May 1,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No.

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Statements by Ministers.

Oral Questions.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, Statements.

MR. SPEAKER: We revert to Statements by Ministers.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I just want to take two or

three minutes. I haven't a prepared statement but I wanted to take this first

opportunity just to fill the House in very briefly on what occurred. I won't

take long, because I know the Leader of the Opposition wants to be here for

Question Period and he has to leave at about 9:45 to catch a flight, so I won't

be very long.

I should tell hon. members that when the trip was originally

scheduled, it was scheduled in response to requests by the Canadian clubs at the

Canadian Forces' bases in Lahr, Geilenkirchen and Baden-Baden to speak to them

on a variety of matters in Canada, but particularly, the constitutional issues.

So they provided the transportation, and you will be happy to know that it saved

the Government of the Province at least transportation costs and much of the

costs for most of the first part of the trip.

I would draw hon. members' attention to one thing. I found

there a very high level of awareness in thousands of Canadians in Europe about

this question. They are good ambassadors for us, making the issue known and

dealing with the issue in Germany. Now, it may help, of course, that a fair

number of them are Newfoundlanders. You run into a great number of

Newfoundlanders over there. But I wanted to say to you that they were excellent

in that regard.

To deal more specifically with the fisheries issues, we met

in Hamburg with representatives of nongovernmental organizations, one, in

particular, and I have copies of the release they issued the day we had the

meeting. The World Wildlife Fund issued its own release, calling on the European

community to respond immediately to address these issues and expressing their

support for Canada's position on the issue. There were other representatives at

the meeting, and a NAFO scientists who expressed his full support for Canada's

position on it, and told us in very clear terms that he was supportive of our

position.

We held a news conference and there was a good representation

there from news media, significant environmental news media in Europe, including

a Greenpeace publication. We then held a meeting with industry representatives.

In particular, I can express great encouragement from the comments of one, Dr.

Cook, who is the President of the German Trawler Association. He undertook to

bring whatever pressure they can to bear on the European community, Commissioner

Marin, when he meets with the Commissioner later this month, to cause them to

abide by NAFO's rules and quotas.

That was the position we took with all of them throughout,

that what we were asking of the European community was simply to abide by the

rules and quotas established by the international organization to which they

belong. As long as we maintain that position we develop the good strong level of

support in a variety of places. But there is one area that needs to be

addressed, and that came up in my discussions with Dr. Kittel, who is the

minister responsible for food, agriculture and forestry, and, as such, has

responsibility for fisheries in Bonn, and with one of his assistants, Mr.

Kleeshulte, who has responsibility for German representation on fisheries

matters in the European community.

They point out one area of inconsistency in Canada's

position, in that we have pressured NAFO to put in place a moratorium outside

the 200-mile limit on Northern cod, with none inside. They say there is clearly

no scientific justification for that; so that, they claim, is the basis on which

the European community sets its unilateral quota. There is a fair amount of

logic in their position. It does not mean that there should be substantial

access to Northern cod. There should not be. About 3 per cent to 5 per cent of

Northern cod are really fairly attributable to the area outside the 200-mile

limit, and that is an area in respect of which Canada might carry on some

discussions with them, but it would also improve Canada's bargaining position to

deal with that issue.

Those meetings went quite well. There was then a further

meeting with Dr. Von Geldern, the Chairman of the Federal Parliamentary

Committee on the Environment. We obtained a commitment of support from him, as

well.

The European community has a very convenient way of saying,

'Well, it is not us; it is the member states.' And the member states have a very

convenient way of saying, 'Well, it is not us; it is the European Commission.'

So they keep sending you further around the circle. I told them that we had done

this for five years. The Canadian Government had made tremendous diplomatic

efforts over the last five years, and it has only resulted in substantial

increase in the level of foreign overfishing, so that now our purpose was to

cause the maximum level of embarrassment possible for European community

nations, to bring pressure to bear on them to cause a change. I was quite frank

with them and told them that was the objective, and that was the objective we

would continue.

In Brussels, we met with the Commission officials, and a

variety of them. The official we met with on the environment was quite good and

understanding, although he could not make any direct commitment. Then we met

with the Deputy Director General for Fisheries, Mr. Alamieda Serra. That is

where we ran into an absolute blank wall. If ever I encountered a person who was

very antagonistic and very difficult, he would have to be the individual. Having

spent nearly an hour with him, I can have some understanding for the level of

difficulty Mr. Crosbie and other federal ministers who have attempted to deal

with him have had over recent years.

I spoke at the Royal Institute of International Affairs and

had a good response there from representatives who had particular interest and

from news media around Europe who were there; and, as well, the European

Commission had sent their top scientists there to deal with the issues. He

raised their position and I think we dealt effectively with it, so, all in all,

that speech went quite well.

I then met with Belgian government officials, as well, to

seek their support on an environmental basis. One of the last meetings I had was

with the European Commission Deputy Director General for External Affairs, and I

was quite encouraged by the discussions with him. His objective is to try to

resolve this as an issue between Canada and the European community. He was quite

interested in substantial detail of Canada's position, which I gave him, and I

feel that that meeting with him was quite a valuable one.

To sum up, I can only say, don't expect solutions next week,

but things are starting to move. I arranged a meeting with Mr. Crosbie. I

intended to arrange a meeting in Ottawa on the way back but he was coming back

on the plane, so I met with him briefly on the plane last night and reported to

him fully on the discussions so that he would be fully aware. He told me that

already he has received a request from the European Commission to speed up the

meetings and cause them to be held some weeks earlier than they were originally

scheduled, so it appears that it is having some impact.

My own assessment of it is that, with the efforts of UNCED in

New York and these efforts in Europe, and the efforts Mr. Crosbie has made in

Cuba and Panama, all in all, we are bringing some pressure to bear on the

European community and they are starting to feel the effects of it, so that the

objective, now, should be to keep the pressure on all fronts until we get a

satisfactory resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to report at a future time in

more detail, but I don't want to take extra time today.

I do want to take one more minute just to express my

gratitude to all of the embassy officials in Bonn, in Brussels and in Hamburg

for their excellent co-operation and for all that they did to accommodate me and

to facilitate presentation of this issue. Every one of them without exception

performed in an excellent way and I want to publicly acknowledge that.

I thank the Leader of the Opposition for accommodating me

this morning.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Premier for giving us

a bit of an update on his excursion and his trip. As he knows, and as I hope the

people of the Province know, we are supportive of any endeavour that will bring

about a resolve to this most difficult problem we all face. The only thing we

have ever suggested, I guess, and I am not sure if it has been really acted

upon, is that we are prepared on this side to offer our assistance in any way

that we can, and I make that offer again to the Premier sincerely. If there is

any way that I, as Leader of our party and Leader of the Opposition, might be

able to help and participate in making sure that the effort is seen as an

non-partisan joint effort of this Legislature then I am quite prepared to do it,

and most willing to do it. In fact I made the same offer to the Prime Minister

when I met with him a month or so ago and he immediately accepted that offer and

invited me to participate with the Canadian delegation at the conference in Rio

de Janeiro next month. I will be doing that and I trust that the Premier as well

will be there, and others. Within the Premier's comments I think there was an

indication from him that the effort is being made by everybody. I was pleased to

hear him make that kind of a comment because I think that is the kind of

approach that will work. It is certainly the kind of approach that the public,

who are pretty cynical as it is about politicians, would like to see and like to

hear about. I hear that as I travel around this Province, and I think that is

the way the people of Newfoundland and Labrador would like to see the thing

done. You do your thing, the federal government does their thing, we do our

thing, but the effort is to attack the problem and to try to bring pressure to

bear on the European community in whichever way we can, in whichever manner we

can.

I thank him for giving us an update. We may have questions to

ask as time goes on but we will see how successful, I guess, his efforts, Mr.

Crosbie's efforts, and anybody else's efforts will be towards the latter part of

this year, I guess. That will be the key point.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could address

these remarks to the Premier for a few moments. I would like to thank the

Premier for updating the House and to congratulate him on his efforts in

bringing the issue of all foreign overfishing to the source of the problem.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I want to make sure that the Chair makes the proper

acknowledgement and ruling here. Could I assume that the hon. Member for St.

John's East has the agreement of the House?

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The efforts of the Premier in going to the source of the

problem are to be commended and I appreciate him taking the time to explain some

of the results of this to the House. As the Leader of the Opposition has said

and as I have said on previous occasions both opposition parties support any

efforts by the government to deal with this problem in a serious way, as he is

making his efforts, and the Leader of the Opposition has indicated the same on

his visit to Ottawa speaking to the Prime Minister. I would like to inform the

members of the House that this weekend I will be travelling to Ottawa to a

federal council meeting of the New Democratic Party where I will be pressing a

resolution which will when adopted, and I am very confident that it will be,

most serious action, to start taking control over the Nose and Tail of the Grand

Banks, and to enforce the type of custodial management that is required to

ensure that our own fishery, and indeed this fishery for all the world is

protected. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a statement

today regarding the household hazardous waste day in the Province this Sunday,

May 3. Residence of the -

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier on a point of order.

PREMIER WELLS: I don't wish to interrupt the member, but

I spoke to the Leader of the Opposition beforehand when I asked his consent. I

know he has to leave, and I know that he wants to participate in Question Period

before he has to leave. So if the minister doesn't mind, and the House doesn't

mind I would like to accommodate the Leader of the Opposition by having Question

Period first if that is what he wishes. We can revert to Ministerial Statements

after.

MR. SPEAKER: Is there consensus on the Premier's request.

AN HON. MEMBER: Agreed.

Oral Questions

MR. SPEAKER: The Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have some energy related questions I would

like to ask this morning. The first one I would like to put to the Minister of

Environment concerning the Abitibi Greenwood Hydro Project for the Exploits

River. Now just by way of a little bit of background, on April 13 of last year,

1991, the former Minister of Environment told us that the full environmental

assessment was to begin last April and it would take eighteen months to complete

that assessment. Then in September, of course, we found out that the project, in

fact, had been put on hold until this Spring, since under her regulations,

section five I believe it is, the minister's approval to undergo a full

assessment expires in August of 1993, sixteen months away or thereabout. But

since we were told it will take eighteen months to complete it, and since this

is the Spring, even though you would not know it by the weather, I want to ask

the minister if she can tell the House: is this project now about ready to

start, as far as she knows, like any day now? When does she in fact anticipate

the start of construction? I presume she has been having ongoing meetings with

Abitibi officials to be kept up to date.

MR. SPEAKER: The Minister of Environment and Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I will undertake to go back and find out just exactly where

the project is at this moment. I can assure the Leader of the Opposition, Mr.

Speaker, that we are concerned about development in this Province and will not

unduly hold up this particular assessment. However, we must, as well, proceed in

a responsible manner. If at any time there is a holdup it is always done with

the agreement of the proponent.

So I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that I have full

confidence in my staff in progressing with this matter. However, I will today,

after Question Period, call over and make sure just what the status of that is

and report back.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, there is not much point in

pursuing that item, the minister is not aware of what is happening with it.

Let me ask a supplementary question on an energy related

matter to the Premier, in the absence of the Minister of Mines and Energy. A

little over a month ago the Minister of Mines and Energy told this House that

the Hibernia partners were conducting a vigorous campaign all around the world

to find new partners or a partner to replace Gulf. May I ask the Premier if the

government has any encouraging news to report to the people of the Province,

anything positive? Secondly, can I ask the Premier if he or the Minister of

Mines and Energy in the last couple of months, since the original announcement

was made of the delay, have had any meetings with the partners to be kept up to

date?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There is a fairly

elaborate procedure in place, in fact. Peter Kennedy, who is the Deputy Minister

responsible for monitoring the Hibernia events, the implementation of the

Hibernia agreements and so on, has been involved and kept up to date constantly

on behalf of the government and reports to me and to the minister on a regular

basis. He is kept up to date in the discussions that are taking place with

officials of the oil company partners and with officials of the federal

government.

In addition to that, I have had a number of meetings and

conversations - the majority, I think, have been telephone conversations - with

the heads of the various oil companies and, of course, there have been

discussions with Mr. Epp, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As a

matter of fact, I spoke with Mr. Epp yesterday about the matter. The provincial

officials, company officials and federal government officials will be meeting in

the next little while for a full and complete assessment of where matters now

stand. Dr. Gibbons is in touch with - I know he spoke with Mr. Epp last week. He

probably spoke with him again yesterday. I spoke with him yesterday. I know we

will be in touch with him again in the next few weeks.

Because of the nature of this thing it is obvious that the

government has detailed information that it is just not possible to disclose in

a public way by a debate in the House. I am not trying to avoid reporting fully

to the Province, Mr. Speaker. The nature of it requires that we be circumspect

in any statements that we make at this particular time. But yes, there are

constant discussions and meetings going on.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just a further

supplementary on that particular matter. I understand the need to avoid making

detailed matters public at a sensitive time. But can he at least tell the people

of the Province what kind of a time frame are we looking at? Give us some idea

of what kind of a time frame we are looking at where he hopes that this matter

will be addressed or finalized or resolved one way or the other. Are we looking

at the end of summer, the end of June, the early fall or...? What are we looking

at? Or what does he (Inaudible)...?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It is difficult again to put a precise

time on it, because I do not want to suggest that we are going to have an answer

in three weeks or six weeks. Then, if the time does not come, or the matter is

not resolved by that time, then all sorts of perhaps wrong conclusions are

arrived at as a result. There is no specific and absolute time frame, but

obviously the parties must come to a conclusion fairly soon. They cannot just

leave this thing to go on forever. There are large sums of money involved for

both the oil companies involved and the governments, so that the matter has to

be resolved as quickly as is possible.

The only thing that I can say to you is that so long as

everything appears to be going in a direction towards an acceptable solution

nobody is going to cut off the action or say: it has to be done by a certain

time. There are no absolutes in time frame, but all parties are aware of the

importance of having it resolved very quickly.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I want to ask a

question of the Minister of Mines and Energy who now has arrived in the House.

It is related to a further energy matter and that is the Lower Churchill

development. I want to ask the minister, he will recall that in this House on

April 2 he told the Member for Menihek that the Newfoundland and Labrador and

Quebec negotiators had been meeting for the past two and a half years and had

held nearly thirty meetings. I think he said thirty meetings, in fact, to be

precise. Which was one a month.

The last meeting he said at that time was on March 3, and

that Quebec had been since that time considering new proposals from the Province

of Newfoundland and Labrador. I want to ask the minister: has the Province of

Quebec responded in any way to these proposals to this point in time? Secondly,

I want to ask the minister: how many meetings has he had at his level with his

provincial counterpart in the Province of Quebec, the Minister of Energy from

Quebec, to discuss this very important economic initiative?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the meetings have primarily

been between the two corporations, the Hydro Quebec negotiating team and the

Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro negotiating team, and not at the political

level. The corporations are negotiating a commercial agreement. The Leader of

the Opposition is right that I said that there had been thirty meetings to date,

including all meetings, including a couple of the earlier ones that I did

participate in when we initiated the discussions a couple of years ago.

The most recent meeting was March 3 and there has not been a

full negotiating session since that time. We are waiting now, our team is

waiting now, for the Hydro Quebec team to complete its assessment and inform our

team that it is ready for the next meeting.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, supplementary to the minister. Is

the minister saying that this is strictly a corporate negotiation and that there

will be no political approvals required from the government of Quebec or from

the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador? Surely he isn't saying that, but

that is what he has suggested. So therefore I ask again: when has this minister

met with his political counterpart to discuss this matter of such importance?

Why hasn't he?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the meetings that I had at the

political level were at the early stage in the initiation of these discussions.

After that the negotiating team started to meet. I am not saying there would not

be some need to get approval at an appropriate time, but right now what is being

negotiated is a commercial agreement on the power that is surplus to the needs

of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

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

My question also is to the Minister of Mines and Energy. A

week or so ago the minister spoke to a business group in Happy Valley - Goose

Bay, particularly concerning the Lower Churchill. I think it is well known that

the Innu Nation in Labrador has concerns about the development of the Lower

Churchill. Could the minister advise if he has met with representatives of the

Innu Nation with respect to the development of the Lower Churchill?

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I spoke to the Chamber of

Commerce in Happy Valley - Goose Bay last week on energy issues in general. I

covered numerous subjects in the energy sector. One of the subjects was the

potential Lower Churchill development. So that clarifies that particular event

last Friday.

On the other issue: No, I have not personally met with the

Innu Nation and I would not be personally involved with land claims

negotiations.

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

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

With a development such as the Lower Churchill and, Mr.

Speaker, with the issue that the Innu Nation has expressed concerning this

development, surely goodness wouldn't the minister do the proper thing of asking

representatives of the Innu Nation to sit down with his department and discuss

this in more detail? Because I think we have to make sure that this issue is

looked after and taken care of before development starts.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, if we should reach a letter of

intent this year or at some other time, there will still be about a three-year

time frame required to assess all other issues relating to the Lower Churchill

development. I believe there is lots of time within that time frame for any

issue related to native claims to be addressed if there is one.

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

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

Surely goodness the minister doesn't want to play a double

standard here. On one hand we have the government talking about the land claims

issue with the Innu people and, at the same time, talking with the Quebec

counterpart with respect to the development of the Lower Churchill.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary. I would ask him to get

to his supplementary.

MR. WARREN: So, Mr. Speaker, could the minister not see

fit to immediately talk with the Innu Nation concerning the development of the

Lower Churchill because, as I said earlier, if the land claims issue is going to

be dealt with, you better deal with it upfront instead of behind the scenes.

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

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, the land claims issue will be

dealt with in the appropriate way by the appropriate agencies, not by me as the

energy minister.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Health but he is not

around, so maybe it could be just as appropriately directed to the Minister of

Social Services. Everyone is very much aware of the problems being experienced

at this point in time by the provincial AIDS Committee. It has been in the news

quite frequently over the last couple of days. They have had some problems down

there with theft and what have you. The committee, as the minister is aware,

provides a very valuable service in public education programs. I believe they

travel around to schools within the Province, as well.

Would the government consider providing some interim

financing in the way of a grant to the provincial AIDS Committee to help them

through the crisis which they are presently experiencing?

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

MR. GULLAGE: Mr. Speaker, that is very much a health

question and would be more appropriately addressed to the Health Minister. I

will take it under advisement, advise him of the question and we will report

back with an answer.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Maybe the Premier or the President of Treasury

Board could answer that question. Maybe the Premier is not fully aware of the

problems because he has been away over the last couple of days, but it is a very

straightforward, simple question to answer. They are having some problems right

now, very, very serious problems.

So, would the government provide some interim financing in

the way of a grant to the provincial AIDS Committee?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I only know what I have been

briefly advised, that there has apparently been some embezzlement problems in

the committee and they have a shortage of funds. I understand there is a

substantial public response, and the government welcomes that.

The government is not going to stand on the floor of the

House and negotiate with the Opposition what it is going to give or not going to

give. The Opposition seems inordinately anxious to spend the tax payers money,

but they never say who is going to raise the taxes to provide the monies. The

Minister of Health will no doubt watch the matter and see that it takes its

course, and I have no doubt the Minister of Health will discharge his

responsibility fully when the time comes.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, is the government or the

President of Treasury Board aware that the organization at this point in time

cannot meet its payroll next week? In spite of that the staff down at the

Provincial AIDS Committee are going to continue working which is an indication -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs might think this is a big joke, but I can assure him this is

no big joke. This particular committee -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to proceed with his question.

MR. DOYLE: - provides a very valuable service to the

people of the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DOYLE: - especially to the schools in the Province -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. DOYLE: - in informing people of the problems

associated with this.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I ask hon. members again, when the Chair

intervenes hon. members should please not continue speaking, unless they have

not heard the intervention. The Chair, of course, has no idea if the member

hears it or not. I would like for hon. members to keep that in mind. I ask the

hon. member to please proceed with the question. I don't know whether he has

completed it, but proceed with the question.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I was about to ask: is the

government aware that the Provincial AIDS Committee organization cannot meet its

payroll next week? In spite of that the staff, I am told, are going to continue

to work, which is a very firm indication, I believe, of their commitment to

their work. Now if the staff are going to work free of charge, surely the

government should be in a position at this point in time to make some kind of a

commitment to this committee in the way of interim financing, in the way of a

grant to help them over this problem that they are experiencing. Now is the

government willing to make that commitment?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I will just say again I have

no doubt the Minister of Health is very much aware of the excellent contribution

that is made by the AIDS Committee, and the valuable work that they do. The

Minister of Health will do what is right to see that the situation is properly

managed. The government is not going to just be responding to this kind of

grand-standing in the House and say: Oh yes, we will put up whatever money is

necessary to do whatever the Opposition wants the government to do. That is

irresponsible. The Minister of Health will look after the situation in what is a

responsible way both to the taxpayers and those who need the assistance of the

AIDS Committee.

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

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

the Minister of Fisheries, but in his absence I will ask the Premier. On March

9, 1992 the Minister of Fisheries made a statement regarding fishermen who have

loans with the Fisheries Loan Board and the government guaranteed loans with

chartered banks. From conversations with Fisheries Loan Board officials and

fishermen I have been told that not all fishermen will qualify for this interest

relief through the chartered banks. Is this the case? Why don't all fishermen

qualify?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: My recollection, I have to say it is a

little vague, of what the minister announced was that he announced help where

help was needed. He did not announce that we were going to send out all kinds of

dollars to everybody who has a loan and who has not caught an acceptable level

of fish. My recollection is that he announced a level of help to the extent that

it was needed and justified. So it may well be that some fishermen would qualify

for it and others would not.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

How does the Premier square this answer he just gave with one

given on December 15, 1989 when I was questioning him on a similar program that

was introduced in 1988 when the Premier said: Let me indicate that it did not

seem there was some discrepancy. It was an example of the former government's

misadministration of a program where they provided help for one group and

excluded others in what I think is a quite unfair way. We have undertaken, I

know, to review this matter. And he goes on to say: It was quite unfair in 1989

and if this program was unfair then we are going to rectify it. How does the

Premier square that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: It is very easy, Mr. Speaker. It was

obviously a different situation and help was provided to the extent that help

was needed. The government does not have the millions of dollars to lash out to

everybody whether they need it or not, to somebody who has made a very

substantial income from fishing, and there are fishermen who have and who do not

need that kind of assistance. So the government is going to provide the help on

a fair basis to the extent that the help is needed and justified on an equitable

standard for everybody without distinguishing between groups, as I said in

December 1989. We do not differentiate between groups. We provide help on a fair

and rational basis for everybody.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, this answer by the Premier is

not satisfactory because the Premier in 1989 said that it was unfair and

unbalanced. This program is exactly the same program. Those with the Government

Guaranteed Loan Program do not qualify, some do, some do not, all qualify under

the Fisheries Loan Board.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member is on a supplementary and he is now giving a

speech.

MR. WINSOR: How does this different treatment for

fishermen constitute the fairness and balance that the Premier talks about?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I have every confidence that what the

minister announced this year provides fair and balanced treatment for everybody

who needs the help the same as the earlier program did, but I will get that

specific question back in December. What day was it?

MR. WINSOR: December 15, 1989.

PREMIER WELLS: December 15, 1989. I will get that out of

Hansard, find out what the specific situation was then, and I will advise the

House as to whether or not there are any differences whatsoever, and if there

are I will let the House know.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Development who I

believe is responsible for Enterprise Newfoundland as well as his departmental

duties. Last year we had, what I call generic press statements from Enterprise

Newfoundland or from the minister about jobs created and loans given, and such

things as that. It seemed to be fairly successful but we have never seen a list

of individual loans to individual companies. Can the minister tell this House if

he is willing to provide to this House and to the public a list of the

individual loans that were given out to different companies, the list of the

names of the companies they are given to, and also which of these companies have

availed of the loans? There are sometimes loan offers made but the companies

just cannot afford to take them up because of different circumstances. Will the

minister agree to provide to this House a list of those names?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, it is a good question and a

timely one. I do not know if my friend opposite has been talking to the CBC

Corporation or what but they had requested that a couple of months ago.

Certainly, we are compiling a full list. It is a good question. When we first

started structuring Enterprise Newfoundland it was difficult, as we were going

through the transition from NLDC to ENL, to determine whether it would be right

and proper to give out information concerning companies but now, as you know, we

have put a waiver in place and companies that come to us seeking interim

financing equity or loans sign that waiver and give us permission therefore to

say that the government is supplying X amount of money by way of equity, or X

amount of money by way of a small low interest loan, or any of the various

programs that we have in place.

I have instructed the corporation to develop that full list

of each company and how it has been helped. The hon. member will know that

Enterprise Newfoundland is not in the business of giving out grants, unlike

their counterpart ACOA that gives away money, either 50 per cent, 75 per cent,

or in some cases through interest buy-downs. We are in the business of lending

money. We believe that people who come to us should take a risk and we are

prepared to participate in that risk. In essence the list is being compiled and

as soon as it is developed and fully completed and compiled I will be willing to

share that with the House. Of course I have to give it to my CBC friends as

well.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

I know there are a couple of lists in the department now. I

know that from staff. There are a couple of lists. Is it possible that these

lists can be tabled rather quickly? How long will we have to wait for the

computers to get back in shape, which I believe the excuse was? Somebody in the

department told CBC that was why they could not get a list. I don't know what

could happen to the computers that they have been down for so long but, Mr.

Speaker, can the minister give us an indication as to when we can expect a list

and can we get some of the preliminary lists that are available presently?

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

Tourism.

MR. FUREY: I see that my friend has been talking to CBC,

as well. What we have said to CBC is that we are not prepared to give partial

lists, or bits of lists, or part A of a list and B next week. I told them we are

going to compile a comprehensive and full list. Some of the problems are, is it

right to include in a list the company that had an approval but, through no

fault of their own, they could not take up that money, so, should that be

removed from the list? These are the kinds of questions we are dealing with.

And truly, there was a computer failure, too, in some of our

regional offices. It was difficult to compile a list because of - I don't know

what it is - power outages or whatever but there were computer problems. So I

have instructed the five regions to bring in the companies' names that have been

helped and that have taken up loans or equity positions through Enterprise

Newfoundland. I promise you, it will be a full, comprehensive, clear list and I

will table it as quickly as possible.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Doesn't the minister consider it rather ironic that

Enterprise Newfoundland, who are dealing with businesses - businesses depend

solely on efficiency, that is how they are going to survive in this Province -

that the government agency which deals with them is not efficient enough to be

able to tell people who have loans from them and how much these loans are?

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

Tourism.

MR. FUREY: No, Mr. Speaker. What I consider ironic, is

that the Opposition fail to realize and give credit to the government for

structuring a superb corporation which helps small and medium-sized businesses.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, what I find ironic is that the

hon. member will not stand in his place and say: You have helped 405 businesses

last year - good job, government. What I find ironic is that the hon. member

knows we have helped create 1,500 new jobs through this corporation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Finally, Mr. Speaker, what I find ironic is

that the hon. member knows in his heart of hearts, that the corporation, through

its various lending programs, protected and maintained another 3,000 jobs right

across this Province. Mr. Speaker, what I find ironic is that the Opposition

cannot see a good thing and have the heart to stand and say: Well done,

government, you are on the right track; keep it up and let us all work together

to create more jobs.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to say

that if I believed it, but, what is actually happening, and the minister might

want to confirm this, is that Enterprise Newfoundland and the Economic Recovery

Commission are costing some $20 million or $26 million to do the exact, same job

and not nearly as efficiently as the old Rural Development Board and the

Newfoundland Development Corporation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, the old Rural Development

Board created more jobs and helped more small companies than Enterprise

Newfoundland did, at one-tenth of the cost.

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

Tourism. I am not sure there was a question.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I wasn't sure there was a

question there, but I can only tell the hon. member, that, you know, you have to

compare apples and apples, and the way this government has performed is we have

put a capital budget in place for Enterprise Newfoundland of $24 million. We

have created 1,500 new jobs across the Province and maintained and protected

3,100 others.

Now, let us compare -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. FUREY: Be nice, now. Mr. Speaker, we have to compare

apples and apples. Now, what did the previous government do with $24 million?

They created 200 jobs for two months, growing cucumbers, case closed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

There is time for a short question.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. WOODFORD: The unemployment rate is 25 per cent.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, all thinking Newfoundlanders

will have been shocked to learn this week, on the eve of a province-wide

literacy conference being held in St. John's and Provincial Libraries Week, of

the announcement that provincial libraries will be shut down for a period of two

weeks this summer because of a lack of funds to be able to operate.

Now, Mr. Speaker, my question is simply this, and it would be

either to the Minister of Education or to the Premier to answer this question:

Is his government satisfied to see that happen and to see whatever progress that

we are trying to make in terms of building our educational network of literacy

amongst the population and the availability of this kind of resource - is the

government going to let this happen or is the government going to do something

about it and prevent it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I heard the interview on the

news this morning and the discussion about it. I heard the minister responsible

explain it in some significant detail. There is no trouble to keep everything

open, everything operating fully if we have lots of revenue, if we are prepared

to pay the taxes, if members are prepared to give up their salaries or if they

are prepared to designate the hospitals that are to be closed, or to decide what

roads are not going to be operated or maintained and what roads are going to be

closed.

The government established its Budget and the Libraries Board

decided that this was the best way to live within the limitations. Now these

financial limitations, as the hon. member well knows, are brought on by three

primary factors, first, the substantial reduction by the federal government. And

when I say 'reduction', I mean in absolute dollars. They transferred less last

year than they did two years ago in the total transfers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

PREMIER WELLS: It is, it is in the books, just take a

look at it. It is there in the Budget, look at it, it is there to be seen. In

actual dollars it was less last year than the year before. In actual dollars it

was less in this past year than it was two years ago. So we have to try to live

within our means. Now, we can close down hospitals, we can close down schools,

or we can say to everybody: Everybody has to restrain their expenditures.

Now the Libraries Board - it is regrettable, but they decided

to do it this particular way. The government could say to them: No, we don't

want you to do it that way, we want you to lay off ten people, or twenty people,

or close two libraries permanently instead of closing them all for two weeks.

However, we trust the judgement of the Libraries Board. We assume they know best

how to operate. They know what their financial limits are. But the government

can't scuttle its Budget every time the Opposition tries to make some hay out of

a decision that people make in the management of their funds. We have to act

responsibly.

Now, I know the role of the Opposition is to try to make life

as difficult as they can for the government, but they also have to be honest

with the people of this Province and recognise that the funds are simply not

there to do everything to the extent that we would like to do them. We trust the

judgement of the Libraries Board; we think they are better equipped to make that

decision than we are.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Before proceeding to the next item of business, on behalf of

hon. members, I welcome to the galleries, thirty students from Mount Pearl

Junior High, St. John's West district, accompanied by their teacher, Mr. Gordon

Hicks.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I believe the understanding was that we

would do Question Period and then revert to Ministerial Statements. Was that the

understanding?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Agreed.

MR. SPEAKER: Ministerial Statements. The hon. the

Minister of Mines and Energy.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I have a Ministerial Statement

that I gave this morning at a press conference that I would like to do, but I

was going to ask leave first to say a few words about a great volunteer in my

district who is retiring today after fifty years of work, if I can have leave of

the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

DR. GIBBONS: Thank you very much.

One of my constituents who has been a volunteer in the St.

John's area all his life and has made a great contribution, particularly to

softball in the higher levels area, is retiring today from the City of St.

John's, where he has worked for the last fifty years. This gentleman is a member

of the Softball Hall of Fame in Newfoundland. His name is Fred Jackson, Sr. A

lot of us are probably more familiar with the name of his son, Fred Jackson, Jr.

recently, who is also very involved and following in his father's footsteps.

Certainly, I want to pay my respect to Mr. Jackson and wish him all the best

today, upon his retirement.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with

the Member for St. John's North in offering our congratulations -

AN HON. MEMBER: St. John's West.

MR. R. AYLWARD: West, I am sorry - in offering our

congratulations to Mr. Jackson. I was a beneficiary of some of his work, because

I played in some of the minor softball around the St. John's area. I was never

very good at it. I never excelled, and I don't ever expect to make the Hall of

Fame, but I do, as a person, appreciate the work that Mr. Jackson did for a lot

of young people in this area, particularly in the higher levels area.

MR. SPEAKER: Ministerial Statements.

The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, this morning, I shared a press

conference at 8:30 with the hon. John Crosbie, at which we announced the

conclusion of the deal for Hope Brook Mine by Royal Oak.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: I am very pleased that the agreement between

Royal Oak Mines and British Petroleum Resources to purchase the Hope Brook Mine

has now been successfully completed.

I wish to offer my personal congratulations and best wishes

to Ms. Peggy Witte, President of Royal Oak Mines, as well as her management team

who have successfully put this agreement together. I want to recognize also the

role of the United Steelworkers of America and its members who have been very

co-operative with Royal Oak in working towards the common goal of mine

reactivation and reemployment of the workforce.

This mine, in full operation, will employ about 240 people

directly, and we estimate, approximately 150 indirectly, through jobs created in

the service sector. As of this morning, Ms. Witte informed us that forty-four

people are working at the site right now.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. GIBBONS: The others will be recalled gradually, and

the mine should be back in full operation by July.

The Province will provide some assistance to Royal Oak in

this project. We will reimburse Royal Oak with an annual operating grant of

$200,000 per year to help cover the cost of operating the first class medical

facility at the site. This facility is necessary because of the remoteness of

the site, and is an additional cost which is not borne by any other mining

operation in the Province which would have access to public hospitals.

In addition, the Province will provide some partial relief

from retail sales tax during the early years of operation. However, Royal Oak

will pay all other taxes of general application, including the payroll tax, fuel

tax and income taxes.

The total assistance being provided to Royal Oak by the

Province will be recovered in general tax revenues from the project in the early

months of operation. Over the projected seven year mine life, the Province will

receive approximately $25 million in direct and indirect taxes, and the

additional spending by employees, and the purchase of goods and services will

also undoubtedly contribute significantly to our economy.

Today's announcement is good news for the mining industry,

for the mine workers and for the people of Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe

that this reactivation of Hope Brook Mine marks the beginning of a turnaround in

the mining industry which has suffered considerably in recent years, but which

is still one of our leading resource industries and has the potential to

contribute to significant economic growth in this Province for many, many years

to come.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am, indeed, pleased that this news has finally been

forthcoming. The unions involved in this particular mine have been in contact

with me on a number of occasions and I have raised some of their concerns in

Question Period in the House of Assembly and addressed them to the hon. the

Minister of Mines and Energy. It is good to see that the federal government, the

provincial government, the unions and now a new company have come together in a

co-operative manner with the necessary finances, etc., to reopen and to salvage

this formerly excellent P.C. project.

It is also good, I should indicate, Mr. Speaker, in a

parochial manner, I suppose, for my own district of Green Bay, which is the

centre of the mineral exploration and servicing industry for the Province of

Newfoundland. There are a number of companies there who will, no doubt, benefit

from the reopening of this mine.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I still see a problem with regard

to the mineral industry in this Province in that we don't have a good mineral

exploration incentive program on the go. The previous program operated by the

federal government having been eliminated, I think there is an onus on the

Province to pursue this matter with the federal government and, if necessary,

pursue a cost-shared stimulation program so that we can open new mines in

addition to salvaging old P.C. mines through increased mineral exploration

activity in the Province.

Again, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with the announcement and my

congratulations to all concerned.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. Minister of

Environment and Lands, the Chair would like to make a correction in a welcome

that I just made. I was reading my notes and on them it said, `Students from the

Junior High in Mount Pearl in the District of St. John's West.' The Chair didn't

think it was correct, but since it was on the notes I didn't know what had

happened. But I want the students to know that they are not in the District of

St. John's West, that they are in the District of Mount Pearl.

The hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I am about to offer my colleagues

here in the House who reside in St. John's a really good way to do their house

cleaning or their spring cleaning this weekend, an opportunity to bring all

their hazardous waste to the Avalon Mall. I will read my announcement so they

will just be clear on what is going to take place.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to announce the first-ever

Household Hazardous Waste Day in the Province this Sunday, May 3. Residents of

the St. John's metro area will be able to drop off their household hazardous

waste at the Avalon Mall parking lot beginning at 9:00 a.m. on Sunday.

The aim of the Household Hazardous Waste Project is two-fold.

First and foremost, the program will educate the public on the hazards of common

household chemicals.

The public will be notified of the specific hazards of

improper disposal, storage and use of common household chemicals. Further

details will be available on how to properly handle, store and dispose of

household chemicals.

Secondly, this project will provide the general public an

opportunity to drop off all unwanted household hazardous waste at the Avalon

Mall parking lot.

Volunteers will unload waste from cars and bring it to areas

where trained technicians will sort and pack substances. Testing will occur and

waste will then either be reused, recycled, incinerated or buried in secure

landfill.

The Janeway Poison Control Center and other interested groups

will be present during the Household Hazardous Waste Day to provide information

to the public.

Household Hazardous Waste Day will be supervised by a

hazardous waste disposal contractor who will guide individuals to specific

drop-off areas depending on the waste material to be discarded.

The Household Hazardous Waste Day is a joint effort of the

Household Hazardous Waste Day Committee and is sponsored by Environment Canada's

Environmental Partners Fund, the provincial Department of Environment and Lands,

Q-93 and KIXX Country, the City of St. John's, Newfoundland Telephone, Action:

Environment, and North American Resource Recovery Limited. Mr. Speaker, what an

example of co-operative efforts in dealing with the environmental issues.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, I commend this Committee for

their dedication and hard work in developing this project. I encourage all

households in the area to participate in the Household Hazardous Waste Day this

Sunday so that everyone can do their

part in ensuring its success.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I too

want to congratulate the sponsors of this project, as minuscule as it is in

trying to protect our environment. It is certainly a start and we -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: I was never Minister of Environment, Mr.

Speaker, and had I been Minister of Environment I think I could come up with

some more ingenious idea of trying to clean up our environment than this. But

again, it is important to do this. I do not want to take away from any effort at

all to try to clean up the environment of our Province and keep our Province

looking clean. It has to be done.

I am concerned, I guess, about what is going to happen to

this material. In the statement it says it will be re-used, recycled,

incinerated. I do not think we have a proper incinerator in this Province to

incinerate hazardous materials. So I don't -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Well, these are hazardous materials, as

far as I understand. So I would imagine these materials will be shipped out of

the Province to be incinerated, as far as I know, or it will be buried in a

secure landfill site. Now, Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, again we do not have a

secure landfill site for hazardous materials in this Province. These would be

two initiatives that the minister could have taken on to help out the people who

are sponsoring this type of activity. The department of government could be

trying to establish some type of an incinerator that could handle hazardous

waste for Newfoundland. Not hazardous waste for the rest of North America.

I find it rather interesting to note that one of the sponsors

is North American Resource Recovery Limited. I am glad to see that they are

interested in doing something to help clean up the environment of Newfoundland.

I am a bit more concerned about their initiatives in other areas, but I am glad

to see that they are - I do not understand why they are involved in this. If it

is part of their PR project for their initiative in Long Harbour, I'm not sure.

But I am glad they are involved and I hope they contribute to cleaning up some

of the waste that we have.

One of my members mentioned to me that Sunday seems not to be

an appropriate day for this. I said I would mention that in passing. I have no

problem what day we do these things as long as we do the cleanups that are

necessary -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. R. AYLWARD: - to try to keep our Province clean.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to table

the report on the salaries and benefits of provincial court judges pursuant to

Section 28 of The Provincial Court Act, 1991.

Notices of Motion

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two notices of

motion today. One, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask leave to introduce

a bill entitled, "An Act Respecting An Avian Emblem of the Province." This

little fellow will be coming forward to be honoured shortly. The puffin.

The second is, I give notice that I will on tomorrow ask

leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Waste Material Disposal

Act, 1973."

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the reply to

question number 15 appearing on the order paper yesterday, the question was: (

i) the number of trips taken by the hon. the minister for the period September 17,

1991 to October 15, 1991, inclusive (including dates, destinations and the

duration of each trip); and, (ii) the total of all expenses claimed as a charge

against the taxpayer by the hon. the minister and persons accompanying him on

all trips referred to in (

i) above, including airfare, and all that kind of

thing. The answer, Mr. Speaker, is that I took no trips during that period,

therefore there was no associated expenses charged to the taxpayers of this

Province.

Petitions

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I again rise today

with another petition from the citizens of Little Bay Islands. This particular

petition contains the signatures of twenty-eight citizens of that particular

island. The prayer of the petition is as follows: We the undersigned residents

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

hon. Minister of Fisheries not to approve the transfer either temporarily or

permanently of the crab processing licence of S.T. Jones and Sons Ltd. to any

other area of the Province.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I have addressed this particular matter

both in Question Period and with a couple of other petitions over the last few

days, and I did receive an inkling of positive news from the hon. the Minister

of Fisheries yesterday insofar as he indicated the proper and due process would

be followed if and when the new owners of the Little Bay Islands crab plant were

to put an application before him for a transfer.

However, Mr. Speaker, as I indicated at the time, due process

can also be used in due course after a temporary transfer is used to effect a

permanent transfer. This is one of the main concerns of the people of Little Bay

Islands, that once a licence comes off an isolated island separated from the

mainland by a 45 minute ferry steam, that getting it back on the island from the

mainland that licence is going to be difficult if not impossible.

One other thing that I do believe is part of due process, if

you use the term loosely, Mr. Speaker, is that the minister agree to a request

that my office has forwarded to his office for a meeting with a delegation from

Little Bay Islands on this particular matter. I had my secretary check this

morning before I came in the House. I still have not had a positive reply from

the minister's office as to whether or not he is prepared to meet with the

delegation from Little Bay Island to discuss their concerns, which I think if it

is not part of the due process legally of a licence transfer process, then it is

certainly part of the due process in terms of courtesy and good governance.

So I do hope that the minister, when he returns to this hon.

House, will indicate to me and to the citizens of Little Bay Islands that he

will agree to their request for a meeting with him. They prefer to meet with him

on their island. Failing that, they are willing to send a delegation to St.

John's to meet with him here.

Transfer of processing licences is not a routine matter and

is one that requires careful consideration and a ministerial signature at the

bottom of the page. In this particular case, given the nature of the

administration we are in right now, I would say it would require the approval of

the hon. the Premier as well.

So again I reiterate what I have said over the past number of

days. The people of Little Bay Islands have mandated me to bring this forward to

the public, to the media, to the hon. House of Assembly to bring forward their

concerns. I am doing my duty in that regard, and I call upon the Provincial

Government to do its duty to meet with the concerned citizens committee, the

council, et cetera and to be very cautious and look very long and hard at any

request for a temporary transfer, and make sure that if one is effected that the

word temporary is indeed the operative word.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I support the petition. I table it

and ask that it be referred to the appropriate department.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 6, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 6. Can the Government House Leader

inform the Chair whether or not this is the first reading?

MR. BAKER: First reading.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion, the hon. the Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Shop Closing

Act," carried. (Bill No. 22)

On motion, Bill No. 22 read a first time, ordered read a

second time tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Motion 7.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion, that the hon. the Minister of Health

to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Newfoundland Registered Nurses Act, "

carried. (Bill No. 19)

On motion, Bill No. 19 read a first time, ordered read a

second time tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Order 10.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 10, the continuation of the adjourned

debate on Bill No. 17.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased indeed to have a few words to say on Bill

17, or maybe I should call it, Mr. Speaker, the continuation of Bill 16, part

two of Bill 16 because that is what it is. If this government is around after

the next Budget I guess we will see Bill 18 coming, so we will have Bill No. 16,

we have Bill No. 17, and if the government is around for another Budget

undoubtedly we will see part three of the continuing saga to kill the union

movement in this Province, and we will see Bill No. 18, undoubtedly. Mr.

Speaker, this is a very, very controversial piece of legislation which we have

been debating over the last number of weeks. I can assure the Government House

Leader that this debate is going to continue for quite some time yet. He is not

going to be able to slip this legislation through as easily as he thinks he can.

Mr. Speaker, it is a very, very controversial piece of legislation.

MR. K. AYLWARD: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.

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

point of order.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I do not mean to interrupt the hon.

member as I am going to enjoy his speech. Yesterday I adjourned the debate on

this bill. The procedure is normally to see if the member is going to continue

or not. I am just not sure.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, the procedure is that the hon. member

must stand in his place when the debate is called. The normal procedure is that

when a member adjourns the debate obviously the member would carry on in the

time that is left, but the hon. member must be here - obviously he cannot speak

if he is not here - and secondly he must stand. I can only allow the hon. member

if the Member for Harbour Main will consent because I have already recognized

the Member for Harbour Main.

The hon. the Member for Harbour Main.

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no difficulty

in doing that. As a matter of fact I think the Member for St. John's East was

going to speak as well, if the Member for Stephenville wants to continue on I

have no difficulty with that. I can speak afterwards.

MR. SPEAKER: Is this with the consent of all hon.

members?

The hon. the Member for Stephenville may continue the

adjourned debate.

The hon. the Member for Stephenville.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and my apologies

to the House. I was here but I just misunderstood the procedure even though I am

not a rookie member like some hon. members. I have been here long enough and I

should know but we do mess up these things once in a while. I do appreciate the

other side, the Opposition, and especially the Member for Harbour Main for whom

I have great respect. I always have and always will, and I appreciate his

indulgence on this matter in allowing me just to finish up really what I was

saying yesterday.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: Well, what I was saying yesterday. I will

certainly be around when the Member for Harbour Main speaks so I can indulge and

listen to his comments, since he is very articulate when he speaks. I am sure he

will put forward the views, as he should, of the opposition.

As I was saying yesterday, nobody is happy or nobody is

jumping up and down when it comes to wage restraint. No government - no

government in Canada, no government in the provinces, is excited about having to

restrain wages or to put limits on spending, but you have to also face a

reality. It does not matter what political stripe you are. At this point in time

in this country you have to look at reality and make some decisions. It is

important that you look at reality, because the decisions that we are making

now, some of them are very tough. They are very tough decisions. They are not

easy to make.

When a person gets in politics they do not get into politics

to restrain spending or to restrain wages. Normally you are trying to get in to

improve everybody's lot, but when you get in you also have to deal with the

reality and to govern in a responsible manner. That is what the government of

this Province is trying to do. There will be mistakes made, like every other

government has done, but in the main most things that are done will be to the

benefit of the people. What we are trying to do is face a reality, and face it

up front, and deal with the problems that have been ongoing for years instead of

kind of letting them go by the wayside and letting somebody else worry about

them. There is a lot to be said for dealing with the problem.

The government may not be liked this week or next week

because it had to deal with the specific problem, but in the long-term the

people who are coming behind us, and even today, will appreciate what has been

done in some of these areas, because in politics you are there for a certain

length of time. You could always say: well I am just going to take care of my

own time period and not worry about the future, but we have to have a bigger

responsibility than that. It is time, and this government has done that.

This government has taken on a responsibility for the future;

not for getting reelected again. It is trying to deal with some of the problems.

We could all get in here and say: well we are only a year away from an election.

We could go avoiding some tough choices. We could say: well why not go get

another $100 million if we can find it, and make everybody happy for a few more

months? Then what are we going to have? We get elected again and what do we

have? What are we going to have? As the Minister of Treasury Board says: We are

going to have a bankrupt Province. That is what we will have if we let it go a

certain way, and it was recognized by the previous government on all kinds of

occasions.

As a matter of fact, the whole 1980's - you talk about

supposedly the good times in the 1980's. They were not that good. You go back

and read some of the press releases and some of the budgets, and we appealed

more to Ottawa in the 1980's than we have been doing in the 1990's for extra

money. So it is not that all of a sudden the Liberal government gets in power

and after a year we have this big problem. What we have is a created problem

over fifteen - fifteen to twenty. So we have to decide as a government, are you

going to be - well let's not worry about the next twelve months. Let's just go

to the bankers and say: Look folks, give us some more money and we will worry

about this thing again in another two years. Then we will try to fix it. If you

try to fix a problem - imagine, take one year out of four and try to fix it one

year out of four and not worry about the other three, I do not think it will be

fixed. I think we have a major problem on our hands, and I think unfortunately

that has been part of the problem over the years.

The nature of politics, and nobody is to be blamed for it as

such, but the nature of politics is that sometimes it is too short-term. People

do not worry about the long-term, and it is time. I think people out there are

saying to politicians, not only here but all over Canada, worry about the

long-term too, folks. Don't go buying our votes with our money. This is what has

happened over all these years. We would love to go out and announce that we are

going to do this, this, this, and this, and build this, this, this and this, but

what are we going to do it with - borrow it on the backs again of the future

generations who are coming behind us?

I had a look at all of the pension funds. We had a look at

them when we came into government, and what have we been doing? Trying to fix

them since we got in. We can go on too and not worry about it, I suppose. We can

go ahead and give big increases in the wages, but I mean, where will we get the

money from, you know, I mean it is just a sense of realism in the 1990s and I am

happy to be part of a government that is trying to deal with it -

AN HON. MEMBER: You should be ashamed.

MR. K. AYLWARD: At least, Mr. Speaker, I do not speak out

of both sides, at least I am shooting it straight. The preachiness of the NDP,

like we are going to do this and we are going to get up and (inaudible) on these

social issues when there are other governments in Canada, now that they have

been elected, now they have them in power and it will only be once though, it

will only be once - in Ontario they are calling them the New Demolition Party.

It will only be once, Mr. Speaker, because I was reading a speech from Bob Rae

the other day and I said: what happened to him? I said: Aylward, what happened

to him, because he is talking realism now and of course his budget yesterday

tells you about realism and now, Roy Romanow and other premiers, the hon.

Premier of Saskatchewan has to deal with realism; he is going to have to impose

probably user fees in the medicare system, I mean, can you believe it? It is

beyond me, but see, they are looking at user fees in Saskatchewan, the home of

medicare, where they created it. So, Roy Romanow, who is an NDP, socialist left

wing over there, not like the hon. Mr. Aylward on that side and the Mr. Aylward

on this side, who are somewhere on the right and the left and the centre there,

these people are on the left and they are saying: we are going to spend, spend,

spend and we are going to get in there and we are going to take care of all your

problems, but all of a sudden (inaudible) that is obvious in Ontario, but you

see what is happening.

I mean, let us be realistic. I have a political philosophy

but I am not going to have one that is deceptive to the people. Like I am not

going to go out there and say yes, we are going to spend $100 million in the

next twelve months and we go and get the money and in the next three years time,

we go bankrupt. I mean you cannot do it anymore, you just cannot do it anymore.

The days of having this wonderful political philosophy where

you can take care of everything and spend money on everything is over, it is

just not realistic -

AN HON. MEMBER: We cannot afford principles.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Cannot afford principles, he says, cannot

afford principles. Well, you know, I look forward to hearing the hon. Member for

St. John's East. I cannot wait to hear -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. K. AYLWARD: No, I can wait that long but I will wait

to hear his speech because I am looking forward to the constructive suggestions

that his party -

AN HON. MEMBER: The alternatives.

MR. K. AYLWARD: - the alternatives, the creative

suggestions that they are going to make. They can read the Budget, they know how

much money the Province owes and so on and how much Workers' Compensation owes,

how much the pension funds owe and how much money we now have on the operating

current account deficit that we have. So you cannot hide all that. So I am sure

that when the hon. member, who represents the NDP in the House of Assembly, the

one member, when he finishes, I will be able to go through my notes and then go

to the Budget and see how all of his suggestions fit into the Budget and then I

will be able to (inaudible) I bet you. I am looking forward to it because I

think what he should do, because he certainly knows what is going on, I mean he

obviously knows what is going on -

AN HON. MEMBER: You would think he would have a few

clues.

MR. K. AYLWARD: - well, I think what he should do is

bring in his own budget, like his own hypothetical budget; I think that is what

he should do because I would like to see it. I really would like to see what

they would do differently from what we would do, you know, because Bob Rae, in

Ontario is doing nothing different -

AN HON. MEMBER: He went in the hole.

MR. K. AYLWARD: - obviously, didn't he. He is not doing

anything different and we will see what Saskatchewan is going to do. B.C. is not

doing anything different I guarantee you, so it must be that the NDP in

Newfoundland must be different from every NDP outside in the other provinces. It

must be.

AN HON. MEMBER: Except that they all oppose Hibernia.

MR. K. AYLWARD: They all oppose Hibernia, well, we won't

get into that, but I am looking forward to his suggestions because we are all

here as members of the House of Assembly and we all can have a constructive say

in what happens, but we should all, at least try to be credible in what we say.

I mean if you are going to suggest, like, well do not raise that tax or do not

take out that service or do not change this service, then, just give an

alternative so in that way, people can then judge and balance the decision. To

me it is just a fair way to look at it and it is a constructive way to look at

it. The rhetoric of getting up and saying: you shouldn't do this and you

shouldn't that, and what about this and what about that, when you haven't got an

alternative, just doesn't fly any more, folks, it is just not flying. People out

there are more - they were always intelligent. It is just that they used to

believe the politicians all the time.

At least now they can believe this government. At least what

we are trying to do - and maybe that's not good sometimes. Because some of the

news is not so good. Sometimes it is not. But at least they know what is fact

and what is going on and what the problems are. At least they know that the

government is being forthright in saying: here is what we have, folks, and here

is what we are trying to do. So they at least are not getting a - or not being

deceived or not worried about: well all the government wants to do is get

re-elected. The government has some tough problems. The government is trying to

deal with some tough problems.

Other governments and other politicians might decide: we are

going to avoid this problem now, we are going to wait, because we want to get

re-elected. But while waiting, the Province and its finances go, as the hon.

Member for St. John's South says, out the Narrows. That is where the finances

go. So we have to keep them in order so that we can fulfil our social

consciences. Because the Member for Gander, who is the President of Treasury

Board, as far as I am concerned is one of the biggest social conscience

politicians in Newfoundland and Labrador. Always has been, as a matter of fact.

He is in a tough position.

AN HON. MEMBER: A former New Democrat.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Former, well, he had some interest in it.

He swayed a little bit at one time. He got a little left of centre, he just went

off the road a bit, but anyway he came back. He, for example, has a social

conscience, and he wants to fulfil it. In order to fulfil your social conscience

you have to be able to get up in the morning, go to the Confederation Building,

and open the door and not have it locked, to have the locks on it, because she's

gone bankrupt. Alright?

So here is what we are trying to do. We are trying to get it

on an even keel so that we can all fulfil our social consciences, so that we can

all as members deal with the many problems that are out there. There are many

problems in this Province, but there are also some good things happening out

there. I was really happy to see The Globe and Mail

article in the last couple

of days. There were some tough decisions made there, but they were made for the

right reasons. Now it is being seen across Canada as maybe the way to go. At

least, there is an example of how to go about it, to go and consult your people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Better than user fees.

MR. K. AYLWARD: Better than user fees, yes. So there are

some good things happening, even in these tough times. The Opposition has every

right, and it should criticise, and no problem with that. I just ask, and I look

forward to, seeing the alternative solutions that will be coming across in their

speeches. Because we as members here will listen and we will take down notes. I

am sure that these suggestions will be looked upon very reasonably, as long as

they are reasonable suggestions.

So in order to get up and to give the government a hard time,

no problem with that, but I would like to hear some alternative solutions

myself. As I said, Mr. Speaker, so far, in conclusion, I have not heard them. I

guarantee you one thing. Ontario, they are trying to get out of there as fast as

they can. Now that is a great province. Floyd Laughren is the minister for the

Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance, and you know what he said yesterday?

He said: this budget is for business and we hope it makes them happy.

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MR. K. AYLWARD: Oh yes, that is what he said. We hope it

makes them happy, he said. I was reading it and I said, I can't believe my eyes.

I said, I know Bob Rae is switching a bit, but I mean gee, I just could not

believe it.

Anyway, I look forward to it because like I said the NDP in

Newfoundland are different from the NDP in Ontario, Saskatchewan and BC and

everywhere else. At least they will know the problems we have in this Province,

as they should. Again I say, we as the government are just trying to deal with

the problems. We are going to make a few mistakes. Maybe our decisions are not

going to be right all the time, but we are trying our best to do one thing. That

is, face reality, and also to make it a better place for down the road. I think

we are doing a pretty good job of it, and I commend the government for trying.

Some people are not going to understand. I understand that. I mean, nobody likes

it; as I said, there are some measures that we have to take, and the government

doesn't like to have to take them, but you know, sometimes it has to be done.

When they were the other government they had to take them, I'm sure, like the

Member for Kilbride, he did not want to have to take them either. Maybe he

enjoyed them, I don't know, but I don't think so, because the Member for

Kilbride has a social conscience. He's an Aylward. He should have one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. K. AYLWARD: I do thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the

indulgence of the House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. the Member for

St. John's East, the Chair wants to make crystal clear for the record and for

Hansard in the future that we know what is going on here. Members will recall

that the hon. Member for Stephenville asked leave of the House to speak because

he had adjourned the debate. The Chair had recognized the hon. the Member for

Harbour Main, who graciously conceded that the hon. the Member for Stephenville

could carry on. Quite appropriately, the next person to be recognized would be

the hon. the Member for Harbour Main, but he is not here. Of course, under the

circumstances, he has not forfeited his right to speak because he conceded and

there was agreement of the House. The Chair wants to make that crystal clear for

the future and for the present.

AN HON. MEMBER: He has not forfeited his right to speak.

MR. SPEAKER: No, he has not forfeited his right to speak.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The debate that we are entering into is one about a piece of

legislation that carries out through Bill 17 a diabolical act on the part of

this government. Mr. Speaker, we have heard speeches which would suggest that

this is a finance Act, a financial measure, a budgetary measure. Mr. Speaker,

this is not a budgetary measure. It is not presented by the Minister of Finance

as a budgetary measure, it is presented by the President of Treasury Board in

his role as negotiator with the Public Service Unions, and his role as a person

in whom they are asked to place their faith, that they can sit down and

negotiate and make agreements in good faith, Mr. Speaker, as is required by the

Public Service Collective Bargaining Act, by the Labour Relations Act for the

other sectors of the economy. The foundations of our labour law, Mr. Speaker,

and labour peace have to be based firmly on that notion of good faith

bargaining.

Mr. Speaker, what we have here is a piece of legislation that

for the second year in a row of this government destroys collective bargaining,

destroys agreements that this government has signed, and in the case of Bill 17,

even takes away what was being hailed last year as a great saving measure under

Bill 16 the right to extend their collective agreement. That is being taken

away, too.

Mr. Speaker, this government has compounded its disastrous

approach to labour relations in this Province by striking at the very

foundations of good labour relations, by destroying any sense of integrity that

one might expect from a government representing a people that when they act,

when they sign agreements, those agreements can be accepted.

Mr. Speaker, it is fundamental to collective bargaining that

when one party sits down and says, Here is what we will do, here is what we will

not do, they extract concessions from the other side. For example, in order to

obtain wage increases, the Public Sector unions will be giving up other benefits

at the bargaining table, giving up things that they would like to see as part of

their employment contracts which are not carved in stone forever. They are only

for a one, two, or three-year period and, as the case may be, all part of the

process of collective bargaining.

Mr. Speaker, when public sector bargaining units, whether

they be the NAPE union, the CUPE union, the nurses' union, the unions at the

university representing municipalities across this Province, all these unions,

sit down on behalf of their members - and let's be frank about this, sometimes

members opposite and other Conservative members of this House, from time to

time, talk about unions as if they were something separate and distinct from the

people that they are. The unions are merely the democratic organizations of

workers who have been asked and who have been given legislative sanction after

going through the processes under the Labour Relations Act and the Public

Service Collective Bargaining Act, who have the legal right as democratic

organizations to democratically represent their members in collective

bargaining. So they go in with a set of proposals - sometimes they are called

demands - that are put on the table and in the give and take of compromise of

collective bargaining, certain things are taken off the table by one party or

the other. If they reach an agreement they sign a collective agreement which is

stated by the labour Relations Act and by the Public Service Collective

Bargaining Act to be final and binding on all parties, a final and binding and

legally enforceable agreement.

In the case of the public sector last year, under the Public

Service Collective Bargaining Act, in the event of not being able to reach an

agreement and having gone through a strike, this government, Mr. Speaker,

invoked certain sections of that Act which required compulsory arbitration.

Through the compulsory arbitration, the public sector unions, the public sector

workers, were required to withdraw from the arena of economic sanctions of

withdrawal of labour and instead, to engage, be part of, and be party to, along

with the government, a form of legislative binding arbitration which was there

as part of the process. That resulted, Mr. Speaker, in an award which was also,

by that legislation, binding on the workers of this Province, binding on the

unions of this Province, and binding on the Government of this Province. That is

the system of collective bargaining that has developed in this Province over the

last twenty years in the public sector and has been in the private sector for

forty years, ever since the first labour legislation was introduced by another

Liberal Government.

Mr. Speaker, what we have now is a total lack of respect by

this government for the collective bargaining system. Last week, or the week

before Easter, I guess it was, when the Newfoundland Teachers' Association

appeared in the lobby of the House of Assembly, in the lobby of the

Confederation Building, to meet with and not shake hands with the Minister of

Education, they also met with the Minister of Labour, who was one of their

former leaders, Mr. Speaker. He was given a sign, one of the placards they had,

which said, 'Collective bargaining is in jeopardy.' That is what the sign said.

And, do you know what the minister said? Afterwards in a conversation, the

minister said, 'No, they got it wrong, collective bargaining is not in jeopardy,

collective bargaining is dead,' and I say to the Speaker and to this House that

the Minister of Labour has got it right, that collective bargaining in the

public sector is dead.

MR. DOYLE: The Minister of Labour said that?

MR. HARRIS: That is what the Minister of Labour said, Mr.

Speaker.

We can see why we have in this Province right now, in the

private sector, people being encouraged to go out and organize against the very

notion of collective bargaining, to try to foment resistance to the whole

collective bargaining process, to suggest that fish plants cannot open in

Trepassey unless the union is done away with, the agreements are done away with,

and all that sort of stuff. That has been encouraged by this government, Mr.

Speaker. They are starting a holy war against collective bargaining, against

collective democratic rights of workers, against the gains that have been made

by workers in democratic organizations, getting together forming unions, going

to employers and saying, 'We want to have a say in our working lives. We want to

have a say in negotiating collective agreements.' That, Mr. Speaker, is being

threatened by this government.

Anybody who reads Bill 17 - and I don't know if the Minister

of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has actually read it - cannot say what the

Minister of Municipal and Provincial Affairs has said. Anyone who reads Bill 17

cannot say that collective bargaining is being attacked by this government.

Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing from the government is, 'We

can't afford the agreements we have made.'

AN HON. MEMBER: They knew that.

MR. HARRIS: They knew that. They knew the financial

circumstances of this Province when they made and signed those agreements. As

little as a week before last year's Budget was brought in, Mr. Speaker, the

President of Treasury Board was in a signing ceremony, signing an agreement -

AN HON. MEMBER: With whom?

MR. HARRIS: With CUPE.

- that he knew, the following week he was going to be tearing

up. He knew that the next week his government was going to be tearing up that

agreement.

Mr. Speaker, there are negotiations going on now with Hydro

Quebec, with the Government of Quebec. It's no wonder there is no agreement, Mr.

Speaker. Can you imagine anybody making an agreement with this government? The

next week or the next six months they will come up and tear it up and throw it

away.

Mr. Speaker, we have heard a lot of speeches here.

Particularly, the Member for Stephenville was talking about the Government of

Ontario and how realistic they are. I agree with him. They are very realistic.

Not only are they realistic about the financial circumstances of their Province

and the causes of it, they understand that. They know what the causes are, and

they know who is suffering as a result of the economic realities that their

government and their people are faced with, and they are taking measures to deal

with that, Mr. Speaker, in a very innovative way, in a very thoughtful and

principled way, and in a way that puts the priorities where they belong, that

is, on the needs of the people of that Province, the needs for a proper level of

social services and social assistance which required them last year to raise the

level of social assistance to recipients, because of the terrible circumstances

people were faced with in that province because of the cost of living and the

miserable level at which the previous Liberal government there had kept social

assistance recipients in that province leaving them in abject poverty, Mr.

Speaker, and not providing adequately for their needs. That was required, Mr.

Speaker, to be done. It was required to increase by some 20 to 30 per cent the

level of social assistance budgeting in that province, and to increase the level

of compensation to individuals for their economic circumstances beyond their

control which is what social assistance is all about.

Mr. Speaker, that was done in the face of widespread

criticism across this country coming from whom? Coming from whom, Mr. Speaker?

policy had impoverished the Government of Ontario and the governments of the

rest of the country. The Member for Stephenville talked about people getting out

of Ontario. Well, Mr. Speaker, the people who are most anxious to get out of

Ontario are the companies moving south of the border to the United States.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why?

MR. HARRIS: Because of free trade, Mr. Speaker. They are

moving south of the border to take advantage of the free trade agreement -over

180,000 jobs, I think the latest figures are up to 250,000 jobs lost in Ontario

since the free trade deal has been brought in. That has brought -

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the Member for St. John's South

does not seem to understand the free trade agreement. His national leader, Mr.

John Turner, engaged in what he called the fight of his life to try to stop this

deal. Now he thinks it is a great deal, now he thinks it is wonderful.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible) never said that.

MR. HARRIS: So now, Mr. Speaker, when the effects of that

are coming home to roost in the industrial heartland of Canada - we would like

to share in all that wealth, too. But the reality is that the industrial

heartland of Canada is in Central Canada, supported by previous policies of the

federal government. But when the reality is that the free trade agreement

encourages companies to take their manufacturing plant south of the border, down

to Georgia where they don't have any minimum wages, down to Georgia and the

southern United States where they have very little protection, lots of

anti-union legislation like our government here is now trying to impose on

people; keep the workers down, put them in their place, make them work, and not

have the benefits of collective bargaining. That is the kind of encouragement

In the face of that, the Government of Ontario had very

little choice in choosing its financial decision-making because of the

principles they had. They have very tough times. They have a worse situation

than the Government of this Province has in terms of fiscal management, because

of the size of the problem they have. They did not say: We can't afford our

principles, we can't afford to stand by contracts we have signed with our own

people. They did not say that legally binding agreements are going to be torn up

and thrown out the door. They didn't say that. They honoured those agreements.

This government could have, too. The government keeps saying: 'We had no

choice.' Well, Mr. Speaker, they did have a choice. The government had a choice

of honouring the agreements they had signed or tearing them up, and they chose

to tear them up.

The Member for Stephenville has praised the Ontario budget. I

acknowledge that, that the Ontario budget - and we are not here to debate the

Ontario budget, of course. But since hon. members opposite like to bring up

Ontario as an example of good government and criticise it because they are

afraid that the same kind of good government might come to Newfoundland. They

don't mention the fact that in the Province of Ontario the Ontario Government

sat down since they have been in office and negotiated collective agreements

with its workers, what is referred to as an innovative collective agreement,

offering a 1 per cent wage increase, but sticking to the principles of

collective bargaining and sitting down and negotiating with your workers.

Now,that is what this government ought to do, if it had any

principles. We are sick and tired of hearing the Premier of this Province,

everywhere he goes, every time he speaks, everything is a matter of principle.

Whether he has jam or marmalade on his toast in the morning is a matter of

principle. When it comes to real principles, though, when it comes to something

real, like making an agreement one day and tearing it up the next, we don't see

those principles.

What type of principle allows that? What kind of a man of

principle; what kind of government of principles is it that can make an

agreement one day, shake hands, get their picture taken for the paper, have an

agreement signed, and then turn around and rip up that agreement? What kind of

principle is that? I echo the words of the Minister of Labour on Bill 17 when he

said: No, collective bargaining is not in jeopardy. Collective bargaining is

dead. That is what the Minister of Labour said.

Now we have all kinds of suggestions. People may wonder well

why don't we do this or why don't we do that, and why don't the members lower

their wages, or why don't they do all those sorts of things, but this is not a

budgetary measure. This is a decision by this government to abandon the

principles of collective bargaining. I want to talk about some of the specifics

of it.

They want to control collective bargaining. They want to

control it in such a way that they are going to be calling all the shots, and

they are going to allow a certain amount of bargaining provided you agree with

what we agree with, and you do not do this and you do not do that. We will allow

what we call collective bargaining here. It will be some sort of tame

bargaining, but you will not be allowed to bargain over what you want to bargain

about. You can only bargain about the things that we are prepared to let you

bargain about, and we are only prepared to let you bargain in the third year of

the collective agreement because that year is a year beyond this budget. We can

let you make a bargain now. You can sit down now and make a bargain and agree to

3 per cent in the third year of the so-called restraint period. We would be

happy if you do because if you sit down and do it we will say, great, we will

either remove that altogether or we will not be in office anymore anyway, and

you will be stuck with that agreement - the 3 per cent.

I am aware of some unions who are not prepared to make an

agreement that covers the third year where you can have a so-called 3 per cent

increase permitted by this Act under so-called collective bargaining. We are not

prepared to make any agreement that goes beyond March 31, 1993. We are not

prepared to go beyond March 31, 1993. Do you know why? Because they say two

things. Next year, if this government is around, it is going to be Bill 18 and

they will tear up whatever agreements we sign anyway. The other thing they are

saying is maybe, and they are hoping this - maybe there will be a new government

by then and Bill 17 and Bill 16 and Bill 18 will not be. They will not exist.

Many of them are hoping, along with the Member for Stephenville, that it will be

an NDP government. Many of them are hoping that it will be.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

AN HON. MEMBER: Dream on, Jack.

MR. HARRIS: Many of them are hoping. I too am hoping

that, because those who once had hope, such as the Member for Pleasantville,

such as the President of Treasury Board, who once ran, and the Member for Mount

Scio - Bell Island who once ran for the New Democratic Party in this Province,

and in other provinces in the case of the President of Treasury Board, who once

had hoped that we could have good government. Some people on that side of the

House have abandoned that hope, and thrown in their lot with the most

conservative administration this Province has had since Confederation.

It is a shame that in pursuit of that they have abandoned the

very basic principle of collective bargaining, of free and democratic unionism,

of free and democratic negotiation by workers through organizations selected by

them and given the right, under proper and appropriate legislation, to negotiate

collective bargains and when it comes to private sector, having them enforced

because the enforcement of collective agreements, the binding nature of

collective agreements, the continued existence of collective agreements, signed,

whether it be in the private sector or in the public sector with governments -

more importantly with governments - that the principle of collective bargaining

has to be maintained.

Now, if the government wanted to maintain its principles and

exercise restraint in wages they could have done so. They have a thirty-six

month restraint period they are talking about here now. They leaped back a year

or so for it. Thirty-six months. During that period of time every single

collective agreement in this Province expires. During the thirty-six months of a

restraint period that the Province is talking about, there may be one or two

collective agreements that are four years. There may be one or two that are even

five years. I am aware of one that is five years. I am aware of only one

agreement that is five years. Most collective agreements are one year, two

years, some are three.

All of these collective agreements - and I do not think there

is a single collective agreement with anybody affected by Bill 17 that is longer

than three years - will have expired during this restraint period. If the

government was serious about maintaining collective bargaining at the same time

seeking to implement a wage freeze for a period of one year or two years or

whatever was deemed necessary, than they could have done that.

So what I am saying here - I am not going to argue the

Budget. The Budget debate will be on next week and the week after. We are

talking here about principle. What this government has chosen to do, rather than

stand by any principle that supported the notion of collective bargaining, and

said: okay, we will have - where we need to have restraint, and let's take their

word for it, just for the sake of argument, if they needed to have that

restraint to keep the lid on wages for a period - as a major element of

government expenditure. Then they could have done that and at the same time

protected collective bargaining by honouring the agreements that they had made.

That is the failure of this government, that is the failure

of principle, and that is the reason, although they may claim they are riding

high in the polls, that is not really the case. Because the word is out that

this government is not prepared to stand by its principles, by the principles of

collective bargaining. That they are in fact hypocritical when it comes to that.

That they talk about principle but when in action they tear up solemn agreements

that are binding under law until they change the law, and throw them out the

window. The people are on to this government. It has taken a little while

because this government has had a bit of a honeymoon with the public. They have

been talking about the waste of the previous government and Sprung. They have

got more mileage out of Sprung now than Philip Sprung ever got. It is coming to

an end. It is not going to last very long. The people are on to this government

that does not stand by principles, that pretends to be in favour of the needs of

the people but acts contrary to them.

This Bill is reprehensible. It is a compounding of the

disaster of Bill 16 of last year. It ought to be soundly defeated. I know it

won't be. Because every single person over on that side is going to stand up

when the vote is counted, stand up and be counted amongst the people -

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of Labour!

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

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: - and support this Bill. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for St.

John's East says that I once had hope in the prospects of effective government

from the New Democratic Party. He is right in that regard but I gave up hope. I

lost confidence in the New Democratic Party because of the kind of hypocrisy we

are seeing amongst people like him, people who are leaders of the NDP, people

who are leaders of the labour movement in this Province today.

Do the people of the Province hope to have good leadership

from union leaders who find it necessary to earn $170,000 a year, in order to

serve the cause of labour? Are those the kind of people who offer us the

prospect of good government, to expect to get it from lawyers for whom unionism

is a no lose situation? The hon. Member for St. John's East benefits from the

labour movement because he collects fees from representing them, because they

contribute to his election campaigns. You would think that he came out of a

background of a tremendous enthusiasm for unionism, but who are amongst the most

exploited workers in this city today, if not the staff working for lawyers in

this city -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: - how many of them are organized? What kind of

wages do they get, what kind of wages does the secretary of the hon. member get?

We know the secretarial staff of those legal offices often do as valuable work

as the lawyers do, but they get 10 per cent of the pay. Now, Mr. Speaker, it is

because of that kind of hypocrisy that I left the New Democratic Party, because

of the hypocrisy of the leadership of the party and of the labour leaders, the

self-interested labour leaders who dominate that party, of which we see lots of

evidence in this Province today.

The hon. member talks about having a concern for the workers,

for the poor of the world, but he goes on to assault free trade. He is against

free trade; well, he should look at some of the recent reports of the

organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. Just the other day there

was a study indicating that if there were no tariffs in the world, no barriers

to free trade, the poor of the world would benefit to the extent of something

like $400 billion a year, but he wants free trade to protect his friends in the

union movement. He wants free trade to protect the kind of people who benefit

from marketing boards in this Province which keep the cost of food for ordinary

people much higher than it needs to be in order to make a few people wealthy.

That is the kind of concern members like that have for the ordinary people of

our Province, Mr. Speaker.

Now I speak in favour of this bill today because I find a lot

of favour with the bill in the Province. Sure the labour leaders of the Province

today are condemning the government for bringing in this legislation, but, Mr.

Speaker, I do not find that attitude amongst the ordinary union members. They

understand the situation this Province is in, they understand that you can only

do so much, they understand that their incomes at least have not been reduced,

when they see so many of their friends and relatives losing their jobs, finding

their incomes reduced, losing their businesses. They understand the problems we

have in this Province today and many of them are willing to pay their share,

many of them are willing to do their part and many of them are willing to abide

by what the government has proposed and in recent days, Mr. Speaker, we even see

members of the opposition endorsing what we have done.

First, when the Budget was brought in, the Leader of the

Opposition and the finance spokesman and other people over there, condemned the

government for freezing public sector wages, but the latter few speakers from

whom we have heard on that side have said: we understand, we understand the

plight of the Province; we understand there has to be restraint, so now the tack

they are taking is that, the restraint we understand but the legislation, the

breaking of the agreements as they call it, we cannot support. In other words,

they support the effect of what we are doing but they will not support the only

way of accomplishing it, because legislation is the only way of freezing wages

in this Province - legislation to overrule existing agreements.

Several members of the Legislature have made the point that

there appears to be two systems of bargaining in the Province now; one for

public sector employees and one for private sector employees, because private

companies are forced to abide by agreements they make with their employees. They

are forced to abide by them as long as they continue existing, but what you have

to understand is that they do not always abide by them because when companies

find they have agreements that are beyond their means to live up to, they go out

of business. Sometimes they renegotiate their agreements with their unions, but

when they cannot do that they go out of business. They go bankrupt. They cease

to exist. Now governments cannot do that. Governments cannot do that, but we

cannot exploit other people in the community in order to satisfy certain wage

agreements with people who are getting reasonable compensation for what they are

doing in the Province now, for the most part, in comparison with what other

people in the Province are getting - what other people in the Province are

earning.

Governments have to legislate, because governments cannot go

out of business. People understand that, and most of the employees of the unions

we are talking about understand that. They do not like the fact that their wages

are frozen this year. None of us want to have wages frozen. We all want to earn

a bit more, but they understand that if we do not do something reasonable now we

may jeopardize our whole system in this Province. People have to understand the

serious straits this Province is in. We are in a depression, in effect, in this

Province.

The Member for St. John's East talks about the Ontario

government having a harder fiscal time than the Government of Newfoundland. Well

they still have only 10 per cent unemployment in Ontario. We have 25 per cent in

this Province. How can you make a comparison like that, except if you want to

defend your own party and make your own party look good? Anybody looking at it

realistically understands that this Province is in much more serious shape than

the Province of Ontario, and it is probably going to get worse in this Province

during this year and even next year because there are not many sources of

optimism around today, and most of our people understand this. Most people in

our district understand this.

The teachers were out demonstrating a couple of weeks ago in

the lobby and I went out and spoke to them. I got in an involved conversation

with one of them and I said: What would you do if you were sitting in where I am

sitting today? What would you do? One thing he suggested was that we should

reduce the sales tax. By reducing the sales tax, his position was, we would

encourage people to spend more and the government would end up collecting more.

If he really believes that, and if we believed it, we would wipe out all taxes

because then everybody would spend everything and we would all be better off,

except then we would not have very much money to negotiate with the public

service unions about. I do not know how they would get paid. I suppose teachers

every day would have to collect an admission price from the students coming into

their classroom. That is about the only way they would be paid, then. Of course

we all understand that position is not a legitimate position. What it is is

supply side economics, the kind of thing Reagan imposed in the United States,

and the kind of thing that caused the national debt in the United States to go

up so tremendously during the Reagan term down in that country.

So when you talk to people who have a problem with what we

are doing, and when you ask them about what they would do if they were in

similar circumstances, we have trouble coming up with any better solutions than

what this present government has done. That is why I am prepared to support what

the government is proposing.

I would like for a few moments to go back to what I consider

a despicable tirade that we heard from the Member for St. John's East Extern

just before this House recessed for the Easter break. He said: the only trouble

with the Canadian economy was that the Meech Lake Accord was defeated. If the

Meech Lake Accord had been passed there would be nothing wrong economically in

Canada. Newfoundland would be well off. We would keep getting more transfer

payments from the federal government. Everybody would be happy. The only problem

is the Meech Lake Accord was defeated.

He accused us of being traitors for working against the

Accord in this Province, of being traitors for voting against the Accord. What

we did was honour the views of our electors, Mr. Speaker. Which is far more than

the members for the Opposition have done in this House during the Meech Lake

Accord. You hear them talk about democracy. When we were involved in the

amalgamation process, all we could hear: it was anti-democratic, we were

imposing our will on people.

Now they are talking about us being anti-democratic in

dealing with the labour negotiations. What was more anti-democratic than the

Opposition members of this House of Assembly calling on this government to pass

the Meech Lake Accord when three-quarters of their own constituents told them

they did not want it done? They came in here and they were proud to say that. I

remember in particular, and just recently, the Member for Kilbride said: yes, he

did not do the will of his electors, and he was proud of it.

They were all proud of it. Now they make themselves out to be

the champions of democracy, the members who do the will of the people. But as

the people of this Province know they carry out the will of the people only when

it serves their own interest. But that is not what we are doing in this House of

Assembly and it is not what we are going to continue doing. They abandoned their

electors over the Meech Lake Accord and now they want to abandon them again, in

order to play ball with their hero in the House of Assembly.

I go back again to what the Member for St. John's East Extern

had to say about the current Prime Minister of the country. The Member for St.

John's East Extern said the current Prime Minister - was the greatest Prime

Minister who ever was, he said, in this House of Assembly on April 10. The Prime

Minister who put Newfoundland on its feet, he said. Prime Minister Mulroney put

Newfoundland on its feet. We are on our feet today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. NOEL: The Member for St. John's East Extern, who must

surely have his head in the sand. He went on to say: all the poor people out

there, they are speaking today with one voice, conservatism. That is what we

hear in Canada today, one voice, conservatism. All 11 per cent of the

population, one voice, conservatism.

Surely these gentlemen on the other side of the House... you

know, I think they are really burned out. A half-hour ago there were no members

sitting in the Opposition chairs on the other side of this House. Now we have

four there. They are like a burned out Party. They won't come in here and debate

things, they won't come in and listen when other people are speaking, they won't

make a good case about what they believe in, all they will do - or not all they

will do; we have some good members over there. But we have some clowns over

there, who will just come in here and make fools of themselves. That is the most

substantial thing.

They are saying that this piece of legislation we are

debating in this House today is such a reprehensible piece of legislation that

none of them can sit around in the House and debate it properly. None of them

can sit around and listen to the case that is being made, or support their own

people who are supposed to be criticising it, and as we all know, they are not

criticising it.

We know that the problem with the Newfoundland economy is a

problem caused by the Canadian system of government, primarily. This government

is intent on doing something about it. We are intent on changing the Canadian

system of government and that is what we have been doing for the three years

that we have been in here, and that is what we are going to continue to do. In

spite of what we might be hearing from Quebec these days and from some of the

other politicians in the country who seem somehow to believe that the country is

on the point of granting the Meech Lake Accord this time around, of giving

Quebec what it wants.

The country is far from giving Quebec what it wants. There

may appear to be some agreement on some provisions of the Meech Lake Accord that

we agreed to in the past, but there is no more agreement in the country today

than there was in 1990 on the essentials that Quebec wants out of the new

Constitution. They are not likely to get them unless they change their position

and unless Ontario changes its position, and unless they give the smaller

provinces in this country the say that we deserve to have and the say that we

have to have -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. NOEL: - in how this country is run. At least we have

come up with a way of possibly accomplishing that - the Triple E Senate. The

people on the other side sometimes laugh at it. When they are pressed they say:

oh yes, of course, we support the Triple E Senate. But just don't expect us to

do anything to help you get it. They won't campaign with their national Party to

help us get it, but they won't come up with any other way that we can do

something to improve our say in how this country is run.

We all see the damage, the devastation, that we are facing in

this Province today in the fishery. Because it has been mismanaged by the

national government of the country. Our best chance of not having it mismanaged

would be to have more say in how the national government operates. We believe a

way of accomplishing that is through a Triple E Senate. Maybe it won't

accomplish it. I think that what a Triple E Senate may be able to accomplish is

limited today because we would be doing it at a time when a lot of things are in

place in this country. If we had had a Triple E Senate when this country was

first set up, as we were supposed to have, as the Fathers of Confederation

provided for.... George Browne (?) said that there would be no Canada if there

had not been an effective Senate agreed to so that the less populous provinces

would be able to counterbalance the power of the more populous provinces in the

They would not have agreed to establish Canada if an

effective Senate was not agreed to. But we all know that it has not been

effective over the years.

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

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

point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speak