industry that those large companies, all of them, cannot carry on on their own, so any company which cannot carry on on its own, what do you call it? You can call it technically bankrupt, you can call it almost in receivership, you can call it almost bankrupt, you can call it what you wish, what technicality or term you use.

If it is unable to carry on on its own as an individual private enterprise company without the requirement of massive amounts of taxpayers' dollars, well, I do not know what you would call it, you can call it what you wish, bankrupt, technically bankrupt, almost in receivership, almost bankrupt. And I make no apologies for any statement I have made in the past with regard to tha·t company or other companies.

The fact is, the last two or three weeks, this government and the federal govern­ ment have spentmuch time on the restructuring of the fishing industry and determining what to do with regard to government assistance and how to put in the government assistance. What will happen to the existing shareholders: Shall we reward the existing shareholders or shall w.e dispose of them? Shall we put money into a company and say, 'Yes, carry on, company, do the things you want to do and here is the money to do it,'?

Or shall we step in as governments and say, 'Look, if we are going to put the taxpayers' moneys in here, we are going to have a say as to how things are being done,'?- with the strong possibility that the people themselves, the workers through their unions, will have a say. I am not adverse at all to the position 5864

May 31, 1983 Tape 2767 EC - 2 MR . MORGAN : o£ having the workers have a say in the fishing industry through the Fishermen's Union. I have had meetings with Mr . Cashin on this,the last two or three weeks in particular and earlier than that,and he is quite aware of the Newfoundland Government 's position that we would welcome the role of the union in participation in the restructuring and in the end result, participation in having a say as to what happens to that very important sector o£ the fishing industry, the deep -sea fishery . So , Mr .

Chairman, in concluding my b.rie.£ comments on this item, the loan guaran tees we are talking about today are for the smaller companies, in £act, the ~e s who, in most cases, keep the industry alive. And once in a \"hi le they come across a situation whe .re 5865

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2768 MJ ~ l MR. MORGAN: they will need some interim, temporary financial assistance and we give it to them in guaranteed loans. But I will say again that in the restructuring of Fishery Products, the Lake Group and John Penny and Sons and others, the large companies, they are going to need more than government guarantees, they are going to need some massive injection of funds.

I think that is all I can say today with regards to what is happening on the restructuring,but it is obvious that these companies I just mentioned, those three in particular, they will not be around to operate, they will not be there as separate corporate structures as they are now today w~thout massive government dollars to keep them going in the future. MR. NEARY: Mr. Chairman . MR. CHAIRMAN (Aylward) : Opposition. MR. NEARY: The hon, the Leader of the Mr, Chairman, we are well aware of course that it will take a mass infusion of dollars for restructuring.

That money will come from the Government of Canada. ~ heard a figure flung out the other day of $400 million. The Government of Canada we were told in a public statement- and I do not remember now who it was that said it~I believe that it was somebody in Mr. De Bane's office said it - that it will take $400 million to restructur e the deepsea fishery and to carry out the recommendations of the Kirby Task Force. Now · tha,t is a lot of money, $400 million, fr0m the Government of Canada. We have not seen any evidence yet of what this administration int~ to put up to match that.

Will it be 90/10, 75/25, dollar for dollar? We have no idea at this moment what the input of the provincial government will be as far as the restructuring is concerned, I know we cannot debate the restructuring now, Mr. Cha ·irman, I would love to be able to debate it 1 but we are well aware of 5866

May 31, 1983 Tape No . 2768 MJ - 2 MR. NEARY : the implications of it, but the hon. gentleman just raised it so I could not resist commenting on it . I would like to have a debate on it now . I would like to find out v1hat is going on with the restructuring.

The people down in Burin have been there now for about five or six months, the plant has not been working, the trawler fleet is tied up, there is fish in the plant that needs to be sold, the people are frustrated, they are running out of unemployment insurance, so I would love to be able to debate this matter with the hon. gentleman but on this bill I regret that we cannot do i t. So I will come back to the Minister of Finance (Dr .

Collins) and ask the Minister of Finance if he could tell the Bouse if any of these companies that are listed, Greenspond Fish Processors, Smith's Seafoods, White's Fisheries Limited, Pelley Enterprises Limited, Halls Bay Haulout Limited, if any of these companies have had previous loans and guarantees . If so, could he tell us which ones and could he also indicate to the House which ones are up to date on their payments and which ones are behind in their payments? DR . COLLINS : Mr. Chairman . 5867

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2769 SD - 1 MR. CHAIRMAN (A ylward) : The han. Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, these companies received guarantees. I am just reviewing now to see if any of them received direct loans, but I think I can say with certainty, Mr. Chairman, that they did not, it was guarantees. In other words, they borrowed from other lenders, i.e., banks usually, and then we gave a guarantee. So they would not have commitments to us unless the bank called in the loan. MR. NEARY: If the government was called on to pick up the tab. DR. COLLINS: Yes, that is right.

Now the government has been called in terms of Blue Ocean. We gave a guarantee there of $25,000 and we were required to honour our commitment to the bank in terms of somewhat less than that, I think it was between $18,000 and $20,000. That was converted into a direct loan,.therefore, to the company. In other words, there was a difficulty arose with their payments to the bank, the bank quite properly carne to government because we were guaranteeing it, we had to pay up the residual amount, it was not the full $25,000, and the residual amount we had to honour was converted into a direct loan to Blue Ocean.

So Blue Ocean now has the obligation directly to government. MR. NEARY: What other companies? MR. COLLINS: to Smith Sea Foods. MR. NEARY: We gave an extension on the guarantee Smith Sea Foods? DR. COLLINS: Just an extension, the guarantee was for a year, we have extended it for a further year since then. And in White's, there was an additional guarantee given later on. MR. NEARY: DR. COLLINS: $100,000 MR. NEARY: DR. COLLINS: 5868 How much? The additional guarantee was for So they are up to $300,000 now? $300,000

May 31, 1983 MR. NEARY: DR. COLLINS: Tape No. 2769 SD - 2 Are they up to date on their payments? Well,all I can sa y is we have not be asked by the banks to honour the loan in any way. MR. NEARY: How recently did they put it up to $300,000? DR. COLLINS: last year. MR. NEARY: DR. COLLINS: MR. NEARY: DR. COLLINS: MR. NEARY: That was for 1983. That was for This year you mean? Yes, for this season. So it is not due yet,in other words? No. So we do not know whether they are going to default on it or not? DR. COLLINS: Well 1 hopefully they will not but we do not know, no.

We had a request for extension on Hall's Bay Haulout MR. NEARY: but we did not extend th .ere. What happened there? DR. COLLINS: We reviewed the request for extension and we felt that we did not want to extend it any longer. MR. NEARY: Did they honour their commitment or did government have to pick up the tab? DR. COLLINS: To my knowledge we have not had to pick up any tab on that one. MR. NEARY: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN (Aylward) : The hon. Leader of the Oppos·ition. MR. NEARY: Mr. Chairman, we are getting somewhere now.

We have discovered that Blue Ocean Products Limited had to have their guarantee converted to a loan, that they 5869

May 31, 1983 Tape 2770 PK - 1 MR. NEARY: could not honour their commitment and therefore there has to be a manoeuvre take place and not it is being converted to a loan. I presume that is recent? DR. COLLINS: Yes. It was not so much that they could not honour it, but they did not honour it. There was a difficulty between themselves and the bank. It was not a case of just losses in the company, it was a difficulty between themselves and the bank. The guarantee ran out so we converted the thing into a direct loan. MR.

NEARY: So the guarantee ran out and then the payments, which anounted to $18,000 the hon. gentleman said, had to be paid by the taxpayers. Now when the guarantee was converted to a loan did the $18,000 then go back into the Public Treasury or did the loan just start from the day it was negotiated? DR. COLLINS: MR. NEARY: It just started from that day. So that means that the taxpayers are out-of-pocket on Blue Ocean Products $18,000 so far. Is that correct? DR. COLLINS : Yes, that is right. Except we have a loan against them now. MR. NEARY: You have a loan against them? Yes. DR. COLLINS: MR. NEARY: $18,000. DR.

COLB'INS: MR. NEARY: recoup that $18,000. what-MR. MORGAN: MR. NEARY: (Mr. Morgan) says no. MR. MORGAN: But so far we are out-of-pocket Correct. And no guarantee that we will Now will the hon. gentleman tell the House No. The Minister of Fisheries No, we are not out-of-pocket. 5870

May 31, 1983 MR. NEARY: paid off $18,000. DR. COLLINS: now. MR. NEARY: Tape 2770 PK - 2 Yes, we are. The taxpayers It is a loan against the company They could not meet their commitment on the guarantee so the ta xpa yers had to pay $18,000 and then the government converted it to a loan to the company. DR. COLLINS: Right. MR. NEARY: was it $25,000? DR. COLLINS: $18,000. MR. NEARY: Was the loan then $7,000 or No, the residual amount, the I see. Now would the hon. gentleman tell the House what equity the government took in this company for this $25,000 loan? Or did they take any equity?

Or do we have a mortgage on any of the equipment or assets of that company and, if so, what kind of mortgage do we have, a first or a second mortgage? Can the hon. gentleman give us some information on that? MR. HORGAN: MR. CHAIRHAN (A ylward) : MR. MORGAN: Mr. Chairman. The hon. Minister of Fisheries. All of the loans that we have made to fish companies, including Blue Ocean, our exposure has been covered by means of mortgaging either the fixed assets, the plant facilities, in the case of this one, Blue Ocean, its equipment. So we hold a mortgage on the equipment. MR. NEARY: But we CMn the equiprent already. MR.

MORGAN: The loan is directly with the company as a result of their default to Riche Products or Newfoundland Quick Freeze. So our exposure is covered by means of a mortgage on the equipment that is in the plant that they used the money to buy from Newfoundland Quick Freeze. MR. NEARY: But who owned the eqipment at Branch? 5871

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2 771 NM- 1 MR. MORGAN: The equipment was owned by Riche Products. Riche Products have now been paid and we have a loan now with Blue Ocean because of their being in default -· - .... to Quick Freeze and we now hold a mortgage on equipment that was used to purchase from Quick Freeze, the plant. MR. NEARY: MR. CHAIRMAN (Aylward) : MR. NEARY: That is fine, Mr. Chairman. The han. Leader of the Opposition.

Now could the han. gentleman tell us in .the case of the other companies, Smith Seafoods, ~~ite's Fisheries, Pelley Enterprises, and Hall's Bay Hall0ut, do we have mortgages on the assets of these companies or do we have an equity position in the company? Could the han. gentleman tell us what the situation is here? MR. CHAIRMAN : The han. Minister of Finance. DR. COLLINS: Mr. Chairman, when we give a guarantee we use three criteria.

Firstly,that there is adequate security to cover our guarantee in case we have to honour it; secondly, that the· company has every expectation of being viable, in other words 1 the resources available to them, they have operating capital, they have sufficient markets and all that sort of thing, in other words it is financially viable; and the third point is that they have management capabilities. So we assess these plant·s on those three bases and,as I say in particular, answering the question the han. Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Neary) asked, we have security covering our guarantees, usually, as th .e han. minister says, against fixed assets such as a plant or equipment. So I move the resolution. On motion resolution carried. 5872

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2771 NM - 2 MR . NEARY : Mr . Chairman . ?-IR . CRAIRl>1AN (Aylward): The hon. Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: I just want a moment on Newfoundland Computer Services . That is no~r up to $4 .6 million .. can the hon. gentleman tell us if there is any revenue via Newfoundland Computer Services? I have not checke "d the budget but there must be revenue coming ~ Could the hon. gentleman tell us if he anticipates that this might increase in the foreseeable future ? ?-iR. CRAI RMAN : DR . COLLINS : The hon . Minister of Finance . Mr .

Chairman , there is no direct revenue to the Consolidated Fund from Computer Services because they have a debt to service and they obviously charge for 5873

Hay 31, 1983 Tape 2J72 EC - 1 DR. COLLINS: their services, they charge both government departments and government agencies and also the private firms to which they supply services and they get revenue from those sources. But they do have expenditures and they have to service their debt,so the consolidated fund, up to this point in time, does not actually receive any dividends or other forms of revenue from Computer Services. I might mention, Mr.

Chairman, just in clarification of the reason why we put in the amendments, the guarantee that is stated in the bill as circulated covers the $2.6 million which was on the original building and the original equipment. Computer Services, because of the nature of the operation, has further capital requirements ongoing and they will now get into long-term financing of those ongoing requirements, purchasing com­ puters and so on, and they will require $2 million for this.

So this amendment we are bringing in, Item 12, is a guarantee to cover those new long-t~ capital investments they are going to make to increase their capability. MR. NEARY: Mr. Chairman. MR. CHAIRMAN (A ylward): The han. the Leader of the Opposition. MR. NEARY: I want to raise this matter. It seems to Ee there was a case recently in the House of Commons where a bill was changed between the time that it had first reading and the time it went to second reading.

Now 1 I can -understand -amending <my of the items that are on this bill, but r belie-:ve. under the parliamentary rules that it is not permissible to change a bill between the time it receives first reading and the time it goes to second reading. 5874

May 31 , 1983 Tape 2772 EC - 2 MR . NEARY: We~l, by this amendment you are adding a new amount, you are adding a new sub head to thi s bill and I do not think that is permissible , Mr . Chairman. I would say that this bill right now is nul l and void . MR. MARSHALL: Mr . Chairman . MR . CHAIRMAN (Avlward) : The hon. the President of the Council . MR . MARSHALL : Not so . The way in which bills of this nature, which are monetary bills, are introduced is by way of resolution,~~d the resolution goes to Committee and you do not commit the bi ll 587 5

.. May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2773 MJ - 1 MR. MARSHALL: to Committee after the resolution has been passed as you do in the case of other bills,so there is not the opportunity to amend it. So what you do is you amend 1in effect 1 the resolution and the amended resolution brings into effect the bill for first, second and third reading. It is entirely in order, it is done over and over again,and this is the accepted method of doing it with respect to monetary bills. And that is why we have to leave the amendment in,because it is only into Committee once. MR.

NEARY: But it is the first time I have seen a new subhead added to the bill. That has never been done before. MR., MARSHALL: Well, I believe it has, Mr, Chairman. I am quite sure it has. It is in order and it is t:h.e practice and if there is to be any amendment it has to be really at this stage. MR. NEARY: in the bill. MR. MARSHALL: MR. CHAIRMAN (Aylward) : But you can only amend the items Well, you know, Order, please! To that point that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Neary) raised, it is my information that the amendment is in order, MR. NEARY: Could you research that and check it out? MR.

CHAI~: been looked after. carried. The amendment is in order. It has· On motion, amendment carried, On motion, clause 1 as amended, On motion, clause 2, carried. 5876

May 31, 1983 Tape No . 2773 MJ - 2 On motion, resolution carried. Motion, that the Committee report having passed the bill with amendment, carried. MR. MARSHALL : Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. On motion, that the Committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, Mr. Speaker returned to the Chair . MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : MR . AYLWARD: Order, please! The hon. the ma~er for Kilbride . Mr .

Speaker, the Committee of the Whole have met and considered the matters to them referred and report having passed a resolution and recommends a bill consequent thereto be introduced to give effect to :the - - same and ask leave to sit again. On motio n, report received and adopted, resolutions ordered read a first and second time now, by leave.

RESOLUTION That it is expedient to bring in a measure further to amend The Loan and GJa:rantee Act, 1957 , the Act No. 70 of 1957, to provide for the advance of loans to and the guarantee of the repayment of bonds or debentures issued by or loans advanced to certain corporations. On motion , resolution read a first and second time. 58 77

May 31, 1983 Tape No . 277 3 MJ - 3 On motion, a bill, "An Act To Amend The Loan And Gurant .ee Act, 1957", read a fir st, second and third time, ordered passed and its title be as on the Order Paper. (Bill No . 48}. MR. MARSHALL: Order 43, Bill No •. 59. Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act To Amend The Public Services (Collective Bargaining} Act, 1973 ." (Bi l l No. 59). MR. DINN : Mr . Speaker , MR. SPEAKER (RUssell} : and Manp ower. MR. DINN: this bill The hon . the Minister of Labour Mr . Speaker, we have proposed in 5878

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2774 JV -1 MR. DINN: several amendments to the Public Service(Collective Bargaining)Act. I would like to, if I could, go through the different sections so that hon. members will understand what we are attempting to do here.

Section 2 of the act now defines an employee for the purpose of collective bargaining, the amendment defines persons excluded from collective bargaining either directly or by the Labour Relations Board. The exclusions start at

Section 2 (viii), Page 6 of the Amendment. Mr. Chairman, I can go through these different items.

I will be, of course, going through all the different changes when we are in committee, then we will be going through clause by Clause but basically starting at Section(viii)it says that it "does not include a person who is employed in a position confidential to the Lieutenant-Governor, a Minister of the Crown, a Judge of the Supreme Court, a District Court Judge, a Provincial Court judge, the deputy, associate deputy or assistant deputy head of a department of government or a chairman or chief executive officer of a government board, commission or agency, (ix) who is employed as a solicitor in the Department of Justice or as a legislative counsel in the Office of the Legislative Counsel1 (

x) who is employed as an officer or staff-member of the House of Assembly, (xi) who is employed in the Executive Council, except persons employed in the establishment of the Lieutenant-Governor." The basic reason for that exception Mr. Speaker, is that there is a group in the Lieutenant­ Governor's house now who are certified and of course we do not want to decertify anybody by these amendments.

Section (xii), "who is employed in an employment opportunity program administered by a department of Government of the 5879

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2774 JV - 2 MR. DINN : · of the province for ~·rh ich monies are pro~ided by the Government of the province, the Government of Canada or both Governments, (xiii) who is employed as a manager or supervisor .or who , in the opinion of the Board " - the Labour Relations Board - "exercises management or supervisory functions, (xiv) who, in the opinion of the Board, is employed in a confidential capacity in matters relating to labour rel ations, or (xv) who, in the opinion of the Board, provide ·s advice to the employer in relation to the development or administration of policies or programs." Secti .on 2 is further amended to bring it in line >-lith

Section 99 of the Labour Relations Aat. 5880

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2775 SD - 1 MR. DINN: That amendment is on page 8 and provides that an employee does not lose his status as an employee as a result of a strike or a lockout. Mr. Speaker, many of the appropriate changes that we are bringing in here are to bring the Public Service(Collective Bargaining)Act into line with the Labour Relations Act.

Section 10 requires that essential employees be in place before a strike vote or strike can take place. Hon.members will be aware that we had some difficulty with that over the past year or so and, as a matter of fact, had to bring in some special legislation to order essential employees. In this case what we want to do is to have the employer designate the numbers of essential employees that he would like to have and then,if there is a grievence or if there is a difference of opinion with the representatives of the employees,that a determination be made for essential employees before the Labour Relations Board.

Section 17 is a new· paragraph and this

section gives the minister authority to appoint a mediator and that provision is also in line with

Section 80 of the Labour Relations Act. And hon. members are aware, and the hon. member for Terra Nova (Mr. Lush) particularly will be aware that during one set of negotiations when there was sort of an impasse during the collective bargaining process that he was demanding that the Minister of Labour and Manpower (Mr. Dinn) appoint a mediator. And at that point in time, of course, I did not have a provision in the Public Service(Collective Bargaining)Act where I could do that, but this allows for that provision.

Section 18 will allow members: of'the Labour Relations Board to be members of conciliation boards. And this is also, of course, in line with the Labour Relations· Act. Basically what happened there, I: think., if 5881

May 31, 1983 Tape No . 2775 SD - 2 MR. DINN: hon. mem.Pers will remember the negotiations in the last agreement signed by the nurses and Treasury Board af).d tqe Hospital Associations, basically what happened there wa _s we had some nurses who came under the Labour Relations Act and some who came under the Public Service(Collective Bargaining)Act and the agreement was that a member of the Labour Relations Board would be the appropriate person to assign as a conciliation officer.

And that provision would not have been available to other groups in the public service and indeed would not be effective for some of the people in th .e Nurses' Union had we not had the opportunity under the Labour Relations Act to appoint at that time the current Chairman of the Labour Relations Board, Mr. Gordon Eason. So this will now allow for the minister to be able to appoint,or the parties to agree to appoint a person who is a member of the Labour Relations Board to be a member of the conciliation board. 5882

May 31, 1983 Tape 2JJ6 EC - 1 MR. DIN N:

Section 18 is further amended to allow the minister to defer a request for the appoint- ment of a conciliation board, and this happens in many sets of labour negotiations where, as an example, a request comes in for the appointment of a conciliation board and, in all cases, the minister appoints a concili- ation officer to determine whether there should be a board appointed or not and he has basically fourteen days in which to operate.

At the termination of that fourteen days, the minister then is forced to make a decision as to whether a board should or should not be appointed and, of course, you could have eighty or ninety items still up for negotiation and it becomes very difficult for the minister to decide, wanting to give both sides to the collective bargaining process the opportunity to either have or not have a conciliation board.

For example, we had cases just recently under the Labour Relations Act where the emplorer's or the employees' representatives were not available to meet within the fourteen days and as a result of that, it is very difficult for a concili- ation officer to determine whether a board should or should not be appointed and it is very difficult for him then to make his recommendation to the minister so we can then defer the appointment of the board.

And we would be able to defer, in the case of the Public Service(Collective Bargaining)Act, the same thing with respect to emplo yers and representatives of employees in these situations. And it aligns itself with

Section 37 of the Labour Relations Act.

Section 23 will require unions to give an additional strike notice if the union does not strike on the date given in the first notice. The new date must be thirty days after the first notice. 5883

.May .31, 1983 Tape 2776 EC - 2 MR . DINN: ~vhat we have here basically is the problem in hospitals of gearing up and gearing down to a point where hospitals cannot operate . And what we say here ~n the legislation is that you give a seven day notice in which you are going to strike or not strike and, if you do not take the option to strike,then there is an additional period of thirty days where you then giv e another seven day notice. And basically, that thirty days , I suppose, can be used for many reasons, one it could be used for , I suppose, is a cooling of£ period or ,.,h ateve r.

Section 24 \vill prohibit a rotation of strikes in health services . That is basically self ­ explanatory.

Section 37 permits an arbitration board, except in cases where a penalty is prescribed in a col lective agreement, to alter the penalty imposed by the employer . What we basica ll y have nO\v is that an employer imposes a pen alty of,say , firing, a person is te~nated because he broke a

section of the 5884

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2777 NM - 1 MR. DINN: collective agreement or what have you. At this point in time, when they go through the grievance procedure and they get to an arbitration board, the arbitration board can decide whether or not the person broke the collective agreement or in actuality did something that should not have been allowed, but they cannot alter the penalty. Now termination is a fairly severe measure for anyone to take. This provision will allow for the arbitration board to say, "Well, you know, it is severe to terminate an employee in this instance.

What we will do is we will decrease that penalty so that the employee will be off without pay for, say 1 two weeks;'which may be a more appropriate way to settle that kind of an issue. The

section is further amended to allow an arbitration board ~ecision to be filed with the Supreme Court for enforcement,. and that is also,of . ~course, in line with

Section 86 of the Labour Relations Act.

Section 39 includes a successor rights provision as contained in

Section 89 of the Labour Relations Act. Now this morning I met with- representatives of the Federation of Labour, with representatives of CUPE and with representatives of NAPE, and there are several provisions that are in this legislation that they are not entirely happy with,and government will be proposing in Committee stage to make an amendment to this particular bill so that the Lieutenant-Governor in Council has the power to implement any particular clauses or all the clauses in this legislation.

Because there has been a suggestion by the people who met with me this morning that there may be accommodations that can be made, for example,with respect to essential employees, for example,wi~ respect to the determination of an employee or the definition of an employee, and we can proclaim or not proclaim certain sections of this act, subject to the 5885

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2777 NM - 2 MR. DINN: Lieutenant-Governor in Council, on the . basis of the fact that we can possibly renegotiate or negotiate better clauses that may be put into the Public Service (Collective Bargaining) Act say in the Fall session . So, Mr . Speaker, r want to make that fairly clear, or quite clear at the outset . The amendment of

Section 40 allows a person or organization to file a decision of the Labour Relations Board in the Supreme Court for enforcement .

Section 43 provides for the Labour Relations Board panels to be established to deal with public service matters. And this, of course 1 is in lin e with Sec tion 9 of the Labour Relations Act . 5886

May 31 ,1983 Tape 2778 PK - 1 MR. DINN:

Section 43 is further amended to provide authority for the Board to make rules to regulate the procedure to be followed by conciliation boards and to define the authority of the Board. And , of course, that amendment is also in line With the provisions in the Labour Relations Act. Mr. Speaker, I have gone through most of the items that are going to be amended in this bill. Basically I have also indicated to hon. members that

whereas the bill now goes to

Section 14, we propose to add in the Committee stage a

Section 15 which will basically say that the Act or any

section or sections of this Act shall come into force on a day or days to be proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council1which will allow us to, for example, proclaim some of the items that we have , a basic agreement with representatives of the unions whom I met with today and the Federation of Labour - MR. NEARY: Are you giving it to them in writing? MR. DINN: I am giving it to them in legislation and the amendment will come forward when it comes in - MR. NEARY: You are asking to trust you? MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I have no problem with asking anybody to trust me. MR.

NEARY: They were screaming for your resignation a couple of months ago. MR. SPEAKER (Russell) : Order, please! MR. DINN: There has never been a problem with my word, and I do not anticipate that it will be a problem in the future. MR. NEARY: made a deal. 5887 What you are saying is you

May 31, 1983 Tape 2778 PK - 2 MR . DINN: The hon. member is interrupting and he knows that the rules of the Bouse do not pe .rmi t him to interrupt. MR . NEARY : I am only asking you a question . MR . DINN: I go back to, for example, February 12, 1967 an

article in the Daily News which said, ''Long-time labour official,s Steve Neary and Tom Burgess took the spotlight when they aligned themselves with legislation prohibiting strikes in hospitals:• MR. NEARY: That is not now . HR. DINN : The hon . member keeps interrupting . Of course, I have done quite a fair amount of research on what we are attempting to do here, what we are attempting to do is provide essential employees . - .. . to protect the severely sick, the people in hospitals who are in danger of the possibility of death - MR. NEARY: Tell us about the part where you are going to have discussions . 5888

Ma y 31, 1983 T a p ~ No . 2779 SD - 1 MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I can say to the hon. member I have no problem with people trusting my word. I do not know of any time in my life that I have ever broken my word to people. And if I have, it certainly was nothing of a serious nature. So, Mr. Speaker, I have given the hon. member and members of this House, representatives of the people of this Province, the fact that certain sections of this particular piece of legislation will not be proclaimed until further discussion can be held. MR. NEARY: What were they against? What are the sections? MR. DINN: Well, Mr.

Speaker, the hon. member may not know it, but there are very important sections in this for which there is agreement. I think

Section 43, for example,

Section 40,

Section 39, they are all pretty good sections. The successor rights one was indicated to me this morning by representatives of labour as not going far enough. We can have a look at that and maybe there is a possibility - MR. NEARY: Can the hon. gentleman tell us the ones that have been agreed on ? MR. SIMMS: All that detail will be done in Committee. MR. DINN: We can go through all of these sections in Committee. I just gave the hon. member an example; the successor rights provision in the bill does not go far enough according to the people that I met with this morning. MR. NEARY: What provisions? MR.

DINN: The successor rights provision. I have listened to argument and discussion and understood some of the arguments, but there are problems with providing seccessor rights. I have said to the representatives there may be another clause that would 5889

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2779 SD - 2 MR. DINN: be a better clause that we could put into the Public Service (Collective Bargaining) Act. Certainly the

section of successor rights does not adversely affect members in the labour movement, who say it does not go far enough. We can have a look at that over the coming months to see what if anything can be done to improve that situation. MR. NEARY: Give us a list of the clauses that have not been agreed on. MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to get into what was or what was not agreed upon. There are problems which certain sections - MR. NEARY: That is what we want to know before we can debate the bill. MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if all members :of the labour movement would be agreeable to any

section in here. For example, I did not have an opportunity this morning to meet with representatives of the Nurses' Union, so they may have a look at this and say, 'We do not agree with any

section of what you are proposing in the Public Service (Collective Bargaining) Act'. But, Mr. Speaker, there are sections that are good sections. The capability of appointing a mediator, I think is a good section. I think the capability of having a member of the Labour Relations Board serve on conciliation boards is a good section. I think the amendment which permits arbitration boards to vary penalties, if they think a penalty is too strong to decrease that penalty, I think is a good section. 5890

May 31, 1983 Tape 2780 EC ~ 1 MR. NEARY: Are you going to put a clause in there that you will not proclaim certain sections of the act? Can you tell us which sections? MR. DINN: Well, that is going to be up to the Lieutenant-Governor in Council what sections are going to be proclaimed. MR. NEARY: But you had aEeeting this morning and you agreed with certain sections (inaudible). MR. DINN: No, I did not, Mr. Speaker, I beg to differ with the hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

I met this morning with representatives of the Federation of Labour, with CUPE and with NAPE and we went through the different sections and they agree with some and disagree with others. And what I did was I said, 'Okay, there are certain sections that you have problems with. If a clause can be put in that is better, well, we can have further discussions on it.' For example, essential employees, we can discuss that. MR. NEARY: Are they happy? MR. DINN: Well, they may never be happy, Mr. Speaker. I do not know if I can ever Eake everybody in the world happy.

I do not know if anybody will ever be happy with the designation of essential employees, but I think it is necessary in health services that we have essential employees designated. So I do not know if we can ever arrive at that Utopian place where everybody on eith .er side of the bargaining table is totally happy, but certainly we will do everything in our power to see to it that we can accommodate as nruch as possible, as nruch as is reasonable. And that is why we will benaking an arnen~ent ~ 5891

May 31, 1983 Tape 2780 EC - 2 MR. NEARY: What is the procedure now, that they will come back and negotiate these problems? MR. DINN! There are certain sections, like successor rights, for example, that they have problems with, it does not go far enough. I do not think proclaiming successor rights, as it sits in the bill now, '•Till pose any problems 1 but the fact of the matter is there might be a better way of writing down that one

section of the act. MR. NEARY: Well, why not lay the bill on the table for six months and then bring it in in the Fall? MR. DINN: Mr. Speaker, there are several problems with that: number one, we will be going into collective bargaining very soon with people in the health field and the fact of the matter is we have to have some sort of protection so that we can provide essential employees, ana it could happen between now and the Fall. So these are the . kinds of things that we have to think about.

Number one, we have to have provisions whereby we can protect the health and safety of people who may be in hospital at that particular time, but we also have that capability - MR. NEARY: getting essential - MR. DINN: But you have a fo~ula now for We have the J:ormula now, .Mr. Speq.ker, that has been in place since 1973 and has not worked. MR. NEARY: ~ut you are taking department by department 1.are you not, you are working on it. 5892

May 31, 19 83 Tape No. 27 81 NM - 1 MR. DINN: We have provisions in the Public Service(Collective Bargaining)Act right now that have now worked, are incapable of working, have not worked because they have gone to the courts; every time it is proposed it goes to the Labour ,Relations Board, it is appealed in the courts and it just does not work. And so we do not have a provision right now for essential employees and we have to have the capability of doing that.

Now if nothing happens between now and the Fall, if we can come up with accommodations as we go along between now and then, then fine, we will sit down and we w£11 talk about it and we will see what, if anything, we can come up with 1and in that case we will not proclaim the essential employees. So this is about the most reasonable and sensible thinq that can be done with respect to the proposed changes that we have before us in the Public Service (Collective Bargaining) Act. So, Mr. Speaker, I would like to listen to the arguments proposed or put forward by hen. members opposite.

I will be very attentive, I will write down their concerns and I will attempt to answer any concerns they may have when I move second reading of the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER (Russell}: The hon. member for Terra Nova. MR. LUSH: l.fr. Speak~r, it is very difficult to know what to say about this rather insidious bill now after the minister just finished speaking. we have no guarantees as to what is going to happen to the controversial points in this bill and 1believe you me 1there are many controversial points.

As a matter of fact 1 the whole bill is nothing but a controversial piece of legislation, the whole thing . 5893

May 31, 1983 Tape No . 2781 NM- 2 MR. LUSH: Now the minister suggests that he is a man of his word . Well, Mr . Speaker, governments do not opera~ that t-Tay 1 that we jus ·t take the minister's word. A government operates collectively and the record of this government keeping its word has not been altogether perfect. This is the government, ~lr. Speaker , that promised the people to develop the Lower Churchill, and we knmv the state of that word. This was the government that was going to open the oil refinery at Come By Chance in ninety days; we know what happened to that .

This was the government that was going to provide 40,500 jobs for the people of this Province a couple of years ago, and 1 Mr. Speaker, they have lost that many, they are in a negative position . And the list goes on, Mr. Speaker, to demonstrate that the word of this government is not exactly to be taken rather easily. 5894

May 31, 1983 Tape 2782 PK - 1 MR. LUSH: , The same government that brought in this legislation today is headed by a premier who said that he believes in collective bargaining, but this bill certainly does not give proof of a government that believes in collective bargaining. Also this same bill is the product of a government headed by a premier who said that he believed in consultation with the labour movement throughout this Province prior to bringing in legislation. Now it is my understanding that there has been absolutely no consultation with the labour movement in this Province about the content of this bill.

They had no input into the bill, no input whatsoever, not one iota. Mr. Speaker, they knew nothing about his ~ bill until late last week. The first indication that the labour movement in this Province had about this bill was last Friday. So, Mr. Speaker, so much for the taking of the word of the government. But, Mr. Speaker, if we could get some assurance that the government indeed would be bound by their words, if we had something in writing that they were going to deal with the controversail issues of this bill 1 then that ~ertainly would make it more palatable for members on this side.

But the minister seems to be evasive, he does not say in what form the word will be, whether it will be written. So, Mr. Speaker, it seems awfully strange, awfully funny that the minister is not willing 1 that the government are not willing to make any kind of firm commitment to the labour movement of this Province just what they will do in terms of dealing with the controversail issues in this bill. Secondly, they will not tell us what are the controversail issues in the bill. They will not outline for us the kinds of agreements that they have or on what issues they have reached agreement.

So it puts one i~ a 5895

May 31, 1983 Tape 2782 PK - 2 MR . LUSH : very , very awkward position indeed . But, Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill, of course, is twofold . One is to outlaw strikes in the Public Service in this Province , that is point number one. This bill will effectively outlaw strikes in this Province; and, secondly, it denies 5896

May 31, 1983 Tape No.2783 JV - l MR. LUSH: hundreds . of workers the right of =llective bargaining in this Province. Mr. Speaker, where is freedom, where are equal rights that we subscribe to in this Province when this insidious bill quite blatantly, quite emphatically, quite clearly attempts to outlaw strikes in the public service and, secondly, denies the rights of hundreds of workers in this Province to the process of collective bargaining? Mr.

Speaker, that is insidious, it is incredible I How can the minister stand here today a.nd ----- -. - '- present a bill that is so insidious and be so evasive in terms of telling han. members what he plans to do with this particular ~ill,without telling us what issues will be left for discussion? No time frame, no time reference at all.

He does not tell us that he will meet with the labour movement over the next couple of weeks and that they will have things ironed out by the last of August or by the first of September, or by the middle of _Septe~~~r, nothing at all, Everything very vague, I will venture to say, , Mr. Speaker, that this bill will go through because forty-four beats eight any day and there is nothing we can do to stop it from going through• ~·orty-four will beat eight.

I understand that in meetings with the minister today that the minister certainly -used that expression,that the bill was going to go through; 'there was nothing going to stop the bill. But if I can believe the minister, he has reached an agreement, he has come to an accomodation with the labour movement in this Province, I hope that is an accurate statement 1 but to satisfy members on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, we want to know a little more about 5897

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2783 JV - 2 MR. LUSH: the agreement. I mean 1what an arrogant government that figure that they are going to get a bill through by saying that they have reached certain agreements and certain accomodations with people 1but they are so arrogant that they will not tell the people of this Province, that they will not tell this Legislature what the agreements were. Mr. Speaker, that is unheard of,but again it demonstrates the attitude of this government with respect to collective bargaining and with respect to negotiations, that is what it does, Mr.

Speaker, it demonstrates the attitude of a government and the approach of a government that says,'no as I say.' We have al1 become serfs, Mr. Speaker, in this Province• This bill is a ridiculous bill and it is nothing but arrogance, nothing but disrespect for the people of this Province, disrespect for the labour movement of this Province when the minister gets up and will not give us the kind of assurances that we need for this particular bill, 5898

May 31 , 1983 Tape No . 2784 so - 1 MR. LUSH: when he will not tell the House the kinds of agreements and the kinds of arrangements that he has entered into with the labour movement in the Province, was very, very evasive and gave us no information at all with respect to these points that I have mentioned. Mr. Speaker, it is an insidious bill. It is an anti-labour bill in every respect. Now the minister talks about the good points in this particular bill. There are very, ver y few good points in this bill.

About the only good point that he could bring up was the successor rights issue and then he went on to say that it did not go far enough. He just touched the periphery with that particular issue. Mr. Speaker, what we need to know today is the kind of assurances that the government will indeed give the labour movement in this Province in terms of dealing with the controversial issues. We want to know what they are, and I think we know what they are. The definition of employee, Mr. Speaker, has sweeping effects on the rights of people to engage in collective bargaining.

As I said, there will be hundreds of people denied this particular right, that is what that def~nition will do. Is this one of the points, is this one of the issues which the government and the labour movement have agreed to? Is that one of the issues? This we need to know. Is this one of the issues, the one defining 'employee'? If it is one of the issues, what kind of assurances, what kind of guarantees is the minister going to give the labour movement that that issue will indeed be dealt with, that he will take representation from the labour movement in this Province before this ~articular issue is proclaimed?

That is the kind of assurances that we need. It is only fair and right, 5899

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2785 MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, that this House be given the assurance that this is an issue that will be dealt with before a proclamation is made. How about the designation of essential services? Is that an item on which agreement has been reached? Is that another one? I know it is a controversial one, and one, Mr. Speaker, that is going NM - 1 to render ineffective collective bargaining in this Province. It is one that is going to eliminate the effect of a strike, it is a very importat one, this designation of essential services. What we are going to have is a method, Mr.

Speaker, to divide the workers, divide and conquer; that is the kind of legislation that we are now getting into, that is the kind of approach that this government is using, to divide and conquer the hospital workers. So, Mr. Speaker, this particular piece of legislation, this particular item in this bill is one that is going to render ineffective strikes forever in this Province. But what we want to know is is that an issue on which both parties have agreed? Is that one where they have reached the satisfactory accommodation?

Is this one that will not be proclaimed, awaiting consultation and meetings with the labour movement in this Province? We have to know before we can give our assent to the passage of this Bill. It is one thing, Mr.

Spea~.er, to enter into an agreement with a grop.p of people, but it is certainly another thing when the minister is so arrogant that he will not inform this Legislature just what items were agreed to, just what was the nature of the agreement, to give han. members, naturally, all of the details relating to the bill so that we can talk about the bill intelligently and so it can be voted upon intelligently. Maybe hon. members opposite are going to vote for this bill regardless, whether they know what arrangements have been made, what• accommodations have been made, but, Mr. Speaker, this is too 5900

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2785 NM - 2 MR. LUSH: important a bill to just let slip through without the minister giving us the details of the agreements entered into with the labour movement of this Province, which negotiate for the public service. 5901

May 3l, 1983 Tape No. 2J86 MJ - .l MR. LUSH: ~nd all of these people, the thousands of people in the public service,have a right to know what this bill is going to do for them and what the government plans to do about this bill. So, ~1r. Speaker, it is certainly not in keeping with any government- for somebody to stand up as arrogant as the minister today and not inform this House o:f the nature of the agreement and to the time frame involved. Another issue, Mr.

Speaker; I wonder whether the situation with respect to the appointnent of a mediator, whether that was brought up in today~s discussions, Whether'the appointment of a mediator'was something agreed to by the labour movement in this Province? The minister indicated that many of the issues outside of . what we label the controversial issues, -many of them the labour movement agreed to. , I \'lOnder if they agreed to the I appointment of a mediator in the manner in which . the m~nister has outlined,that it would be brought in? Did he consult with. the labour movement on this?

Are they happy with the I appointment of a mediator? I suggest they are not, Mr. Speaker, because contained in this bill are -many procedures·"' and many ways and means to delay the settlement of a labour dispute. This legislation is not designed to expedite the resolution of a labour dispute. Indeed,it is ·meant to slow it down, it is meant to allow the government every benefit whereby they can force workers back to work. So, Mr.

Speaker, there is nothing in this bill that is going to expedite the resolution of any labour dispute within the public service~indeed,it is meant to slow it down and all the cards are stacked for the government. They are all stacked in the direction of the government. There is no consideration for the worker, ll.ll the __ coru:;~derations here,~- . Speaker, was designed so .that the government would have the strong harld, so that the government could call the shots. 5902

May 31, 1983 Tape No . 2J86 MJ- 2 MR. LUSH: That is \vhat this particular bill does. So the minister has the obligation to tell this hon. House the steps that he is going to take to soften the tremendous impact that this particular piece of legislation \vill have on the labour movement in this Province. It is not the kind of bill, ~- Speaker, that will promote har.monious labour relations in the Province. When the minister sat down to design this particular bill ,he certainly ~as not concerned about improving the level of labour/management relations in the Province.

That was the farth est thing £rom his mind because 1.firstly 1 he would have consulted with the labour groups in the Province, the various units that represent all o£ the workers in the public service, that is the first step he would have taken , The first thing he would have done, \vas to have consulted all o.f the unions that are represented within the public service o£ this Province, to consult with these to find out that 5903

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2787 NM- 1 MR. LUSH: the measures that he was going to take were in agreement with the workers and with the unions. So the minister was not concerned about promoting good labour/management relations in the Province when he sat down, or when his officials sat down to put down all of the insidious measures that they have made in this particular bill. And secondly, of course, the measures that I have already alluded to were not designed, were not put in place to promote good labour/management relations in tnis Province.

The clause with respect to definition of employees I have already pointed out, and the designation of sessential services. Neither of these two points will do much to promote good labour/management relations in the Province. But, Mr.Speaker, what we must know, and there is no purpose in debating the bill until we do know the kinds of agreements, the kinds of accommodations that were made with labour movements in this Province, on what issues agreements'were reached.

What is the time frame in coming to these agreements and what guarantees do the workers of this Province, the unions of this Province representing the public service, what kind of guarantees do you have that the minister will give them sufficient time to make their presentation re the items contained in this bill, particularly the items on which there have been aqreements? - indeed, if there has been agreement. The minister says that they met and they reached certain arrangements.

I will give the minister the opportunity to tell us what the arrangements were, to outline for us the guarantees that these unions have and the workers of the public service have ·that their case will be listened to, that their representations will be accommodated 5904

Ma y 31, 1983 Tape No. 2787 NM - 2 MR. LUSH: and that there will be sufficient time for them to make their representation and, in the meantime, all that will be done will be the proclamation of the good points. Can the minister tell us that all that 5905

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2788 MJ - 1 HR~ LUSH: months 1 or however long it takes,for the various labour groups concerned to get their briefs together, to make their presentation to the government? It is only fair, it is only just, Mr.

Speaker, in a democracy that we know these kinds of arrangements 1and if the minister cannot or is not prepared to give us that kind of information 1 then I say that this bill will go through, that it will never be changed again and we will have done the labour movement a tremendous injustice in this Province, probably one of the greatest injustices ever perpetrated on any labour group in this country. Butit is up to the minister, Mr. Speaker, to give us what the assurances are, what the guarantees are. Again, Mr. Speaker, this government gets itself into this position by its approach.

That is the thing that has to be underlined, that is the thing· tha·t has to be underscored, that is what has got be made most emphatic 1that this government gets itself into this kind of position with the labour movement in particular and with every other group with which it deals because it does not respect the labour movement, the way it negotiates, 'Do as.r say,' no consultation with the labour movement, no wonder Mr. Speaker, they get themselves into hot water, no wonder they get themselves into the kind of trouble they do when they approach negotiations in this arrogant manner. So, Mr.

Speaker, if the minister will tell us just exactly what the arrangements were he entered into with the union officials and just what guarantees there are, give us some details as to what exactly he plans to do and what assurances he has given the labour movement, what guarantees then, Mr. Speaker, we can debate this bill with a little more rationality. MR. SPEAKER (Aylward) : If the hon. the minister speaks now he will close the debate. 5906

May 31, 1983 Tape No . 2788 MJ - 2 MR . DINN: Mr . Speaker . MR . SPEAKER .(Aylward) : The hon . the t-1inister of Labour and Manpower. MR . DINN: Mr . Speaker, I thank the hon. the member for Terra Nova (Mr . Lush) for his contr:ibution to the debate. Basically the hon. member struck on several pointsp I hope I did not miss any of them because I was out for a moment .sut there are sections of the legislation that ' maybe not 100 per cent but are pretty good sections and align themselves with the Labour Relations Act . For example, as I said,

Section 2 amended would bring in line

Section 99 of the Labour Relations Act and provides an employee does not lose his status as an employee as a result of a strike or a lock -out. That is in line with the Labour Relations Act and I think that is favourably received. Some of the other ones that have been favoured 1 maybe not 100 per cent but the 5907

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2789 JV - 1 ~ffi. DINN: appointment of a mediator became a problem during several sets of negotiations and I think that is a good provision. It is a provision whereby you go through a process of a conciliation officer and board ~na you get to a point where it is almost stalemated and you need to have that next level of negotiation or mediation. It is the next level up,we will say,from post-conciliation, I think it is a good provision, it is one that aligns itself again with

Section 80 of the Labour Relations Act and provides the minister with the capability of getting both sides back to the bargaining table with mediation in gear and the possibility of resolution to what could be a fairly serious situation. Members of the Labour Relations Board to serve on conciliation Boards ,,I think is a fair amendment and aligns itself again with the Labour Relations Act. For example, we have people ·who serve on the Labour Relations Board in this Province, who have done yeoman work on conciliations boards and so on and I think the same provisions should be provided, or have the capability provided for them to serve on conciliation boards as regarqs to the public service.

Section 18 would allow the minister to defer requests for the appointment of a conciliation board and I have gone through that, Ma ybe not everyone would agree with that process 1 but the fact of the matter is there are certain times when I have gotten requests from both sides to defer making decisions on the appointment of conciliation boards. There are times,for example 1 when I might want to appoint a conciliation board, but there might be eighty or -ninety . - ~ .. ----.- -- ... ' - - -- itsns outstanding and it would be just impossible for a 5908

Hay 31, 1983 Tape No. 2789 JV - 2 MR. DINN: con cili ation board to address itself to , there are things that should be settled in the collective bargaining process , we should get dO\m to four or five or six items b'e Zore appointing a conciliation board and give both sides an opportunity to present their case to an independent body. So I think that is a good provision , I do not suppose that everyone \vould agree that it is a good provision but I have been Mini st er of Labour and Manpower now for over four years and I have gotten requests fr0.m both sides and I think it is a good provision. We use it in the Labour Relations Act , I do not think it has ever been abused. 5909

May 31, 1983 Tape No. 2790 MJ MR. DINN: There have been times it has been questioned as to whether it has or has not been abused,but to my knowledge,as minister , I do not think there has ever been a time that I have ever consciously abused

Section 97 of the Labour Relations Act. 1 Some of the oth .e;r: i,tems~ as I said before, successor rights is not as good as what mernbe~~ of the labour movement would want, There may be refinements that we could make to successor rights p~o ~ isions in the Public Service(Collective Bargaining)Act. T cannot think of what that phrase would be or what tha;t clause would be but it certainly is a step forward.

It may not be a giant step but we might be able to get 'ref:i,nements to that between now and say the Fall Session so that we could improve that, Essential employees: I would like to deal with essential employees because I think it is a very, very important provision. Tt is a provision that was in the Public Service(Collective Bargaining)Act since 1973 when the act was brought in and there have been problems with that particular

section since that time. We have never gotten to a situation where in the health services field - MR. LUSH: (Inaudible) MR. DINN: Yes, There have been agreements by both sides in certain institutions,and as a matter of fact, for the hon. members information,we never really had a problem with essential employees until,hon