April

12, 1991 HOUSE

OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS Vol

XLI No. 28

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

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

Lands.

MR. KELLAND: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to advise the Members of this hon. House that in

view of the continued proliferation of vehicle wrecks throughout the Province

Government will be shortly introducing specific legislation to deal with this

very pervasive and annoying environmental problem - one which, Mr. Speaker,

constitutes a blight on the landscape and an offence to the senses of both

resident and visitor alike.

Whereas present legislation, namely The Waste Material

(Disposal) Act, makes it an offence to abandon such wrecks under the

all-encompassing definition of "waste", we intend to amend the Act to make

specific reference to "abandoned vehicles". Further, while the present penalty

provisions allow fines up to $2000 with no minimum fine, the new amendment will

provide for maximum and minimum fines of $5000 and $1000 respectfully upon

conviction of abandonment of such wrecks. As a further deterrent to those who

would wilfully pollute the environment in this manner, persons so convicted

under the Waste (Disposal) Act will have their drivers' licences suspended under

The Highway Traffic Act for a period to be specified in the legislation. We

intend to have these changes in effect by January 1, 1992.

Mr. Speaker, there is hope that these actions will convey a

strong message to those who would contemplate desecrating our countryside with

vehicle wrecks. Thank you.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

First of all I want to thank the Minister for a copy of his

statement well in advance of the opening of the House. I have to say

unequivocally this morning that I commend the Minister for bringing forward this

piece of legislation. As far as I am concerned there is nothing more despicable

and downgrading to our beautiful countryside than those old wrecks. The people

who do this type of thing should be dealt with in the strictest and severest

manner possible because it is degrading. It is something which should have been

done a long time ago. There is nothing to be said about it, other than I hope

that when these regulations are brought in through legislation, they will be

strictly enforced.

Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HARRIS: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The Member for St. John's East on a point of

order.

MR. HARRIS: I wonder would the Speaker see whether the

House is supposed to unanimously give consent to my responding to a Ministerial

Statement?

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member have consent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I too wish to express

my pleasure that the Minister has decided to take some action on a matter of

this nature, however I have a fair degree of concern about the approach that the

Minister is taking. He seems to be taking a very strong, deterrent and punitive

approach, and I am not sure that it is going to be successful. What I would

prefer to see is perhaps a fund set up when a new car is bought and in cases

where people do not properly dispose of vehicles then that fund is there to

provide for the cleaning up. Yes, there should be penalties and they should be

higher, but I have heard Members say that it cannot be severe enough. I do not

know if being punitive to the nth degree about something like that is the right

approach. There should be severe fines, and they should be properly policed, but

perhaps a fund that would go along with a licensing practice that would be there

to help clean up the wrecks, as a deterrent, that would maybe be more effective

in the long run. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding to Oral Questions I would

just like to remind hon. Members that tomorrow, April 14th, will represent the

51st anniversary of the first 400 draft Royal Artillery volunteers. It will be

51 years tomorrow that the Royal Artillery volunteers sailed overseas for

service, so I thought that we should give that its appropriate recognition.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

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

the Premier on the Economic Recovery Commission. Can the Premier confirm that

the Economic Recovery Commission and its associated company which is Enterprise

Newfoundland and Labrador, have mounted an extensive advertising campaign

oriented more I believe, toward touting their few minor successes than to

creating new jobs, and further, can the Premier advise the House of the cost of

that campaign and what public relations firm has been engaged to carry out this

fancy advertising campaign?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I can, without checking, give

the hon. Member answers to certain aspects of it but I will have to check and

find out certain other specifics that he has asked and I am quite prepared to do

so. I can say with a fair degree of certainty, that the ERC has not mounted an

expensive advertising campaign to tout its few successes. The objective of the

ERC's advertising campaign is to promote knowledge of it to people who would be

in a position to take advantage of it and work with the ERC to build the

economy.

Now that is the objective of any promotion or advertising

campaign that has been carried on; I will find out the cost of it and how and

who is conducting it and advise the House, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DOYLE: I am sure the Premier is familiar with this

latest publication by the ERC or this firm called Connections. When the Premier

is getting this information for the House, could he please inform the House as

well as to whether or not the public tendering process has been followed in

awarding this contract and if so, would the Premier table the documents and the

list of bidders on the project?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will find out exactly how any contract,

if a contract was given - I have no knowledge of it but I will find out what is

done and advise the House, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DOYLE: Would the Premier also, Mr. Speaker, confirm

that among the duties being performed by this advertising company, include such

mundane tasks as sending out invitations to attend events that are hosted by the

Economic Recovery Commission and attending press conferences and setting up

microphones and what have you, and does he believe that this is an appropriate

use of public funds, at this time when the Government is cutting back in so many

different areas, does he feel that this is an appropriate use of public funds?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: To begin with, Mr. Speaker, I cannot

confirm what funds have been expended for what purpose because I have no

knowledge of it, but If I find out what was done and when I find out whatever

was done, I will comment on the propriety of it at that time.

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

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

and it concerns Bill 16, now before the House. Mr. Speaker, one of the

consequences of Bill 16 for those who would have otherwise received pay equity

adjustments and maybe either through forced redundancy or through normal

retirement will be eligible for a pension, one of the consequences is that

pension will be less as a result of the taking away of the pay equity

adjustments that otherwise would have been paid. What I would like to ask the

Premier is, is that his intention that those women who would otherwise receive

pay equity adjustments who are being retired, is it his intention that they be

discriminated further for the length of their retirement and if not would he be

prepared to accept an amendment to the legislation to prevent that from

happening?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am a little sick and tired

of hearing these pious statements from the Members opposite about discrimination

against women. The greatest discrimination was in giving an undertaking to pay

pay equity retroactively to a select group in the public service and not to all

women. That is the greatest discrimination, and we will have no part of it. This

is utter nonsense. There is no discrimination against anybody; everybody under

this proposal will be treated fairly. If it had been allowed to remain in effect

there would be more discrimination.

Now, Mr. Speaker, at the same time I must not give the wrong

impression. It was not specifically to avoid the discrimination inherent in

giving retroactive pay equity commitment to a select segment of the public

service that caused us to do it, it was the financial impact that motivated the

action at the time. So I do not want to give the wrong impression. But in the

process, Mr. Speaker, we eliminated discrimination that was built in.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In view of the Premier's comments about the fact that it was

financial reasons, and I presume the current financial reasons, that were the

motivating factor, can he confirm that monies paid in from The Public Service

(Pensions) Act in fact come from a separate fund and in fact would not impact on

the current financial problems of the Government but is part of the fully funded

public service pension fund and would not cause economic or fiscal problems for

his Government this year or next year?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to

believe that the hon. Member does not realize that in order to get money out of

a pension fund you have to first put money in. Now if we are going to add to the

obligation of the pension fund to pay higher pensions due to increased pay

caused by retroactive pay equity or any other means, the public of this Province

must put money into the fund. So that would have to be done, as well. That

comment, Mr. Speaker, has no merit.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Education. Since early this

week, Tuesday I think, there has been quite some concern within education

circles with respect to substitute teacher cutbacks and so on. Recently we heard

that there might have been some breakthrough. Can the Minister confirm that an

agreement has been reached between all three parties concerned with respect to

substitute teachers?

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have a tentative agreement with the NTA that is going to

be voted on sometime in the next couple of weeks - I forget the date right now.

In that tentative agreement the substitute teacher situation is fully explained.

A committee is going to be set up comprised of equal representation from the

boards, from the NTA and from Government to do an examination of the substitute

teacher situation and report back to the Minister of Education, the President of

Treasury Board, the Federation of School Boards, and the NTA by September 1. In

the meantime, Mr. Speaker, nothing has changed with regard to the substitute

teacher situation. We are going to go through that process and see what happens.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Will the Minister confirm then that the budgeted amount for

substitute teachers is in the range of about $12.4 million and the number of

days for substitute teachers is at last year's level, about 80,000 days? The

reason we need to know this is because certain school boards have already

cancelled approved leave because they think the leaves might be reduced to the

earlier 60,000. So will the Minister confirm that it is going to be $12.4

million and about 80,000, 81,000 days?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the use of substitute teacher

time and the number of substitute teachers used in the past few years has been

escalating at an alarming rate. The number of teachers has been going down

because of declining enrollments, and the use of substitutes has been almost

expediential. So the Minister of Education is attempting to control the increase

in the use of substitute teachers and I cannot answer for his meetings. He had

meetings to impress upon people the importance in these times of restraint of

controlling the use of substitute teachers, just as all areas of Government are

encouraged to control all their expenditures. We are going through very

difficult times. It is simply that.

The tentative agreement we have with the N.T.A. is operative.

We have a budget which we will live within. That is all I can tell the hon.

Member.

MR. WINSOR: A supplementary to the Minister of Education,

Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINSOR: Will the Minister of Education confirm that

the number of substitute days is at 80,000 or 81,000, as it was last year, and

is the budgeted amount $12.2 million, as it was last year? Furthermore, can the

Minister indicate if this proposed collective agreement which has now been

tentatively reached will apply for the duration of the contract, or can be

changed upon the report of the Substitute Teacher Committee?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Member knows,

substitute teachers are used for sick leave. We have no control over that. There

are a few categories of substitute teacher leave that we do have control over,

such as special leave and so on, controlled by the Minister of Education. So, in

essence, the use of substitute teachers is an open-ended programme. We do not

know how many teachers are going to get sick, we do not know how much is going

to be needed in the run of a year; we hope as little as possible. With that in

mind, we have agreed with the N.T.A. that we would set up this committee to look

at the substitute teacher situation. So, Mr. Speaker, all I can tell the hon.

gentleman is that the substitute teachers will be provided to the educational

system where needed, that our budgeted amounts will be lived within, and because

of the open-ended nature of the programme, we cannot at this point in time

predict exactly how many days are going to be used. Last year there was an

attempt, I believe, to keep substitute teacher numbers down, and I believe the

Minister was successful - and not only the Minister, the Minister and the boards

and the superintendents and the teachers and so on - in controlling the increase

in the number of substitute teacher days. It is something that can be done, it

is something that must be done, and I am surprised the hon. Member is upset by

all this.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fogo, a final

supplementary.

MR. WINSOR: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Since the

Minister last year was able to establish the number of days at 80,000 or 81,000,

some 10,000 less than the year previous, why can the Minister not make the same

kind of recommendation this year as to the number of days? Last year you

established it at 80,000, why can you not tell us what your figure is this year?

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

MR. BAKER: It is part of the negotiating process at this

current point in time, which is precisely the reason I am answering the

questions. Mr. Speaker, it is an open-ended programme and we are attempting by

every means possible to live within our Budget in all areas of our Budget, not

only in the area of substitute teachers. And I am very pleased, if this

agreement is accepted, that the NTA and the boards will co-operate in this

endeavour. It is magnificent to have all three parts of the system co-operating

to ensure that that expenditure on substitute teachers is as effective and

efficient as possible. It is a marvellous thing we are doing, Mr. Speaker.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of

Municipal Affairs I will direct my question to the acting Minister, whoever he

or she may be, or to the Premier - whoever cares to answer the question.

We now have the Federation of Municipalities, particularly

the President, describing the new Regional Service Boards Act as scary, and he

has requested that Government delay bringing into effect that piece of

legislation. The defects he has mentioned have been pointed out to the

Federation by us during the course of the past few months, and indeed we have

brought them all to light and moved certain amendments in this House which were

rejected.

Can I ask the Premier then will he now agree with the request

from the Federation of Municipalities, which represents all councils throughout

this Province, and immediately tell them that he intends to delay proclaiming

the bill to give serious consideration to bringing in the appropriate amendments

in this session of the House?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I saw the remarks by Mr.

Connors who is the President of Mayors and Municipalities, and frankly I was

quite surprised by the remarks because his comments are not consistent with what

I understand the legislation to be. It appears that the man may have been

affected more by - as the hon. Member said, it came as a result of

representations by him and others on his side of the House. I suggest it was

misrepresentations and not representations, because what I saw coming from the

comments I -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

PREMIER WELLS: If the Member for Burin - Placentia West

wants an answer from the Member for Mount Pearl I am prepared to yield and let

him give the answer.

MR. WINDSOR: At least he will hear the truth.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would ask hon. Members to my right to stop interrupting as

the Premier is trying to give the answer. Premier, finish up please.

PREMIER WELLS: Based on the comment by the hon. Member

that it was as a result of representations by the Opposition I suggest to him

that I am going to have to take a very careful look at the legislation and the

comments of Mr. Connors, because it is not at all consistent with my

understanding of the legislation. The legislation does not give the Minister

excessive power, it provides for election of representatives from the councils

to the regional council. That is my understanding of it.

MR. WINDSOR: (Inaudible) public hearings and gives you

absolute authority. That is what it does.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I specifically point out to the Member for Mount Pearl that

this is question period and if he wants to ask supplementaries, we will

recognize him.

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I do not want the Premier to be

putting words in my mouth, either. I did not say it was as a result of our

representation. I did say we made representations to just about all the councils

in the Province pointing out the defects. Now the federation are pointing out

the same ones to Government.

Mr. Speaker, the major flaw in this piece of legislation is

that it is totally arbitrary, because there is no requirement for feasibility

studies. That is the major problem in this. And there is no requirement for

boards to be set up, only on the request of the local Governments. In addition,

any and all municipal powers can be transferred to regional services boards by a

stroke of the pen. That is what the President of the Federation has pointed out.

So will the Premier acknowledge that the Act was poorly thought out and hastily

drafted? And will he now listen to the Federation if not to us, reconsider his

position and amend this act so that it will become democratic?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not make such an

acknowledgement. I will take a look at the Act, and if there is any merit to the

comments made by Mr. Connors, if there is any foundation to it, if I judge that

what he said is accurate I may well ask Cabinet to reconsider it. But My

recollection of the contents of the Act is that it is as the Minister has

represented it in this House and others have represented it, and Mr. Connors

comments are not well-founded: the Minister and Government does not have too

much power; there is provision for the election of members; and the members to

the regional council are to be elected by the councils concerned.

MR. WINDSOR: The Chairman will be appointed.

PREMIER WELLS: There is one out of six or seven. Is that

too much power, one seventh?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

PREMIER WELLS: It is a good thing the hon. Members were

defeated in the last election, is all I can say.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Premier has

acknowledge that Government will reconsider this piece of legislation. I would

like to say to the Premier, Mr. Speaker - as a matter of fact, I volunteer that

we can submit to him the amendments we put before the House last year, if he

would like to take them into consideration.

My final supplementary to the Premier is would he check with

the Chairman of the Government Services Legislative Review Committee, the Member

for St. John's South, and ask him what the councils and other people who

appeared before the Committee, as well as the minority report that was

submitted, suggested and act it?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, let me correct again before

somebody reprints the misrepresentation made by the hon. Member. I did not

acknowledge that the Government is going to reconsider that legislation. What I

said specifically was we will take a look at the legislation and if there is any

foundation - as of now I do not believe there is any foundation to this

criticism, but if my recollection of it is incorrect, then I would most

certainly take a look at it. But my recollection is that there is no merit to

that criticism and therefore we have no intention of introducing amendments

along the lines suggested by the hon. Member.

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Environment and Lands. The

Minister will be aware that the Leader of this Government went on record last

weekend and said the country, and presumably the Province, would be better

served if Ottawa assumed more responsibility for regulation and protection of

the Environment. Does the Minister think the people of the Province can be

better served if regulation and protection is administered from 3000 kilometres

away rather than right here in Newfoundland and Labrador, as the Premier

suggested?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the question relates to a

comment I made and asked for the effect of it, so I will answer the question. To

begin with, the representation is again incorrect. I did not say that this

Province would be better served if the environment were regulated and managed by

the Federal Parliament. What I said, Mr. Speaker, is that due to the nature of

environmental concerns, the fact that wind blows from one province to another,

water flows from one province to another and so on, there is a Federal concern

about environment and there is a Provincial concern about environment. In the

present system where the Province has its own environmental legislation and the

Federal Parliament has its own environmental legislation, too often you have

separate, expensive, and unnecessary duplication of environmental activity and

environmental control and management. So I suggested, Mr. Speaker, that we would

be better served if we provided for a national control of the national aspects

and co-ordinated the provincial one with it so that we could have joint

management and control of the environment rather than the system that is now in

place.

MR. SPEAKER: A supplementary, the hon. the Member for St.

John's East Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, that is not the way I read it.

I have a copy here of what the Premier actually said. He said, `The Federal

Government should have greater control over environmental affairs under any new

constitution.' My question again is to the Minister of Environment and Lands. Is

the Minister either bit concerned that he is presiding over a Department his

Leader is trying to snatch out from under his feet and pawn off on Ottawa? Is

not the Minister, from the experience he has gained in the last twenty-three

months, equipped with any arguments for why it is valuable for the Province to

maintain the environmental jurisdiction it presently has? And is he not

concerned when the very same person who wanted to sell the shop on the offshore

is now planning to sell the shop on the environment?

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

Lands.

MR. KELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the Premier adequately answered

what our approach is in dealing with Ottawa and the environmental assessment

process. The rest of the question is so nonsensical it does not deserve an

answer.

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

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

My question is to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. I

understand that for some time now the Minister has been having discussions with

a major company pertaining to a sawmill wood operation in the Lake Melville

area. I further understand, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister in his discussions

arrived at probably two outstanding objectives which are curtailing the

beginning of this operation. Would the Minister kindly tell the House what two

scenarios are stopping the commencement of this major operation in the Lake

Melville area?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any two

scenarios stopping the development of the project. The last time I was involved,

or this Government was involved, the company had come to Government with a

proposal with various requests for permits and that kind of thing. Sometime ago

that was agreed to and the conditions under which the company would operate in

Labrador were made public, and we are waiting for them to start the operation.

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

MR. WARREN: Would the Minister advise this House how much

guaranteed money, guaranteed loans or finances will be given this company by the

Government and what the terms will be?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: The two concessions, if one would call them

concessions, Mr. Speaker, that were agreed to by Government to the company, one

was we agreed to a deferment or a forgiveness, if you would, of up to $1.5

million in (Inaudible) on capital purchases. That again was made public through

the media. And the only other concession was that the Province agreed to provide

over the next ten years the access roads' requirement of the company, and that

those access roads would only be provided on a needs basis. In other words, as

the company developed and harvested the timber we would provide the access roads

as we do on the island for the company. To my knowledge those are the only two

major - what I would consider in any way major - concessions made.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On a number of

occasions now the President of Treasury Board has said - with respect to the

wage rollback, Bill 16 - that he called in the unions prior to the Budget to

discuss options that would prevent the further elimination of jobs. Can I ask

him has he up until now received any further representation from the unions

other than the two options that we are familiar with that were discussed, which

were a wage freeze or an unpaid leave of absence?

Can he tell us whether in fact there were any other options

other than those two very specific ones that we are aware of, that he has

mentioned himself - the unpaid leave of absence and the wage freeze being the

two options. Were there any others, and has he received any further

representations from unions?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, to handle our financial situation

we as Government considered numerous options. We considered what we thought was

every possible option. So everything that we could possibly think of has been

considered. In terms of representations from the unions, there have been none. I

do not want the hon. Member to get confused between two circumstances.

The first circumstance was back in October when I met with

the unions and indicated the extent of our financial problem. The second

circumstance was within two weeks of the Budget, I believe, Mr. Premier, was it?

PREMIER WELLS: Yes.

MR. BAKER: Within two weeks of the Budget where we had a

meeting with the unions to indicate -

PREMIER WELLS: (Inaudible) we had two meetings.

MR. BAKER: - that we had run out of options, and

therefore this is the situation we are faced with now. And we had to at this

point in time consider the one year wage freeze. So there were two separate

occasions.

There was some representation from the first meetings back in

October. CUPE, for instance, had a convention, I believe, in Gander where they

called in all their members from around the Province. And they presented a brief

to me which I read and which we took into account, and was discussed in the

media at the time as a matter of fact. But one of their recommendations was that

we postpone and have sort of a Royal Commission, a study. But I should point out

to the hon. Member that at this point in time -

AN HON. MEMBER: We could not postpone the debt.

MR. BAKER: - it is too late for options. We have a

problem this financial year. We are not trying to deal with something that is

three years down the road. We are trying to deal with the problem now, and we

cannot postpone decisions any longer. We have made the decisions now in the

light of everything we had before us, and we have to proceed during this year

with those decisions.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Minister if I

appear to be confusing two sets of circumstances. But I do not believe that I am

the only one.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: None from the last lot. Okay, that is what I

want to get at. So, the two meetings two weeks prior to the Budget, when the

unions were called in, the Minister is saying there were no options discussed

and that what the Government did at those two meetings was simply tell the

unions that there would be a wage freeze. Is that what he is saying then?

Perhaps he did not hear me.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: Okay, I will repeat it again. I understand

from what the Minister has now said - unless I have misunderstood it again, and

I am not deliberately trying to misunderstand it - but he said there were two

meetings just prior to the Budget, two weeks or so before the Budget - two

meetings. And at those two meetings, he just finished saying, there were no

options. The options were from the earlier meetings back in October. So there

were no options at the meetings.

So did he then tell the unions at that time that there was

going to be a wage freeze then, if there were no options discussed, is that what

he is saying?

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

MR. BAKER: I thank the hon. Member for his question

because obviously he is confused. Let me go over it again just very briefly.

Starting in October, we indicated to the unions that there was a very, very

difficult financial situation which would result in Government not being able to

provide the services it normally provides and that we could not provide the

services at the same level as the previous year, and we explained our financial

situation to them, then there were many contacts with the unions in that context

of Government having to deal with its budgetary problem, so there were

representations from that segment.

Finally, when we reached the point where we knew that through

normal procedures, we could not deal with the problem adequately, this was

within a couple of weeks of the Budget, then there were two meetings. The first

meeting was with the unions separately, the second meeting was with the unions

collectively and we explained at that point that we had done all that we thought

we could sensibly do, therefore, we are now at the point where we had to

consider either, a wage freeze and essentially what is in this bill, or, further

massive layoffs, and we just wanted to explain it to them and point out to them

that we had not decided at that point in time which option we were choosing, but

this is the point we were at, and if they had any input to make, now is the time

to do it, because time was short and we indicated we had a very short time

before we had to decide, within a week or so we had to decide on what we would

do, so, these were the discussions in the second round and there were no

presentations resulting from them.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Question Period has expired.

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

hon. Members I would like to welcome to the galleries today sixteen girl guides

from Clarke's Beach accompanied by their five leaders, Debbie Andrews, Judy

Compton, Joanne Whelan, Dianne Compton, and Corinne Newell.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have three questions I want

to deal with this morning, one of which was yesterday when I was asked questions

about the bus operation and the bus inspection in Happy Valley - Goose Bay. I

undertook to enquire as to precisely what happened, what was required, and

whether or not there was any failure by the bus operators to comply with the

law, or any illegality on the part of Government in taking the action it took. I

asked the Minister of Works, Services and Transportation to carry out a full

investigation and to report fully to the House. I am advised by him this morning

that basically he has found out that information, but he has also been made

aware this morning that there is other information that may well be relevant to

this issue. So I think it probably best that he defer giving the answer until

such time as he has completed the assessment of this other information.

The second one is a question in writing by the hon. the

Member for Grand Falls who asked me to place upon the table of the House a list

of trips taken by the Premier and claimed from Government during the fiscal year

April 1, 1990 to March 31, 1991, showing the destination and date of the trip,

the length of the trip, the purpose of the trip, and the names of personal,

political, and departmental staff accompanying the Premier. Mr. Speaker, I just

noticed `claimed from Government' There may be one or two in there that were not

claimed. I listed all the trips and who went with me, even some I may have paid

for personally. The executive assistant may have to go in order to maintain the

office contact and so on, so that would have been an expense, but my own may

have been paid personally or by somebody else. I am tabling a list of all those

trips, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) if somebody else paid for

them.

PREMIER WELLS: Well, if you want that answer I will most

certainly provide the answer. It was either by me personally or by the Liberal

Party, when I would have travelled for the Liberal Party. There was nobody else

paid for it.

The third, Mr. Speaker, was a question asked this morning as

to whether I would reconsider legislation. I now have a copy of this Regional

Services Board legislation and I am pleased to advise the House, Mr. Speaker,

that what I expected is the case: it is an entirely appropriate provision. What

is provided is where three or four councils get together. Obviously you cannot

leave to the councils to decide how big the board is going to be. One council

may want fifteen and another council may want five, so somebody outside of the

group has to make the decision and the Government or the Minister is the

appropriate person to do it. But while they are formally appointed by the

Minister, the members of the regional council are nominated by the councils and

the Minister must appoint the persons so nominated. The Minister only does what

he should do, which is appoint the independent, objective Chairman, and that is

what the Minister has done.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

PREMIER WELLS: If one council says we are going to

frustrate -

MR. TOBIN: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. A point of

order.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Burin - Placentia West, on a point of

order.

MR. TOBIN: The Premier did not say he was going to take

the question as notice, he said he was going to look into it. That was not

taking the question as notice, and if the Premier is going to debate that issue

in the House of Assembly, I would also like to have the opportunity to debate as

well. Because what the Premier is saying is not the concerns which have been

expressed by the Federation of Municipalities.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, in addressing the point of

order, I was asked the question this morning; I have the legislation, I am now

providing the answer that twenty minutes ago they asked me to give and I said I

would consider it. Having considered the position, I say the legislation is

exactly as I had recollected that it was and that the authority is appropriate.

And if councils get together or are put together in a regional authority, then

the Minister must have the authority to appoint the Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Petitions

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

Extern.

MR. PARSONS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is certainly a

pleasure and a privilege, as well, for me to rise in my place to present a

petition on behalf of thirty-four young people from my district who are at

present attending the Cabot Institute. I will read from the prayer of that

petition.

`As a voter and one of the many citizens who believe that the

Cabot Institute is vital to Newfoundland and Labrador, I strongly oppose any

move by Government to reduce programmes or cut funding to Cabot Institute.

Thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians need Cabot Institute to ensure the

economic future of Newfoundland and Labrador. We want quality education and we

deserve no less.'

Mr. Speaker, I am one resident of this Province who believes

that the Cabot Institute is of great importance to all the Province. What Cabot

Institute ensures is that it will improve upon the educational standards of our

people and any reduction therein would certainly be a step backwards, a step

backwards for many people who do not have the opportunity in many cases - not in

all cases, Mr. Speaker. There are people who go to the Cabot Institute because

of the technical aspect of it, but there is a great number of people who attend

Cabot Institute who do not have the educational requirements to go elsewhere. So

if we cut into those programmes, we will again deprive the poorest of our people

of a God given right, or what we now consider that right.

For many years, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians

were deprived of that right because we did not have the institutions, we did not

have the capabilities, financially and otherwise, to give them their basic

right. As we go about Newfoundland and Labrador we see the results of Cabot

Institute - my hon. friend is shaking his head, but he knows as well as I do it

is true.

AN HON. MEMBER: You do not need institutes for that.

MR. PARSONS: No, but Cabot Institute played that role.

You said we do not need institutes for that. Perhaps not. Perhaps you are right.

But the point remains, we have no other body capable at this present time.

Last week, Mr. Speaker, I think there were eight or nine

programmes cut and those programmes were the basic programmes, the basic

programmes which people need to survive.

Technical programs, the programs people need just to find a

place in the work force, Mr. Speaker, by taking away the numbers, taking away

those programs from Cabot Institute I think they greatly endanger the rights of

those people.

Mr. Speaker, there are also close to forty positions gone,

where people have lost their jobs at Cabot. With forty positions gone, Mr.

Speaker, the grade or the height of education at the facility will certainly be

in danger.

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize again that when I heard the

other day that Cabot Institute was reducing its programs and I listened intently

to hear what programs there were reductions in and what programs would no longer

exist. And it is frightening to me at least, Mr. Speaker, because I know a great

number of students attending Cabot: they look forward to it, they depend on it.

Cabot was an institution in itself, an institution those people looked to, the

same as any university or whatever.

The other thing is there are a lot of people who came out of

Cabot on the technical side, could go further afield and attend other

universities and they would, perhaps, receive up to 80 per cent, I think, at

those other universities for having attended Cabot Institute and receiving their

diplomas from there. So even if people were to go to the Mainland, or to other

technical colleges, it is advantageous for them to have attended Cabot

Institute.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. PARSONS: Mr. Speaker, in closing I hope the

Government takes a hard look at Cabot Institute, and I hope they can find it in

their hearts not to touch Cabot Institute, which is important to the poor people

of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

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

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It gives me great

pleasure to rise again to support the petition put forth by my colleague for St.

John's East Extern on behalf of the students of Cabot Institute. Mr. Speaker, we

have presented a number of petitions in this House on behalf of Cabot and each

time we called on Government to ensure that the same quality programming could

be offered at Cabot as was offered in the past. Mr. Speaker, our worst fears

were realized late last week or early this week, when Cabot announced that it

was slashing eight or nine of its programs because of budgetary restraints. This

at a time, Mr. Speaker, when, if ever there was a need to educate our people, it

is now. If Newfoundland is ever to get out of the economic doldrums or the

malaise it is in, it will be through an educated population.

Mr. Speaker, what is even more alarming is the type of cuts

Cabot was forced to make because of Government restraint programs. If we have

one industry in this Province which has shown some signs that it might have some

growth potential, it is the tourism sector.

The restraint program at Cabot forced that particular

institution to practically eliminate all the programs that dealt with that

particular area - hotel catering, cooking, and that type of thing. Now, Mr.

Speaker, perhaps even more importantly, even the Minister of Development and

responsible for Tourism was very upset and shocked that Cabot would eliminate so

many programs. Mr. Speaker, Cabot was left in a no win situation. It could not

cancel courses that were of two year duration or three year duration, because a

number of commitments had to be made to students who were presently enrolled.

Instead, Mr. Speaker, because of the restraints it had to cut into a program

that was of one year duration.

Perhaps more important for a large number of Newfoundlanders

were the programs which did not require high academic standing to get into them

- not a course like naval architecture, which requires a 70 per cent average or

75 per cent, or electronics which requires high grades to get in. Some of these

students could qualify with lower grades. Now, Mr. Speaker, by the elimination

of these programs we have taken away the opportunity for a large number of

students in the Province to go on to post-secondary schooling.

We have taken away that opportunity because many of these

courses were aimed specifically at that. That is problem one.

Problem two with it is that this marks the beginning of the

end of that type of course. Because the Minister of Education said in defence of

the restraint and cutback programmes that many private institutions can carry on

the same type of programme.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: The Member for Exploits can tell me to sit

down. Perhaps he cannot take the heat, so he can get out of the kitchen.

Now what that is signalling to the community is that this

Government has a lesser commitment to education than any other administration

this Province has ever had. Because we have always believed in this Province

that Government must support and enhance educational institutions in this

Province. What we see now is privatization, which means that now only those who

can afford to attend post-secondary institutions will be able to go.

Mr. Speaker, this a regressive step in education. I support

my colleague for St. John's East Extern and ask the Government to reconsider the

cutbacks it has made to education, and re-examine the direction it is taking,

too, so that it can perhaps put more money into education at all levels -

post-secondary, secondary, high school, primary, elementary - so that we can

develop the young people of this Province so that they can help get Newfoundland

on the fast track out of a recession, instead of heading us into a depression.

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

DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Government has

expressed regret on a number of occasions in this House that we did not have all

the money that was needed this year for the University and for the colleges.

Cabot had to do what many other agencies in the Province and indeed throughout

the country, and governments throughout the country had to do, and that is

exercise fiscal restraint. They did eliminate or downsize eight programmes. But

there are fifty or sixty programmes at Cabot, many outstanding programmes. And

the President indicated in her news release that many of the programmes being

downsized or eliminated were offered in the region. In fact in some cases, for

example in the area of tourism, they will monitor what is happening this year

and if there is a need for additional programmes, they will consider that need

and do what is necessary.

I want to say that during the discussion of cuts there were

fears that massive programmes would be cut. In fact, the Opposition asked me if

we would permit Cabot to cut students halfway through their programme. I am

delighted the Board and the President did not have to take that kind of action.

But they did look at cuts at all levels. In fact, perhaps at the management

level the cuts were more severe than at any other level. They looked at

positions that did not impact directly on the classrooms, and I want to pay

tribute to the Board of Governors and to the President for that action.

Two other points, very briefly. One is that we will be

expanding programmes even this year in post-secondary education in this

Province. It is vital to the future growth of this Province. We are going to

build in St. John's - and I am amazed that the Opposition has not praised the

Government for this - another facility that will offer the latest technologies.

We are going to start this year to do that.

programmes. I must say the students whom I have met - I do not want to table

letters I have received but I could. I could table a letter I received from a

student leader very recently praising this Government for what it has done to

revolutionize and change the student aid programme and make the possibility of

post-secondary education more our right than it was in the past.

Mr. Speaker, the students I meet with regularly say that we

are moving in that direction, and my hon. friend for St. John's East, I could

not agree with him more. I listen to every word he says. I believe in his

sincerity in this. He is not playing political games. I agree with him, that we

have to do everything possible to make sure that education at the post-secondary

level is not the right of the rich or the elite. We have to do much more to make

it the right of every Newfoundlander and Labradorian irrespective of where they

live, irrespective of the income of their parents, and this is what this

Government is committed to do, Mr. Speaker. Thank you very much.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 7, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Justice to ask leave to

introduce a Bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Queen's Counsel Act". (Bill No.

21).

On motion, Bill No. 21 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Motion, 9, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Environment and Lands to ask

leave to introduce a Bill entitled, "An Act To Revise And Consolidate The Law

Respecting Crown Lands, Public Lands And Other Lands Of The Province". (Bill No.

22).

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

second time on tomorrow.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, this is a technical matter,

perhaps only House Leaders, Speakers, and Clerks would be interested in it, but

I am certainly interested in it as a House Leader. What transpired yesterday

evening for future reference: technically the House adjourns at 10:00. It cannot

sit beyond 10:00, technically. Last evening, of course, we were still in

Committee at 10:00. The Chairman, I do not believe, can adjourn the House per

se. I do not know. Can he? Can he just get up from the table? I do not think he

can, Your Honour shakes his head right, he cannot. So what happens in that kind

of a situation, I mean, you know, it was 10:00. What happened though?

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: You have not been here long enough to

know anyway.

MR. SIMMS: What I am asking, the Member for Exploits is,

what happened? Technically 10:00 the House was adjourned so we got up and left,

but then eventually we all got up and left -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order please! Order please!

This is a rather important issue and I do not want Members to

trivialize it. I want to hear the Opposition House Leader so that we can deal

with the matter in a serious manner.

The hon. Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker

That is precisely why I raise the matter, because it is

important to know what we are supposed to do in the future. I honestly do not

know. The Speaker did, frankly, what I think I would have done if I had been

Speaker. The Speaker, I believe, came in the Chair one minute after ten. Now,

how the Speaker can come in the Chair one minute after ten, when the House is

supposed to be closed at ten, I do not know; I do not understand it.

MR. RIDEOUT: And no leave on stopping the clock.

MR. SIMMS: And no leave on stopping the clock. So, I

think we need to know for the future, what does it mean? Does it mean that the

clock is automatically stopped or that the Chairman of Committees must rise the

Committee and report, and if that means going beyond ten o'clock, that is what

it means? We should have a ruling so we know precisely, I think, in the future,

what is supposed to happen.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I really believe

we have to somehow straighten out that kind of circumstance. I am not too sure,

myself. Obviously, the Chair has the duty to see to the smooth running of the

House. At that point in time, what does His Honour do?

What I would suggest, I suppose, is that perhaps the two

House Leaders and His Honour get together for a discussion on it and then, His

Honour could have some research done; but, obviously, we have to resolve that

situation. Everything gets left up in the air. Obviously, it is not proper that

everything be left up in the air, there has to be a procedure that we accept is

a logical procedure at that point in time. It is very unusual, and I believe we

have to solve that problem.

MR. SPEAKER: If I might comment, number one, there is an

onus on members to be aware of the time. Now, last night, when I got in the

Chair, actually, I got in at 10:00. I was in at 10:00, and the Speaker's parade,

actually, was going on, because I was concerned about the time, myself, and the

Speaker's parade went down through here at 10:01, so we were not awfully

off-time. When the clock strikes ten, well, then, we have a minute or so to clue

up things. Obviously, it seems to me that members have to be aware of the time.

Because, as the Opposition House Leader says, it is important, and the Committee

has to rise. The Committee has to rise and report progress and, I think, in the

future, what I would advise the people in the Chair to do, is to be very aware

of the time, and when they know it is approaching 10:00 and hon. members might

be carried away with themselves, the onus on the Chair ought to be to say-- will

we call it 10:00? Then, hon. members will know. Either they will agree to call

it 10:00 or not agree to call it 10:00. I think there should be some onus on

whoever is in the Chair to look at the time, to say, you know, we are close to

the time, and will we call it such-and-such, or whatever.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, just to discuss it a little bit

further. What happens if the Chair, for example, at two minutes to ten, says--

is it agreeable to call it 10:00, and there is no agreement? What happens at

10:00, if the Chairman is still in the Chair? That is the dilemma, I think.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the answer.

MR. SIMMS: Now, maybe the answer is, as the Government

House Leader says, maybe to have a chat about it, and maybe, eventually, for the

Speaker to reserve a ruling on this point of order and give a ruling on it.

Then, you have a precedent, and the ruling can be whatever you say, a one-minute

maximum, or something like that. I do not know.

MR. SPEAKER: We have already initiated that, because we

were concerned with it, and we have that in order. We will rule on the point of

order later.

The motion - the Government House Leader was still on -

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we just went through the

first reading of Bills 21 and 22.

Motion 8, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 8. That: the debate on Bill 16 shall

not be further adjourned and that further consideration of any resolution or

resolutions, clause or clauses,

section or sections,

preamble or

preambles,

title or titles, or whatever else might be related to Bill 16 shall be the first

business of the House when next called by the House, and shall not be further

postponed.

All those in favour, 'aye'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Aye.

MR. SPEAKER: Those against, 'nay'.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Nay.

MR. SPEAKER: Carried.

MR. BAKER: Order 3, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, the

Government House Leader is dreaming in technicolour this morning. He could not

have had a good night's sleep if he thinks that this motion is carried yet.

Now, let us be absolutely clear, everybody in this House be

absolutely clear what is happening here this morning. We are now, for the second

time on this most heinous piece of legislation that we have seen in some time in

this Province, we are now operating under the gag order, for the second time on

this one piece of legislation. We are now operating under the closure rule, the

gag order, the hobnailed boot order, the guillotine order, the anti-democratic

order, the order that says, my way or no way.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: That is what we are doing. The Tory

Government of Brian Peckford used closure twice in seventeen years. The great

democratic Government of the great democrat himself, Clyde Wells, has used the

closure motion twice on this bill, eight or ten times in twenty months. That is

the brand new change, that is the real change, that is the new democracy, that

is the New Jerusalem, that this crowd brought to Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame, shame!

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, there are a few things that have to be

said to this Government. It is not going to knock any sense in their head. If

everyone of us over here stand and speak on this gag order today, we cannot stop

this bill from going through Committee stage of the process. We can stand up

here and we are allowed under the gag order, under the closure rule, to speak

for twenty minutes each, and when we have all spoken for twenty minutes each,

then the hobnailed boot will fall on the unionized workers of Newfoundland and

Labrador. That is what will happen. We cannot stop it.

It does not matter whether it is five minutes from now,

whether it is 12:00 p.m. today, whether it is 5:00 p.m. this evening, because I

believe that is as far as we can go under today's rules. So it does not matter.

This undemocratic Government will have its way. And what is it doing? It is

accusing the Opposition, those of us on this side of the House, of not debating

Bill 16, the bill to not only freeze wages in the public service but to roll

back wages in the public service, and a bill that discriminates against women

who will not receive the retroactive pay equity that they were promised and

agreed to back in 1988.

What are we doing? The Government is accusing the Opposition

of not debating the bill. Well, what Opposition in their right mind would allow

this piece of legislation to go through the legislative process without closure?

You would not be fit to be called a Member of this House if you did not fight

with everything that the rule book gives you, to keep from clawing back from

ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians rights that they fought and won for

over months and months of negotiation. You would not have a sound bone in your

body, you would not have a grain of sense in your head, I say to the Government

House Leader. And I say to the Government House Leader, that if they were over

here and we were over there as a government doing the same thing, they would be

doing exactly what we are doing over here today.

Not an Opposition worth its salt would allow this bill to go

through without going through under closure. You would not be fit to be termed a

Member of an Opposition. And the Government gets up, like the Government House

Leader did last night just before we closed at 10:00 p.m., talking about

thirteen or fourteen Opposition Members speaking, and only one or two spoke

about the bill. I would talk about the colour of blueberries rather than allow

this bill to go through.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman: we did not talk about the

bill? Every time you look at the

schedule of this bill, and you talk about

Memorial University with its extension service gone, which has done so much for

rural Newfoundland and Labrador; every time you look at the bill and talk about

the Fisheries Loan Board with massive cutbacks that does so much for rural

Newfoundland and Labrador; when you talk about cutbacks in post-secondary

education; when you talk about cutbacks in the medical services; when you talk

about whole hospitals closing - this from a Liberal Government, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SIMMS: Right on! Shame on you!

MR. RIDEOUT: The Liberal Government. This kind of

legislation would put Ronald Reagan to shame. It would make Margaret Thatcher

look like a Liberal, Mr. Chairman. This is the worst piece of labour legislation

that this House has seen since 1959.

MR. SIMMS: Right on!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: In 1959 when Joey Smallwood outlawed the

IWA, the Labour Movement was outraged in Newfoundland and Labrador. I believe it

was in 1966 when another Liberal Government outlawed a hospital union in this

Province, have a guess, Mr. Chairman, who was the Minister of Labour in 1966

when the hospital union was outlawed in Newfoundland and Labrador?

MR. SIMMS: Wince Baker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Gerry Dinn.

MR. RIDEOUT: Was it Wince Baker?

AN HON. MEMBER: No. Gerry Dinn.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was CKW.

MR. SIMMS: Gerry Dinn.

MR. RIDEOUT: Was it Gerry Dinn?

MR. SIMMS: Chris Decker.

MR. RIDEOUT: No.

MR. SIMMS: No.

MR. RIDEOUT: Who was the Minister of Labour in 1966 when

a union was outlawed in this Province, a hospital union?

MR. SIMMS: Joey Smallwood.

MR. RIDEOUT: One Clyde K. Wells.

MR. SIMMS: What!

MR. RIDEOUT: One Clyde K. Wells - that is the labour

reputation of this man that we have as Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, a

man, by the way, Mr. Chairman, who got to the Premier's Office in no large

measure with the support of labour.

MR. SIMMS: Right on.

MR. RIDEOUT: And this is his gift to them. This is his

legacy. This is what he has done for those who helped him to achieve power, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. SIMMS: Shame!

MR. RIDEOUT: He has broken - he has put his name to

collective agreement after collective agreement and then he rips it up. That is

how much that man's signature is worth.

Now, Mr. Chairman, none of us are surprised. We know that it

does not matter what the Premier signs or when he signs it, when he chooses to

walk away from a deal, when he chooses to walk away from his signature then, my

God, it is right and proper that I do so.

MR. SIMMS: It would be unconscionable not to.

MR. RIDEOUT: I would be unconscionable not to.

It does not matter that it is a collective agreement

voluntarily or by binding arbitration arrived at and signatures affixed to it.

It does not matter about that. It does not matter that those agreements were

arrived at under the collective bargaining laws of this Province, instituted by

this House by the duly elected Legislature of the Province. It does not matter

that public servants are the only people in the collective bargaining process

that have to go on trust. It does not matter that public servants are the only

people that have a greater authority to override their collective agreements and

that is the authority of this Legislature. None of that matters. It does not

matter that we are not going to try to collectively get together and solve the

fiscal problems of this Province. None of that matters. What matters and matters

only is what the Leader of this Government says must be done. My will be done.

MR. SIMMS: My will be done!

MR. RIDEOUT: My will be done. He sounds like a god onto

himself, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Clyde will be done.

MR. RIDEOUT: Now, Mr. Chairman, some time today the most

unprecedented hideous piece of labour legislation that this Province has seen in

decades will pass through this Legislature. It will pass despite the fact that

we as an Opposition delayed it and delayed it and delayed it with every

parliamentary trick at our disposal. We will try again to delay it, Mr.

Chairman, with every parliamentary trick at our disposal in the next stage. It

will be more difficult. We all know that - those of us who have been here any

length of time. But we will do our best. We will do it because it is right and

proper for an Opposition to oppose as much as it can, to fight as best it can

against bad legislation and this, Mr. Chairman, is bad legislation. This is not

only bad legislation, this is legislation that dips the long arm and the clawy

hand of Government into the pockets of people, not only freezes their wages -

the Government likes to call this a Wage Freeze Bill - this is a CLawback Bill,

Mr. Chairman. There are mothers and fathers out there today working for the

public service of Newfoundland and Labrador who thought they were going to get 5

per cent or 7 per cent increase in their wages, this year because the agreements

were negotiated several months ago or last year or two years ago, signed, sealed

and delivered by this Government.

There were husbands and wives who went out and bought homes,

mortgaged their future, bought new cars, some may have decided to have another

child, I mean, Mr. Chairman, what this Government has done is almost inhuman;

there have to be other ways; we faced a much more severe recession in 1983-1984

when we were the Government than this Government is facing now - and did we

break union agreements, did we bring in a law rolling back and freezing wages of

contracts that were already legally in existence? No, we did not, Mr. Chairman,

we called the unions in and we told them what they did not like; we told them

that when their collective agreement expired, they would face a two-year wage

freeze, but, my God, Mr. Chairman, we did not use the long arm of the law to

haul it back on them now, after giving it to them in good faith five or six

months or eight or ten or twelve months before. That is the difference, that is

the difference, Mr. Speaker -

MR. SIMMS: And that is what this is all about.

MR. RIDEOUT: - and that is what this is all about, and

the Government House Leader then has the gall, the face of a robber's horse, to

get up and complain about the Opposition trying to delay this bill. I will delay

this bill, Mr. Chairman - if the Government did not bring in closure, if the

Government did not bring in the gag order, I would beg my colleagues to delay

this bill until Christmas eve, because this bill does not deserve to pass, it

does not deserve to pass -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. RIDEOUT: You are going to do too much harm to the

collective bargaining process in this Province, there will be no more confidence

- Mr. Chairman, what is wrong with the old mad doctor, over there? If he does

not like what is being said, let him get out of the House, because this is no

morning for joking in this chamber. What is happening in this Chamber today is

unprecedented in the history of collective bargaining in this Province, except

for a couple of other Liberal occasions.

Now, Mr. Chairman, like I said, at the end of this process

this bill is going through; oh sure, we can each take our turn and be here as

long as we have somebody to speak, but nothing is going to change. This

Government has crossed the Rubicon with labour in this Province, they have

crossed it and I say to this Government that they are going to reap what they

are sowing here today and what they have sowed in this House over the last week

or so.

There cannot be any understanding in the labour movement, in

the union movement among the public service for a Government which approaches

its fiscal problems in a 'take it or leave it' manner, there cannot be any

understanding for that approach; there cannot be any understanding for a

Government that tries to solve its fiscal problem through the long arm of the

law.

You did not try to reach any agreement with the union leaders

representing the public servants of this Province. Listen to the Minister's

answers this morning, to my colleague the Opposition House Leader, you did not

try to reach any agreement, you just called them in and you told them that this

was the extent of the problem and these are the couple of things that we are

considering doing to correct it: wage freeze or more firings, but, this is not

only a wage freeze, this is only one part, this is only one component of the

Government's plan to get itself out of the fiscal straight jacket that it

created.

There are also 2,500 people who are going to be fired in the

public service in addition to this rollback, in addition to this freeze, and

this is what you call creative, innovative, new Government; for God's sake, I

mean, an elementary student could have come up with this creative approach to

solving the problem; it takes co-operation, understanding, trust, it takes

willingness to listen to people with other ideas to find something different.

If this Government were here with an innovative way of

approaching this problem, they might have had some co-operation from the

Opposition, but they are not, and therefore they have no right to expect

co-operation, Mr. Chairman. Now, there is not much to be said about the bill

itself that has not been said over the last several days.

I think all we can do in this debate today is take the

opportunity to point out again what the Government is doing and the high-handed

way they are dealing with their employees. Those people do not work for the

Government, those people work for the ordinary citizens of Newfoundland and

Labrador and they are ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians like ourselves.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know, I really do not know. I do not know if there is any

point in us continuing to debate the closure rule, debate under the rule we are

now debating under, I honestly do not know. If I sit down now when my time is up

in a couple of minutes, and if we had a vote, or if everyone of us on this side

of the House continued to speak for the twenty minutes we are allowed and we

have a vote, any difference, like the old fellow said, is all alike. There will

be no difference. What difference. The point is, Mr. Speaker, that the hon.

crowd on the other side have made up their mind and they are using the

parliamentary rule book to enforce their will. I have nothing against that.

Obviously, as a parliamentarian I have nothing against that, but, Mr. Chairman,

there are issues and there are times and there are bills when a Parliament ought

to be able to debate as long as it wishes. That is why closure is used on such

rare occasions in most Parliaments. Certainly, in the Parliament of Newfoundland

it has been used very sparingly up until this Government came into office twenty

something months ago. That is why it is used, and if the Opposition on behalf of

those who have a special interest in a piece of legislation want to talk on, and

talk on, and talk on, well then come back, and come back and keep coming back

until they are finished. Keep coming back until they are finished.

MR. EFFORD: (Inaudible).

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, I have no interest in the

Minister of Social Services and who or who does not walk in or out the gallery.

I know that two very good friends of mine are in the gallery, so if they have to

go to another meeting that is fine. I saw the Minister of Social Services up in

the gallery last night with a friend, Mr. Chairman. I do not care whether people

have to come or go, that has nothing to do with what I am about to say or not to

say, or how fast I am going to sit down or not sit down. The Minister is trying

to throw me off stride.

The point I was making, Mr. Chairman, is to cut off debate on

this Bill is, to use a favourite term of the Premier, unconscionable. It is

unconscionable in my view to cut off debate on this Bill. There is no amount of

silly argument from the Government House Leader or the Premier about how long

you have been on the Bill, the lack of debate on it, and the lack of sense in

what you are saying. That is all immaterial, that is all window-dressing, that

is all hogwash. The point of the matter is that several thousand of our fellow

citizens are being adversely affected by this unprecedented piece of

legislation, several thousand of them. The Premier this morning, I believe, in

response to a question, talked about the discriminatory way in which we signed

the pay equity agreement. All we did, as I recall, when we signed the pay equity

agreement, was to make it effective from a certain date.

MS. VERGE: (Inaudible) for all the public service and put

it in a context that was (Inaudible)

MR. RIDEOUT: That is right, and there was a date from

which it would begin for all women in the public service. The Premier calls that

discrimination and even goes so far as to give himself a pat on the back for

what he is doing in this piece of legislation. Now, if I recall correctly when

that hon. crowd were looking for office they went a step further on this pay

equity and promised pay equity legislation. When are we going to see that? Of

course it is not much point in seeing it now because if we see it we will see it

reflecting the reality of Bill 16. I mean such a warped vision and such a warped

approach that the Premier takes from time to time to justify the way he sees the

world, and if everybody else does not see the world the way he sees it then

there is something wrong with you, you are less than adequate, you are lacking

in something. It is either intelligence, the way you talk, or the way you fling

your arms around.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. Member's time is up.

MR. RIDEOUT: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that. I thought

it was normal that we be given a minute or two notice but I do not see one here

anywhere. I have said what I have to say and in conclusion let me say this, this

is the second occasion on this Bill that we have debated the Bill to the point

where the Government has invoked closure. When the closure vote comes, it does

not matter what time it comes, the Bill will then pass, so whether we debate it

all day is immaterial or whether those who want to speak, speak, and then the

vote is taken is immaterial, the result will be the same.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, this `real change' administration

are using their majority in this Legislature to weaken and remove checks and

balances against the power of the Cabinet. They did it when they changed the

composition of the Public Utilities Board, which is supposed to function at

arms-length from the Cabinet in regulating public utilities. They did it in

amending that legislation, to put themselves in a position to pick and choose

from among the former commissioners, re-appointing a few and getting rid of

others, including the consumer advocate, Andy Wells. They did it when they

repealed the Ombudsman's Office, giving Newfoundland the distinction of becoming

the first jurisdiction in the whole world to disband a Parliamentary

Commissioner's office. They did it in dealing with the Auditor General; that is

not passed yet, but it is still in the works. They have similarly objectionable

legislation in the works governing the Provincial Court.

Here they are, using their majority in this Assembly to

destroy the foundation for collective bargaining. They are turning the clock

back, Chairperson. They are turning the clock back to 1971, to the dark days of

the autocracy of Joey Smallwood, but they are not going to get away with it,

Chairperson. They may be able to take advantage of their majority in this

Assembly today and, by invoking closure, shut up the Opposition's reasoned

objections to this bill but, Chairperson, they will not be able to get away with

it very much longer, because there will come a day of reckoning. Actually, there

will be more than one day of reckoning.

Perhaps, the first day of reckoning will be the day the

Supreme Court Court of Appeal rules that this legislation offends the Charter of

Rights and Freedoms, when the Court of Appeal says that the constitutional legal

expert, Clyde Wells, made a terrible mistake in imposing legislation on the

people of this Province which contravenes the equality rights that are

guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

A second day of reckoning will come, Chairperson, and that

will be the day of the next provincial election. That will be the opportunity

for the women and men of this Province to judge this Administration. That will

be the opportunity for the women who are being penalized by this legislation,

who are being discriminated against by this legislation, to have their say.

Chairperson, the Premier and the Minister responsible for the

Status of Women, who is the Treasury Board President, have been denying that

this legislation discriminates against women. The Status of Women Minister has

not given an explanation, he just says flatly that the legislation does not

discriminate against women, and then switches to attacking, personally, those of

us who are stating the obvious. The Premier, however, a master of sophistry,

tries to argue that this legislation is, somehow good, arguing that the pay

equity contract signed in 1988 covered just part of the public service. Well,

Chairperson, the Government in 1988 adopted the principle of implementing pay

equity, or equal pay for work of equal value for the whole of the public

service, for women employed by Government departments and agencies such as

hospitals, the university, colleges, school boards and other agencies.

Chairperson, the contracts that were open and that were due

to be signed at that time, back in the spring of 1988, incorporated the

Government's acceptance of the pay equity principle, and they included contracts

for the health care sector, a sector employing mostly women, which has most of

the beneficiaries of pay equity, as well as Hydro. The PC administration made a

firm commitment to implementing pay equity for the whole public service and to

bringing it about through a process of negotiations with the public service

unions over a period of five years, but with effect from April 1 1988.

Now the Premier and his Liberal colleagues, when they

campaigned for election, endorsed that commitment. They put in their written

campaign literature promise after promise that they would implement progressive

pay equity legislation. They continued to pay lip service to that during their

first year and a half to two years in office. When I asked the President of

Treasury Board - the Status of Women Minister - last year when he was going to

introduce the promised pay equity legislation he said, in due course. When I

asked the Premier at the beginning of this session of the Legislature he said,

what promised pay equity legislation? - he had a lapse of memory, I guess.

But since 1988 the government - first the PC administration

that had made the commitment, then the Liberal administration that had made the

commitment with the public service unions - acknowledged that a great number of

women in the public service, working in our hospitals and nursing homes, have

been paid less than men for doing work of equal value. The Government has

formerly admitted to discriminating against women in the health care sector.

That is all documented. Now through this legislation it is wiping out its

contractual obligation to give adjustments to close those gaps back to April 1

1988 and in effect, through this legislation, is acquiescing in continuing pay

and benefit discrimination against women.

The Government goes on to say that it still is committed to

pay equity and at some unspecified time in the future it will get around to

providing for pay equity adjustment. Those adjustments will have effect from the

date of signing forward but will not apply to the present or the past. Thereby,

women in the health care sector will be deprived of more than $25 million worth

of pay equity adjustments. Now a great number of women in the public service

have retired over the past three years. A great number are being forced out now.

Approximately 3,500 public employees are being laid off as a result of the

restraint measures in this Budget. The Government has estimated that 900 of them

will be in the health care sector. The Association of Hospitals and Nursing

Homes says that unless the Government increases grants to institutions by $10

million this year, the institutions will actually have to lay off quite a few

more people than the 900 estimated.

Approximately 80 per cent of these health care workers are

women. So we are going to see well upwards of 700 women in the hospitals and

nursing homes lose their jobs. And those women who are having to leave now will

never see the benefit of this Government's so-called commitment to pay equity,

because the Government is refusing to honour the contractual obligations to

implement it with effect from April 1 1988.

The Government, using its majority in this Legislature, is

violating those agreements. It is betraying the women of the Province, it is

betraying the public service unions and the public employees who bargained in

good faith and signed with the President of Treasury Board and the Minister of

Health contracts providing for pay equity adjustments back to April 1 1988. The

Government is betraying the voters who actually believed what they promised when

they were campaigning three years ago, voters who were conscientious enough not

to just listen to the speeches or the advertising, but to actually get the

Liberal campaign policy manual and to read the Premier's glossy full-colour

brochure that went to every household in the Province which contained not one

but two promises of pay equity legislation. All those people have been betrayed.

But they will not forget, they will remember, and they will vote appropriately

in the next election.

The Premier, as I say, a master of verbal trickery, used a

similar rationale as he used here this morning in defending the indefensible, in

denying the discriminatory aspects of Bill 16 last fall when he tried to defend

the Minister of Social Services' change of social assistance policy involving

recategorizing maintenance and child support as non-allowable income. Up to that

time, family support payments ordered by the court were treated for social

assistance purposes the same as income from a job by the social assistance

recipient, as allowable income and the social assistance recipients were allowed

to keep up to $115 a month of the income without any deduction from regular

social assistance. So there was an incentive for family support payments to be

paid, and there was a net benefit to the beneficiaries, to the dependent single

mothers and children.

Well last October 1, without any warning to the single parent

families affected, the Minister of Social Services wiped that out and started

subtracting up to $115 a month or up to 15 per cent to 20 per cent of the family

income from these poor families. Now instead of apologizing for that and

correcting it, the Minister and the Premier defended it in the name of fairness

and balance. The Premier said that because some single mothers on social

assistance were not getting any family support payments, why should the ones

getting the maintenance be able to benefit?

So it seems the Premier's approach to equality is to reduce

everyone to the lowest common denominator. God forbid that some poor single

mother get a little bit ahead! God forbid that some woman cleaner in a hospital,

retiring after twenty-five years in the work force, get an adjustment

acknowledging that all those years she was discriminated against on the basis of

sex. Oh no, there are better uses for that money: there is the Economic Recovery

Commission, there are the friends of the Government, Fraser Lush VP in Gander;

Keith Payne, defeated Liberal candidate in Corner Brook; there is Gary Anstey,

the buddy of the Minister of Development. There are all these deserving people

who need the money, so do not give it to the single mother, do not give it to

the hospital cleaner, no, no, because there are more deserving candidates for

this money. After all, the money has to be distributed around the Province, and

the Government has to be very selective about whom it gives it to.

I talked before about the Government, this Clyde Wells real

change administration, turning back the clock. He is a neo-conservative, and

although there are Members of his benches who have a social conscience, they are

basically gutless - they are gutless. They are afraid to take an independent

stand, they are afraid to voice what they know in their heart of hearts is fair

and reasonable and right because they fear they might lose some perks. The ones

in Cabinet are afraid they might be turfed out, the ones on the back bench who

are slavishly grovelling to try to get appointed to the Cabinet are scared they

might blow their chances, members such as those from Pleasantville, St. John's

South, Eagle River and Exploits, probably more than most. So they are being very

meek and mild. They are toeing the line. They are putting up with all these

regressive budget measures. They are turning their backs on their former causes.

They are turning their backs on their constituents and their former workmates

because their own self-interest comes first; they want to shore up their

personal political position as long as Clyde Wells is Premier. So any misgivings

they have they are whispering to themselves in the little confabs that go on in

the back benches, but they are not standing in their places and telling the

people of the Province what they really think. They are gutless, Chairperson,

gutless!

MR. MURPHY: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

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

MR. MURPHY: On three occasions now I have risen to speak

on this bill, and I do not like the hon. the Member for Humber East standing up

and accusing members on this side of being gutless.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Even if it is true.

MR. MURPHY: I think that is totally wrong, and the record

should show that she is wrong. And referring to women as simple mothers, what

silliness!

MR. RIDEOUT: To that point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, to

the point of order.

MR. RIDEOUT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, to

that outburst from the hon. gentleman from St. John's South, obviously you know

as well as I do that it is not a point of order. We could not care less and I am

sure the hon. the Member for Humber East could not care less whether the Member

for St. John's South personally likes how she describes Government Members. The

only way there can be a point of order is if the hon. member used a term that

was unparliamentary, and she has not used a term that is unparliamentary.

Whether the hon. gentleman likes it or lumps it is immaterial, but it is not a

point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: No, Chairperson, I am waiting for your ruling.

AN HON. MEMBER: He ruled.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

I am afraid what happened is that I struck a raw nerve with

the Member for St. John's South. He does have pangs of conscience, and I believe

the Member for Pleasantville has pangs of conscience, because they know down

deep that what the Premier is doing is wrong. But my point is that none of them

so far have mustered the courage to challenge the Premier, to say, Premier, I am

sorry, but the emperor has no clothes. What you are doing is wrong. What you are

doing cannot be tolerated. Now it is one thing to restrain spending in tough

times, it is one thing even to freeze public servants' wages, but, I am sorry,

it is quite another to tear up contracts that you signed, that we signed, it is

quite another to go back on our word. We gave our word, and our word is our

bond. Premier, there have to be ethical standards in Government. If we pledge to

our employees that we are going to give them benefit and wage increases and pay

equity adjustments to compensate for discrimination against women, oh, Premier,

we cannot go back on that. Premier, there are choices. Premier, we made a mess

of it over the last two years. You know, there were warning signs: there was the

report of the Senior Expenditure Review Committee of the last administration;

there were the cautions of the Finance critic when the Budget was brought down

last year. Premier, this extravagance of yours, the Economic Recovery

Commission, your pet project, Premier, that is really going too far.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: Oh, too bad, Chairperson!

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want

to just have a few words. I do not have much time left now since this Government

has brought in closure again, so this will be my last opportunity on this

section of the debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: You have not brought in closure? You were

not here this morning. You did that last night actually, so you were not here

last night either, I guess. Last night you gave notice, this morning you brought

it in. But anyway, I am sure that the Chairman of Committees has everything

under control and he is aware of what we are debating here now.

Mr. Chairman, I do not understand why the Government wants to

rush this Bill through the House of Assembly. It is a retroactive piece of

legislation. If they bring it in next September it has the same consequences as

if they had brought it in last week. If they are afraid to debate it I can

understand, and I can understand why they would be afraid to debate it because

it is certainly the worst piece of legislation that has been brought into this

legislature since I have been here, probably the worst since the IWA

legislation. I am not familiar with that, but I am told that too was a very bad

piece of legislation. I am not familiar with it. But since I have been here, Mr.

Chairman, this is the worst without doubt. Even the Bill 59 which we brought in,

which was considered to be the worst ever, does not compare to this piece of

legislation.

Mr. Chairman, again we have closure, I would say for the

first time in our parliamentary history, closure twice on one bill. I have never

heard of that before. They are probably going to have to do it three times

because if I can keep it going in third reading you are going to have to do it

three times, but I am not sure that I can do it.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know what the Government House Leader

is looking for. Maybe he wants to get his name mentioned in the Guiness Book of

Records for the Government House Leader who brought in closure the most times on

one bill and the most times in a session, or the most time in a mandate. That is

the only reason I can see why he would want to bring in closure on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, if the bill is passed next month it will have

the same effect as if it is passed right now, so I do not understand the reason

for closure except that the Members on that side are putting pressure on the

Government to get rid of this. The backbenchers who are becoming increasingly

uncomfortable with this bill are telling the Government to get it over and done

with as fast as you can and sweep it under the carpet so that we do not have to

be taking this criticism from our constituents.

Mr. Chairman, I heard last night on a news report that the

Government House Leader said the reason he will be introducing closure on this

bill is because the last thirteen speakers on this side have not been referring

to the bill and they have not been relevant. Mr. Chairman, I was tempted to get

up on a point of order today because the Government House Leader, by making

those statements, even though he did not make them in the House, is questioning

the many rulings of the Chairman of the Committee that we have been in for the

past week.

On several occasions the Minister rose to point out that a

Member, as he considered, was being irrelevant, and on every single occasion it

was ruled by the Chairperson of the Committee, whoever was sitting in the Chair

at the time, that the Member was not being irrelevant. Now, Mr. Chairman, I

think that a case could be made if there was a transcript of the recording that

I heard sometime last night or this morning that the Government House Leader has

questioned the ruling of this Chair and has actually insulted the Chairmen of

the Committees by suggesting that the Chairmen of the Committees do not know

what they are talking about and the Government House Leader can rule this House

as much as he wants.

Now, Mr. Chairman, had I been, and I was at one time, Deputy

Speaker of this House and heard that report on the radio, and I would imagine

both the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees did not hear it because I am

sure they would have enough respect for this House to make the point themselves.

But, Mr. Chairman, if I had been in the Chair or Deputy Speaker at the time and

heard that report, I personally would have asked for the Minister to withdraw

it.

Mr. Chairman, I would imagine that both Chairpersons and the

Speaker did not hear that report, because it was a direct slur on the competence

of the Chairpersons of this Legislature and the Government House Leader should

apologize to the Chairpersons of this Legislature for the slur he made on them

in the news report, either last night or this morning. Now, Mr. Chairman, I

would have asked him to do it. I would have gotten up on a point of order, but I

expected the Government House Leader, in retrospect, to get up today and

apologize. He did not say it in this House, so I am not sure that it is a point

of order for me to raise, but, had I been Deputy Speaker or Speaker, I would

definitely have raised it, Mr. Chairman, because there is no doubt that the

Government House Leader questioned the rulings and insulted both Chairpersons

who sat in that Chair over the last couple of days, in particular.

AN HON. MEMBER: He should be ashamed of himself.

MR. R. AYLWARD: He should be ashamed of himself. On every

occasion that he rose in this House to try to declare people irrelevant, he was

ruled out of order, not the person who was speaking, Mr. Chairman. The

Chairpersons of the Committees of this House took up for the people who are

trying to speak to this bill, and ruled that they were in order, not out of

order, and the President of Treasury Board, the Government House Leader, goes

outside of this House, on the public media, saying that the Chairpersons of the

Committees in this House do not know what they are talking about, because the

last thirteen speakers were completely irrelevant. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would

apologize if I had said that, and I am sure the President of Treasury Board will

apologize very shortly.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, Mr. Chairman, because it is an

insult to members of his own caucus, certainly, an insult to this House, and how

this House is being run. I can see Oppositions being upset, sometimes, by

certain rulings they might not like but, Mr. Chairman, not continuous rulings

when the President of Treasury Board got up at least three times, I believe,

during one speech that I made, and suggested I was being irrelevant. The person

in the Chair at the time, Mr. Chairman, ruled that the President of Treasury

Board was wrong, and for him to go outside this House and question the rulings

of the Speaker, is beyond me.

Mr. Chairman, I suppose I should not be surprised, and I

really most say, I was not aware of it - 1966, I do not know what I would have

been doing in 1966, probably in the College of Trades and Technology trying to

get a surveying diploma; so I was not really interested in the labour

legislation that was going through the House of Assembly, because I was up to my

ears in mathematics and physics and everything else. So, I was not paying as

much political attention as maybe I should have been. And, only today, did I

learn, when I listened to the Leader of the Opposition in this House, that our

present Premier was Minister of Labour when there was a union outlawed from

being formed in the hospitals, decertified in the hospitals. Mr. Chairman, what

else can we expect from a Premier who would do that, to sign agreements one day

and throw them in the garbage the next day? Mr. Chairman, had I known that some

time ago, I would not have been so surprised at the Premier bringing in this

legislation. Mr. Chairman, had I known it in 1989, when the Liberals were going

around this Province saying what bad negotiators and union people the Tories

were, with their platform of `real change' and how they were going to treat

everyone fairly and equitably, Mr. Chairman, had I known that in 1966, the

present Premier of this Province decertified a union in a hospital in this

Province, it would have been worthwhile for the union leaders supporting this

party at the time, to be made aware of that. The union leaders, I am sure, did

not know that when they supported this Premier for election in 1989. I would

imagine, each and every one of those union leaders who supported the Premier and

his candidates during the last election, feel very betrayed. They must have felt

very betrayed when the President of Treasury Board called them into a meeting

and dictated to them that their signed collective agreements which they

bargained hard for, are being torn up and thrown in the garbage.

Mr. Speaker, I can understand some members opposite

supporting this type of legislation. You take the Minister of Works, Services

and Transportation: He was always a Tory. He just got upset with the Tories and

went with another party, but he is still a Tory. He is a very conservative-type

person. And there is nothing wrong with that. I am not saying there is anything

wrong with that.

Mr. Speaker, I can see the Minister of Social Services

supporting this type of legislation, because the worry on his mind at this time

of the year is how much taxes he is going to pay, not the welfare of the public

servants and the social services recipients. Mr. Chairman, I can definitely see

the Minister of Finance supporting this type of bill because the Minister of

Finance is -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order, please!

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but other people who

have sat in this Chair, and I think His Honour, have ruled that it is

unparliamentary for people to turn their backs to the House. Beauchesne is very

clear on that, so I would request hon. Members to turn their chairs and face the

House.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

AN HON. MEMBER: Good ruling, Mr. Chairman.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Yes,

Mr. Chairman, they can turn their backs if they like, I do not mind, because I

know most of them over there are ashamed of their lives to look me straight in

the face and say they are supporting this. The Minister of Health, I thought he

was a really liberal-minded person until I got to know him a little better from

that side of the House. When he was over here I thought he was a Liberal. But,

Mr. Chairman, he is more Conservative than I could ever dream of being, since he

went to that side of the House.

But the ones I am really surprised at for supporting this

bill are the people over there whom I know are really Liberals and liberal

thinkers. The one whom I would consider to be a true Liberal over there is the

President of Treasury Board. This must be eating away at him because I know it

is against his better judgement; the President of Treasury Board is a liberal

thinker and his philosophy would be liberal.

AN HON. MEMBER: He used to be.

MR. R. AYLWARD: He probably used to be. Well, I guess

King Clyde has taken complete control. The Member for St. John's South stood in

this House of Assembly and said he deplored this legislation, he is not in

favour of the legislation, but he just does not have the intestinal fortitude to

stand up against Clyde and tell him that he is going to vote against the

legislation. He is one of the many gutless wonders we see on that side of the

House. The Member for Eagle River, who is a true liberal thinker in this

Province, he is one who would be as liberal as he -

MS. VERGE: When he talks federal but not provincial.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Chairman, he would have a liberal

philosophy as extreme as any Liberal I know of, and he must be choking to have

to vote for such a piece of legislation.

MR. TOBIN: Who?

MR. R. AYLWARD: The Member for Eagle River. I mean, he is

not a Conservative. You could never even remotely consider him to be a

Conservative. He is extremely liberal minded except when Clyde tells him to be.

That is the big difference, when Clyde tightens up the screws. He could not get

him on Meech Lake, Clyde could not get him on that one, he got away on that one,

but since that the whip has been cracked; there has not been a break since;

there has not been one move; nobody stood up in this House and showed their true

feelings. But I will commend the Member for Eagle River, because he is a true

Liberal. He was concerned about Canada and he did try to do everything he could

to protect, to save Canada. Now I ask him to do the same thing for the public

servants of this Province, of which he would have been one had he not been

elected.

If he was still working the Labrador Coast with the Marine

Institute today - he was going back and forth there doing his political

homework, and they did a good job, he did a good job. But if he had not decided

in 1989 to run for election and he was still working the Coast of Labrador today

and his wages were being rolled back and his Labrador benefits were being taken

away, I wonder how he would feel about voting for this piece of legislation. If

he was not in the House, he was still up on the Labrador coast and I was still

Minister of Northern Development and I happened to run across him and I said

Danny, what do you think about what they are doing to public servants? I think I

would get a good earful, Mr. Chairman. I think I would get the true feelings of

the Member for Eagle River on what this bill is doing to the public servants of

the Province. But what happens to people when they get elected and come into

this House of Assembly? Their feelings change maybe? Maybe they understand a bit

more? Maybe they understand finances a bit more. Maybe their mouths or tongues

are cut off by a dictator. Maybe they are told -

MS. VERGE: They are hoping to get appointed to Cabinet.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I would say the Member for Eagle River

would have a fairly good chance of going to the Cabinet anyway.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. R. AYLWARD: I would say yes. The Minister of

Fisheries will be retiring shortly, and there are a couple more over there who

are about to go, so the Member for Eagle River would have as good a chance as

anyone there. Maybe the Minister of Social Services will be in limbo or

purgatory in the next little while, after the Sunday papers come out this week.

We might see another stint in purgatory for the Minister of pigeon fleas sitting

in the back row there now, Mr. Chairman. He might have to spend another stint

outside Cabinet - inside but outside. I do not know how it worked. I do not know

whether he went to Cabinet meetings at that time or not. I do know he got full

pay; he was still getting paid at a rate of $100,000 a year. So I would say that

if he goes this time, if the word comes down from the king himself, you will not

be going back a second time. Because he told you last time when the report came

down, Johnhy, I will let you away with it once. That is what he said in the

report - I will let you away with it once but not twice.

Now I think number two might be coming very shortly, Mr.

Chairman. Number two might be just on the horizon. I hope not, because I would

not want to see the Minister of Social Services and the Premier having a public

fallout. That would not do anything for the politics of this Province, Mr.

Chairman. I would rather that this thing just blow aside, leave him in Cabinet,

and the next election the people will deal with the whole works anyway.

There is a chance the Minister of Social Services might be

going for number two, but Clyde said number one is okay, number two is going to

be a big problem. And number two is coming close.

Mr. Chairman, I do not know how the Member for St. John's

South can support this legilation. Now, Sir, I had the distinct privilege of

serving on the Government Services Legislative Review Committee with the Member

for St. John's South, and he does a good job on it. He purports on that

Committee to be a fairly sympathetic labour person in this Province, and I think

he is sincere about it. He certainly has the experience in the labour field. He

has worked at it for a long time. He has admitted he hates this legislation. But

I cannot see, knowing his past record as a hockey player and standing up for the

little guy, and helping out people on Shea Heights who will be affected by this,

Mr. Chairman, I cannot see why he will vote for this piece of legislation. I

just cannot comprehend it. He will have a harder time getting in Cabinet than

the Member for Eagle River, because he does stand up a bit more to the Premier

privately. I think the Member for St. John's South privately stands up to the

Premier and has words with him. Knowing him, I would say that is correct.

The Member for Eagle River will not do that. He did it

publicly once, but he will be more careful privately. But it is hard for any of

them to have a conversation with the Premier, because as soon as they come in

and say, `Mr. Premier, I wonder could you review this?' there was such a

commotion in the office that they are all blown back into the corner and they

get a twenty minute diatribe on what a great guy Clyde Wells is. And they cannot

open their mouths after that, so they sort of kowtow and go out of the office

and say, God! At least, thank God, I got out with my hair.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh. oh!

MR. R. AYLWARD: I did not while I was around. Do we Have

some people in the Gallery? Oh, they are good people, anyway.

Mr. Chairman, we do have a real change with this Government.

We do have real change since this Government came in, and the change is that

what Clyde says goes period - no questions asked. Do not let the Federation of

Municipalities raise some concerns about a piece of legislation which has been

passed. That is not good enough, because Clyde looked at the bill today. He took

five minutes, looked at the bill and said, `Oh, sure this is exactly what I

expected it to be.' Sure it is, Mr. Chairman, because he wrote it. He was the

one who wanted to give all the power to the Cabinet and take it away from the

municipalities. I do not know why he waited five minutes to say it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. K. AYLWARD: By leave, Mr. Speaker? I have another

twenty minutes or so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member have leave of the

House?

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Chairman, we are not prepared to allow the

question to be put just yet for a number of reasons, and I will try to outline

them for the benefit of my friend, the Minister of Health, who seems to have a

great deal of difficulty understanding what exactly is going on here. He does

not understand why we are delaying -

MR. DECKER: Tell me.

MR. SIMMS: Well, perhaps I will get to it. If he would

give us an opportunity, if he would be polite and courteous, I will try to

explain how relevant this issue is. I particularly want to try to explain for

his benefit an answer to a question that has been asked over there by members,

`Why are we delaying the bill?' Why are we delaying through parliamentary

procedural wrangling, through amendments, through whatever? Why are we doing

that? Why are we not just caving in to the Government and after the bill is

introduced, sitting down and shutting up, saying nothing? Just sit down, do not

say a word, let the bill go and let it pass, why are we not doing that? Well,

Mr. Chairman, there are a number of reasons why we are not doing that.

First of all, I want to address two or three items that have

appeared throughout the course of this debate in newspaper articles, in

interviews, and in quotes of the Government House Leader, which I found very

surprising. I want to deal, first of all, with some quotes in Saturday's edition

of The Evening Telegram, Saturday, April 6th. There is no by-line to the story,

so I am not quite sure who wrote it. But the headline was: "Government announces

closure on wage freeze debate." That

article says, "Mr. Baker says the Tories

have had enough time to express their opinions of Bill 16." Now this is back on

Saturday, April 6th., in an Evening Telegram story. I do not know whose by-line

it is, but he is quoted: "But, Mr. Baker said, the Tories have had enough time

to express their opinions on Bill 16." Now that was last week he said that. That

is a week ago. Well, how did he arrive at that conclusion?

Apparently he was confused, because the next paragraph says,

"Every member of the Opposition has now had a chance to speak twice to this

stage of the bill." Now this is second reading. "Every member of the Opposition

now has had a chance to speak twice to this stage of the bill," giving the

impression that we had spoken twice to this stage of the bill.

Now Your Honour will remember and will realize that at the

introduction of Bill 16, second reading stage, there was one speaker from this

side who spoke to the principle of the bill, and that was myself. At the

conclusion of my remarks I moved an amendment, the traditional amendment on

second reading, for a six-month hoist. Then we debated the six-month hoist

reasons for delaying the bill for six months and then, and only then, after we

moved a second amendment, moved by the Member for Kilbride, did the Government

envoke closure. Mr. Chairman, the reality, of course, is every member on this

side did not have the opportunity to speak to the principle of the bill. We used

traditionally acceptable parliamentary practices of moving amendments which is

our right, which we are entitled to do. We debated the bill properly, we moved

proper amendments. They were ruled in order. Yet, the Government brought in

closure at that first stage, second reading, before Members of the House had an

opportunity to debate second reading, the bill in principle, with two

exceptions, the President of Treasury Board who introduced the bill, who spoke

for fifteen or twenty minutes, and myself, who spoke for an hour and a half.

Then we moved the amendment. So it was inaccurate for him to say that and he

should not have misled the people of the Province, and he should not have misled

whoever wrote the

article - I am not sure who wrote it.

Then he went on to say all pertinent points regarding the

bill had been covered. Now, I mean, who does the President of Treasury Board

think he is? Who does the Government House Leader think he is? Members are

elected to this House to express their own views and their own opinions. And if

not everybody had spoken who were entitled to speak - not everybody in this

House had spoken - how does he know all the pertinent points had been covered? I

mean, Members are elected to express their views on behalf of their

constituents. Not everybody had spoken - only two had spoken to the principle of

the bill - so how could he say all pertinent points have been made? I mean, that

is so silly it is not even funny. Yet again, it is printed, it is covered

verbatim, and the public out there say oh, well, it must be right. Mr. Baker

said it and he must be right. But he is not right. He is absolutely wrong.

Then the most vicious twisting I have ever heard of is the

final comment he made. Quote now, quotation marks "The Opposition" - I want him

to hear this - "the Opposition has informed me that every piece of legislation

is going to be pushed to closure, and that is fine. If they have made that

obstructionist decision, then obviously we have to govern, and the only way to

do it is to make sure the votes are taken."

Now I have to say that I would have expected by now that the

Government House Leader would have stood on a point of privilege to correct that

quotation, because I am absolutely certain that that quote is wrong, that the

Government House Leader did not make that quote. I am absolutely positive,

knowing the gentleman like I know him, he would not make such a statement. Now

he may have meant something else. He may have meant I have been told that this

piece of legislation was going to be pushed to closure. If he had said that,

absolutely. And not only did I tell him privately as the House Leader, but we

said it publicly. I was the first speaker for our side and in my comments at the

end of the debate I indicated that we intended to use whatever methods we could

to ensure that this legislation was delayed.

But if he is quoted accurately - I am sure he will want to

correct that quote. We have never informed him. The House Leader who speaks on

behalf of the Opposition officially and the Leader of the Opposition have never

informed him that every piece of legislation is going to be pushed to closure.

We have never said that. We do not intend that to be the case, so I hope he will

take the opportunity to correct that misconception. But again, you see, it is a

little bit of a twist, a little bit of misconception to try to build up to the

excuse the Government needs to be able to call closure - use all of that to

build up to calling closure, like he did last night in the debate. Remember the

little tricks they used last night? The Government House Leader stood - I do not

know how many times - eight or ten times - four times he says. Let me show him

the difference between twisting things and saying them accurately. He says he

stood at least four times, and I agree with him. I do not know if it was any

more, but at least four times he stood on a point of order to try to get the

Chair to call relevance in a debate that was perfectly relevant and perfectly

provided for under the parliamentary law, Beauchesne, which is the law we often

use. And he knew it, because we quoted it to him time and time again. Not only

that, the Chair had ruled on numerous occasions that the debate was wide ranging

and acceptable, and had gone this way. There was no reason to change it now. But

he stood at least four times, I thought it was much, much more, on the same

point of order. Now he could have easily been told to sit down, he could have

been told to take his seat by rising on these spurious points of order because

that is what they were. He could have, in fact, been named, yes, if he did not

listen to the Chair. But one thing is for certain, Mr. Chairman, that this was

again another little part of the plot to set up closure, to try to instill in

the minds of the public and the press gallery that: here is why we are bringing

in closure. In the first instance we told them we were going to force closure on

all pieces of legislation, not true, but that is one way of twisting and

building up to the use of closure. Then last night, this other little tactic,

point of order, point of order, point of order.

Mr. Chairman, at the end of the evening, of course, we saw

what he was up to. He said, 'now the last number of speakers have not been

relevant to the bill.' Mr. Chairman, the only person who was not relevant was

the Government House Leader himself. He was ruled out of order on four occasions

at least by the Chair that his point of order was not relevant. He was out of

order. It was not the debaters who were out of order. They were ruled in order,

but again it was all part of the plot, all part of the build up. Then finally at

the closing moments of last nights sitting, surprise, surprise! 'Mr. Chairman, I

rise to give notice that I will call closure under Standing Order 50. I will cut

off debate tomorrow.' So it is all part of a plot, but what comes out of it all,

of course, is the Government's arrogance and its insistence on using this type

of procedure. Most unheard of in provincial jurisdictions, very rarely used in

provincial jurisdictions, and very sad, I think, very sad that the Government

resorts to this type of approach.

Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition earlier in his

comments indicated the approach. We are now under closure. The debate now has

been cut off. I hope the press understands. The debate has now been closed. The

debate is now cut off. There is a time limit on the debate. So whether the

debate ends at 12:30, 1:30, 2:30, the debate will end this afternoon, and the

Committee stage of this Bill will pass. Obviously the Government is going to use

its majority. I doubt very much if there is anybody over there who will vote

against the Government. So that is another reason, I say to the Minister of

Health, why we are delaying the Bill, because we find that the Government

opposite, the Members opposite, are using tactics that are virtually unheard of

in most other provincial jurisdictions.

We have found that the Government was intent on using closure

anyway, and in this case, for example, there have been two days debate - two

days in the Committee stage, Tuesday and Thursday. Two days debate. Mind you we

had an evening sitting on both occasions, but that is not an unusual period of

time for debate on a Bill or a piece of legislation, two days in Committee. My

God, when they were in Opposition sure there were some bills that went through

Committee stage that maybe took two weeks, lots of bills. It is not unusual. But

the Government is intent, hell bent and determined on ramming this through the

House getting it out of the way as quickly as they possibly can to try to avoid

any further dissipation of their popularity, I suppose, is what they are up to.

So they are all valid reasons for delaying this legislation, to answer questions

like these questions written by an editorial writer for the Evening Telegram, a

well respected labour historian, Mr. Kealey, whose headline is, 'Is it the death

knell of collective bargaining?' Those are questions that are asked, those are

reasons why the Bill is being delayed, because of public comments made by other

people about pay equity roll back being discriminatory; because of comments, I

say to the Minister of Health, from people who say that what is happening with

Bill 16 is a violation of trust; because of comments that people are saying

because Bill 16 is a dangerous precedent for future bargaining; because it

undermines Government's credibility; because it is a reflection on the House

itself; because it is an unwarranted use of power; because they kept the unions

in the dark