Volume 2 PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND THIRTY-SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND 2nd Session VERBATIM REPORT Friday, October 26, 1973 SPEAKER, THE HONOURABLE JAMES M. RUSSELL Number 66

October 26. 1973 Tape No. 39 The fkrnse f'let ;it ll·Ofl a.m. :'fr. Sp,:,nh:r in the r!rnir. PETITIONS: l!OJ'~.-- E .• ,1_._RO,BJ;.P~r.s. _(tF.f;p_EB, !'I~ THE OPPOS)J'_I!)Jl_) • T heg Jcnve to present a petition from Conne River in the District of Hermitage, a district without rerresentation NM - l in the !louse at present, signed by four hundred and fifty-four citizens of that community and also I am told by the members of the Local Improvement District of Conne River.

The prayer of the petition, Sir, and I stress the petition may not be in the precise legal form which is needed but nonetheless is a petition which I submit should be received by the House and dealt with by the government, is that a barge owned by this ~overnment, by the people of this province, be moved from Grand Bank where I understand it is at present located to Conne River and that this barge be used to serve as a conveyance from the main hi~hroad across to the Coone River into the Community of Conne River itself. lam sure that all honourable memhers here are intimately familiar with Conne River.

The prrvincial highroad network runs down the eastern side of Bay d'Espoir to the Community of Morrisville. Just before one comes to Morrisville. the road branches to the left and comes down over a hill to a landing, what would be a ferry landing except there is no ferry. From there one can look across the Conne River to the Community of Conne River itself. The Community of Burnt Meadows is about three houses, a mile or so beyond Conne River. further out towards the sea, further towards the south.

The government have undertaken to build a bridge and a causeway across the Conne River to the community and for reasons which 1 would not attempt to guess, there has been an unprecedented flurry of activity there in the last two or three weeks, bulldozers going night and day, trucks going, axes going, rights of way being cut and so forth, but there is still no way across the Conne River and it will be a number of weeks, or a number of elections, depending on how cynical one is, tm.til the causeway is completed. 6668

October 26. 1973 Tape No. 39 The people. in the meantime, would like to have this barge. which apparently is not now in use, moved up to Conne River and used to convey cars and equipment and supplies back and forth. lt is all the more important at this tjme of year hecnuse they have to get in their winter supplies of oil and it is very difficult i-o move drums of oil. Whut docs a drum of oil weigh, a forty-live gallon drum? ~!R. WOODWARD: Four hundred and thirty pounds. ~R. ROBERTS: Four hundred and thirty pounds in a drum of oU by small open boats. Thnt is what they are faced with at present. The barge, Mr.

Speaker, is o'Wned by I am told th£> Department of Rural Development. It has heen used recently to move the Anplican Church from Point Rosie. We all saw that on the television. Onil"e n a saga that was. I ROt the petition ~ome time ago and T sent it to the ~inister of Highways or whatever he is now called - Transportation and Communications. I had the courte1,y of a reply from his deputy minister, (the minister himself apparently is not able to write these days) saying it had been referred to the Department of Rural Development.

That was on October 5 I heard from the deputy minister. 1 have had no further replies since and now at the request of the people in Conne River 1 present this petition to the !-louse, I think these people have a real problem, Mr. Speaker. I think it is a reasonable solution. As far as 1 know the barge is available. It may not in fact be but I understand it recently was tied up in Grand Bank not being used.

It seems an entirely reasonable thing to move it around to Coone River so that these people can have the benefit of a ferry service and so that they in particular can ~et in their winter supplies of fuel and whatever else they may need. I move that this petition be received, Sir, and he referred to the department to which it relates. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Twillingate. MR. 11,W.C. GILLETT: Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in presenting a petition, signed by the residents of Bridgeport,in my district. The 6669

October 26, 1973 Tape No, 39 NM - 3 prayer of the petiton is that they have two or more wells drilled in the settlement to assure a full supply of unpolluted drinking water, Nov I think that speaks for itself. I am sure that we all know and appreciate the need for good drinking water in many parts of the province, not only in my district but all over the province. feel very strongly towards this petition and I hope that others will follow as time goes by. I would like to have this petition received and placed on the table and then referred to the departrrient to which tt relates. MR.

SPEAKFR: The honourable member for St. Barbe North. MR.~i{E: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to present a petiton on behalf, actually, Sir, there are two petitons with the same wording. from the Department of Transportation and Corr,.,11unications workers in the highways depot in Cook 1 s Harbour and the highways depot in the Community of St.

Barbe in the District of St, Barbe North, Sir, and the prayer of the petition reads that:- "We, the undersigned, employees of the Department of Transportation and Communication, request that you inter­ cede for us in obtaining a hard-lying allowance. the same as has already been received by government employees in other northern parts of Newfoundland and Labrador and which presumably is in the area of our province called Labrador." Now, Sir, this petition is signed by fifteen workers in the highways depot at Cook I s Harbour and forty-one workers in the highways depot at St. Barbe.

Sir, it is my understanding that public service* and I stand to be corrected on this and I would appreciate it very much if the minister concerned here or if the Premier would try and straighten up this situation so that all public service in Newfoundland and Labrador would understand what exactly is going on, It is my understanding that public servants, employees of the government in 6670

October 26, 1973 Tape No. 39 NM - 4 Labrador receive Sl,200 a year, $100 a month extra if they are married and $600 a year or $50 a month if they are single. Now, Sir, presumably 1 do not know what the rationale is for this, I can see the reason for it. Presumnhl.y the rationale is that the cost of living in Labrador is higher than the average cost of living on the island ½ection of our province. Presumably as well, and I do not know, the isolation factor is taken into consideration. I do not know what other factors are taken into consideration other than the isolation factor and the cost of living factor. Sir, 1 would hasten to add that there are areas in the island

section of this province and particularly on the Great 1,;orthern Peninsula.in the Provincial District of St. Barb~ North.where the cost of living, although probably not as high as certain parts of Labrador, is certainly close to it. Extremely hir,h because there is no shipping for half of the year because of the ice conditions, so the fuel, every bit of material, all the food. has to be transported by truck over a long, treacherous, snow-hlock;::,d. gravel hip,hway during approximately one half of the year and consequently the cost of living for these materials is very high in the St. Barbe North District.

I would also suggest, Sir, that in this particular case with the Department of Highways workers, if I may use this term, that their work is every bit as treacherous and hardships are certainly as great and the isolation is certainly as great for these workers as you will find in any

section of Labrador. I have experienced this and I have had correspondence concerning this and the honourable the President of the Council can well remember last year the difficulty with respect to the clearing of the roads in St, Barbe North because of the severe winter conditions in St, Barbe where ,the wind blows. Let us put it this way, Sir, a lot of the snow that lands on the Coast of Labrador and on the ice in the Straits of Bell Isle is blown by the prevailing winds onto the Coast of St. Rarbe North. 6671

October 26, 1973 Tape NO. 39 NM - 5 So, Sir, 1 would sincerely ask that the Premier or the minister concerned stand in his place and I would like for him to support the prayer of this petition that this allowance be given to the highways workers on the Great Northern Peninsula, At least if the Premier or the minister concerned cannot support it, I think it would not be too much to ask for a reasonable explanation for the people concerned. Sir, I p.ive these two petitions my every support and I ask that this petition be placed on the table of the House and referred to the department to which it relates. !"ffi.

SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Finance. HON •• J. C. CROSBIE: I just wanted to speak on the Labrador allowances that the honourable gentleman opposite referred to, The petition that he has presented of course will have to be taken under consideration but the position with the Lahrador allowances is that they were instituted a long time ago by, of course the previous administration and that the situation we found with respect to Labrador, and presumably they were given, they were called, I think. Ila rd lying allowances rr, they were given on the theory that 6672

October 26, 1973, Tnpc 40, Pnve 1 -- apb living conditions are more difficult in Labrador, living is highe ... and other reason of that nature and to encourage peop1 e now in f'.(1vcrn111ent scrvtce to move to Lnbrndnr if tb,i_r duties took them there. Uhcn we rcvit":,,:ed the situation we found that then; were a trer:iendous numher of anomalies, that some government employees p_ot them.

Then there were a certain amount,if VDU were a government employee and you moved to Labrador from Newfoundland, from t1•,::, ifiland,but that if you were a resident of Lnhrmlor and .liv('d nnd worked for the governm.ent in Labrador.you got a smnller allowance or you did not pet any allowance unless you moved from the community you lived in to p;!' t · work in another co-rnmunity, That was the situation we found. Fverybody 1rns not receiving thern.

So what hns happened this sumrier wns that we have made the Labrador allowance uniform. \'hether you C{.)ff'<' frnrn the Island of Newfoundland to work in Labrador or whether you were a resident of Labrador in the first place you receive the Labrador nllowance now-of twelve lmndre~ dollnrs if you nre r:rn.rried and six hundred dollars if vou nre sinJ!le. This is paid to everybo,iv who is p.7id ·Jy governr..ent, whose funds for thei.r salnries nod sc, on are provided hy governnent in Labrador. That is a vast improvement over the situation thnt did pertain. As to whether that should be applied to St.

Barbe North or any part of the island is another matter which the government will have to consider and in due course make some announcement on it. MR. SPEAKER: , ________ _ The honourable the Leader of the Opposition. HR. ROBERTS: !''r. Speaker, If I may be permit tcd to add a word or two to this petition. I have had a similar request from a number of my constituents living in Roddickton, twenty-one in all.

They say in their letter to me, Sir, that we the undersi!'!:ned, employees of the Department of Transportation and Communications request that you intercede for us in obtaining hard lying allowance the same as has already been received by the government employees 6673

October 26. 1973, Tape M}, rage 2 -~ .1.pb Horninr in other northern parts of Newfoumll and and Lahrndor. I think that they may be under a misapprehension. I am not aware that the hard-lying allowances are paid in ~Jorthern Newfounrlland hut thev arc paid in Labrndor, 'ffi.. POiffTITS: The Province of Ncwf ound1 and i'l.nd Labrador. Then . --- ---~ -~,. they arc Qtdtc, correct hecnusc that is the way the law of this province rends nt present. }~r. Speaker, I support the re(]uest that this matter lH' glven consi<lcratfon.

The !d'inister of Finance hns outlined i r brief],_; but I thinl 1 actually.the historic.::il "ndtlon, ;rnd l t:,1nt 111 no way to say that the rwople of Lnhrndor do not f di'..:( ii, dlt:,nbt every respect higher l.lvinr costs than are fnced 0n this island. Nonetheless, the people in Northern ::ewfoumlland, in the northern part of St, Barbe South, in St, Barbe ~:orth ,,nd in White Hay Nc,rth they fncc costs which in almost every respect, nr. Speaker, arc just as high.

They too use diesel power. they too must twvc gn•nt costs for heating if they use oiJ, they too fnce fo0d costs \-:hich arc greater bf'cnuse the supply lines nre over three hundred niles of very bad dirt road. l think further, Sir. the fact that (and this is the policy of the present adr:i.inistration as seen in the redi.strilmtion bill we adopted lnst session) ·we are apparently to have a seat in Labra<lor which will be one-half in Labrador and one-half on the Island of Newfoundland - I think it is section (16)tl that says that there is a scat which shall lie equal. ~!r.

Justice l!ig~ins has said publicly that in his view equal means equal in population or else it. is meaningless. I think that too is further evidence leading to the fact that these people in Roddickton and :in St. Barbe Highway Depot and from F'lower 1 s Cove - Cook's Harbour Bighwny Depot have a good case, one which merits considerntion. 6674

Octnht,r 2F, 1973, Tape 40, Pnge J -- aph Horning r support the netition and I ask that the government Jo glve it serious consideration. 1 think thC'se- peon1e have a case. I think thev should be heard am> I think they should be dealt with fairly and justly. : 1R:_-SPEAKE_R:. The honourable the Prem:i.er. MIL F .D.NOOPES (PRE!,fIER) '._ ~r. Spenker, speaking in basic support of the petition, the problem is, of course, where do you draw the llne when you start bringing services south frr.r:i Labrador1 That ls a m1tural 1 ine of separation, so to speak. as far as these henefits are concerned.

There may be some validjty in the new redistribution, where you have a mutual seat.where this could be looked at apain. I wiJl say thnt the g.overnment will take it under considerntion but it js much more difHcu1t th;rn jm:t sny:inp: that it should be done in any one p,iven area hecausP you are hound to move rir.ht down into other areas and what dei:tree of what benefits should what people p-et. J Wl sure that the opposition agree that it is not an easy answer but it is one that we will take under consideration. Poss:iJ,,v the idea of the redistribution may he somethinr: that we could look hard at. /IP.

SPEAKER, PR.~ W.N.ROHE: ORDERS OF THE DAY, The honourable member for White Bay South. Thnnk you, Hr. Speaker. I would like to direct a question "O the Hinistcr of Industrial Developnent, if I rriay, Sir.

In as much as the Premier during the last session of the House mentioned that construction was hoped to be started on the second refinery at Come by Chance last spring and in as much as that patently has not happened, would the Hinister of Industrial Development care to give us the reasons why or brint'.'. us generally up to date as to what is transpiring on negotiations for the second refinerye !lQl'._- t.W.DOODY (MINISTER OF INDl'STRIAL DEVELOPMENT): Yes, Hr. Speaker, the negotiations for the second refinery are I understand underway between the company, Newfoundland Edison Limited. and the 6675

Gctober H, 197J, Tape 40, Pare 4 -- apb ~1crninJ; various contracting firms ,.:ho ar-f' bidding for the job. Site preparation work is now underway out there. ;'is soon ;,.s the construction contracts are finalized then 1 assume that the ccnstruct:ion of the project will get underway. This should happen I would hope in the sprin7-. It appears to he thnt way now nnyway. }1R. W.N.ROWE: Is there any indication as to when the contracts, the various contracts with E.C.f:.D. and ;my other -relevant parties might t'e .sipned, Hr. SpeaJ:er?

NR. _DOODY: The contracts and d1scussinns with E.f'.(,D. m;-e ucll in hand. /\s I say, the only problem now nr the thing that is currently underway is the discussion between the contractor or contractors and the company. HR._ SPEAKER: The honour ab] e member for Bell Island. ~.:•_N_';A!:,Y_: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct n question to the honourable the Premier. About a week and a-h;1lf ago I believe it was, S1r, AHflC'O announced that they were scaling down their offshore drillinp; operntions off the Coast of Newfoundland.

Since then l have henrd reports that the oil drilling companies are goinf'. to pull out altop:ether. I wonder if the honourable the Premier would indicate to the House whether there is any foundation to these reports. How much scaling down is µoing to he done hy the offshore drilling compnnies? Could he just pive us D. thumbnail picture of ,iust precisely what is happening now? ?·~-~_EE.AK~]:_: The honourable the Premier. Nfl_~..J:~~O_R]:_S_:, Hr.

Speaker, there is no truth in the rumours that the operations on the Grand Banks or off the Labrador Coast are poinµ; to be scaled down;with the exception of the fact that A}fD(O broup:ht one of its two rigs to the North Sea. The Minister of Mines and Energy can answer this in much more detail than I but I would say offhand that in the general picture that it is much more likely that the activity will increase rather than decrease,if you take the total 6676

October 26, 1973 1 Tnpe 40 1 rage 5 -- apb Horninp; picture. HR. SPEAKER: The honourable ran:fster of Mines and Energy. HON. L.G.BARRY (PINISTER OF }'INES AND ENERGYJ_~ Pr. Speaker, if I could add a few cor:1ments to that. The first thing I should point out is th.at there is an obvious dnnp:er in our over reacting or immediately becoming concerned to the stage where we would start piving increased incentives or better deals to companies when we see some slowdown,if there is a slowdown in operations on the C:rand Bant.s. We have to look .'.lt the long haul here, 1'1r. Speaker, at the long term.

The area on the r:rand Banks is of such a magnitude that it is going to be ten to fifteen years hefore, regardless if there is ever a commercial discovery, before the oil industry will be able to say exactly what potential there is. The AEOCO decision as communicated to myself and as publicized in the papers was, the reason given was hecnuse they were having difficulty in keeping up t1ith and assessing_ the information they were gettinp: from two rigs. They found themselves moving on to another hole and drilling before they had had time to assess the information from the previous well.

They have decided that they are going to slow down the pace. Nobody can deny that the more dry holes that AflOCO or any other company drills out there the more discourages they wiJ 1 become or the less attractive is the acreage that they should hold. I would like to point out just two other areas and two brighter sides to the picture on the offshore drilling. The first is that tfobile Oil in the first well that they drilled on their acreage, in a different geological area off the Continental Shelf, the first well drilled produced oil, almost three hundred barrels a day.

I would also like to point out thnt the first well drilled by Eastcan off Labrador is a very exciting one. They have not finished it. They have only gotten down to eight 6677

October 26, 1973, Tnpe 40, Page 6 -·- npb norn i nv thousand feet. They will probably go to around twelve thousrmd feet. They had to cut off the hole because of bad wcnthcr .ind will go hack to test it next year or 1,0 back to finish dril linr next year. But the reports relensed to date indicate oil shnus over a very sip,ni..ficant depth. In the ~tobi.lc cn.se, the oi] was found over a fairly narrow

section and that produced about three hundred barrels a day. In the Eastcan well, the public announc1;;ment so fnr has heen to the effect that there have Peen oil shows over <' considerable thickness. We will not Ynow unti.1 next summer what this will mean in the rate of flow and so on but it is. nccordinJ? to industry rerorts,the most exciting find so fnr on our Continentn1 ~helf. That fives on the one hand 6678

October 26, 1973 Tape l1l (morning) PK - 1 some discouragement on the part of Amoco. He are naturally sorrv to see a rig pulled off any part of the shelf but we have encouraging signs in other areas of the shelf. I would also like to mention one more point.It looks very much like, as the company have said.that British Petroleum will be drilling off the coast.so that there will be another rig come back to replace the one removed by AMICO. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for the information. I would like to ask him a supplementary question.

Did AMICO or any other offshore drilling company ask for any additional incentives or assistance before they ffiocle the decision to move their rig to the North Sea? HR. BARRY: No, Hr.

Speaker, other than that whenever a company comes to government looking for, as the honourable knows from when he was in government, a commitmert from government or o concession. there is at times a tendancy to put on the poor face shall we say and to overly stress the difficulties and the bad sides of the bargain as far as they are concemed.·,1hereas government have to promote what governmental rights the government are giving and to be careful that government does not give up any more than is necessary in order to sec the project go ahead.

And in order to ensure a good return to the people of Newfotmdland, it is a matter of bargaining, and the difficulty is in keeping the proper balance. MR. NEARY: I appreciate what the minister said, Hr. Speaker~ but it would be cruel to build up neople 1 s hopes just for the sal:c of gettinr a bargaining position, AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. NEARY: Well I hope not, only time will tell. HR BARRY: YOu want the preferred lobbies for the oil companies, would you? Put on the poor mouth and make it very difficult for them. MR. NEARY: Does the honourable member want to make a speech? MR.

BARRY: No, I am just asking. 6679

October 26, 1973 Tape 41 (morning) PK - 2 MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Are ther~ any outstanding applications now for permits or concessions? One time the oil companies were oueued 11n, the pressure was on. Is the pressure still on as much as it was when say we were the government? Or have the oil companies now sort of taken the pressure off? They are not as interested in the offshore drilling off our coast and off Labrador as they were when we were in the government. ~ffi. BARRY: Mr.

Speaker, we have not noticed any drop in interest in companies in obtaining concessions. There is a list of cor.panies who have applied. That list still stands. We are, I will not say daily but periodically companies are still approaching us looking for additional concessions or commitments. We have made our policy clear on this to the House previously. It has not changed. }ffi. NEARY : Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question now to the honourable the Premier. Would the honourable Premier indicate to the House how many of the government's promised trawler fleet will be built at Maeystown?

How many of these trawlers will be built outside of the province? HON. F. D. MOORES {PREMIER): It is impossible to say now, Mr. Speaker, because the situation is that Harystown have bookings for five from one company now and n possibility of two more from another company. Some of the boats most certainly will be built there. Until such time as the deadlines, the timings for the plans when they are submitted to the various yards come in, until that time we will not be able to get an accurate estimate. MR. NEARY: Well, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

Do I understand from the Premier's answer that inquiries or tenders have r,one out to shipyards outside of the province? }ffi. MOORES: No, Mr. Speaker. The situation is that the plans will go out for tenders to various shipyards within the country, within the province and overseas, and I will say that every boat possible that can be will be built at Maeystown. 6680

October 26, 1973 Tape 41 (morning) PK - 3 MR. NEARY: Well, Hr. Speaker. a supplementary question. I&~ sure that after two years that the, and I do not want to debate this matter, but the Premier must have some idea of the number of trawlers that will be built at Marystown. Will it be one? Two'l Say over the next ten years? This is the government who talks about planning. MR. MOORES: Mr. Speaker, over the next ten years Marystown which has been expanded to build from two and a-half to five trawlers a ycar,over the next ten years it will be fifty trawlers built at I-farys town. tffi.

NEARY: But how many of the promised trawler fleet will be built there? MR. MOORES: Mr. Speaker, even in baby talk the gentleman cannot possibl understand it. I said all that was possible,, When the orders come out they will be placed at Marystown. Those that can be will be placed at Marys town. One thing that is sure is that Marys town will go full boarci, The second thing that is also important is that the boats be built. Now that will he our first priority if the boats be built. Those that can be will be built at Maeystown, those that cannot be will be built outside. MIL NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, I did not get much information that time. I will try fishing with the Premier again. Could the Premier tell the House when the major hardwood industry that he spoke about a month and a-half ago will be starting up in the province? MR. MOORES: As soon as I know~ Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Labrador North. MR. M. WOODWARD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Honourable Minister of Finance. I would like for the minister to tell the House what is happening regarding the wood that is produced in Labrador for the linerboard mill at Stephenville.

If he is doing any­ thing to correct the shipping? I tmderstand that there will be 80,000 cords of wood left in Labrador when shipping ends this season. I also understand - AN HON. MEMBER: It cannot be 80,000 cordso MR. WOODWARD: Eighty thousand cords will be left that is already cut 6681

October 26, 1973 Tape 41 (morning) PK - 4 and will not be shipped to the mill in Stephenville. HR. CROSBIE: That is not a question. MR. ROWE, W.N. It is a question. What are you doing about it? AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. HR. WOODWARD: I am asking the minister if he can tell this House - MR. SPEAKER: 'Would the honourable member for Labrador North plc:>ase direct his question? HR. WOODWARD: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

The question I would like to ask of the Honourable Minister of Finance is what are they doing about correcting the inadequacy of the shippinr, from the Port of Goose Bay to put wood down to the mill in Stephenville? I understand and I know for a fact that there are 80,000 cords of wood that will be sitting there and will not be shipped to the mill in Stephenville. I also understand that - MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The honourable member for Labrador North is getting into a debate and making a speech on this question. AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. }ffi, CROSBIE: Mr.

Speaker, the honourable gentleman apparently ls become a culler. He now personally knows such and such of about how much wood is available in Labrador. AN HON. MEMBER: "Scaler"is the word not "culler." MR. CROSBIE: Well a scaler. The honourable gentleman is scaly, But, Mr. Speaker, dispite the constant efforts of the opposition to cast doubt and aspersions on the operation which we have rl'Scued ·rrom their incompetence, I can assure the honourable gentleman that all wood that is physically possible to move from Labrador to Stephenville this year will be moved. MR. WOODWARD: It is not so. MR.

SPEAKER: Order please. MR. CROSBIE: Well then if the honourable gentleman was as assiduous in looking to gasoline prices as he is in asking this kind of silly question, it would be much better for him. 6682

October 26 1 1973 Tape l;l (morning) PK - S MR. ROBERTS: Hr. Speaker, leaving aside that sliray and unwarranted personal attack by the unwarranted Minister of Finance, he did not answer the question~ Let me ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. He snid,"Ali the wood that vas physically possible to move." Let me ask him then whether it is correct that 80,000 cords of pulp wood will be left at Goose Bay this year. Because the minister's answer, Hr. Speaker, did not answer that question.

All he said was that 0 /\ll that would be physically possible to move." Of course. even somebody as stunned as th,­ rninister could move all that is possible to move. Now will 80 ,ODD cords of wood be left at Goose Bay this year? And if not, how much will be left on the dock there? MR. CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, I hope I do not catch the rabbit disease that the Leader of the Opposition seems to demonstrate. When the shipping season ends in Labrador this year we will know what wood is left in Labrador - A.tel H0N. MEMBER: Inaudible. l!J:.

CROSBIE: At that time 1 will gladly tell the honourable gentlemen ho..., much wood is left in Labrador this year, How much wood was shipped down this year, 1ust what the situation is. As far as the shippinr from Labrador is concerned as the honourable gentleman knows, hf' has been a resident of the area, the 11 Hremncss" is being used on charter to bring down wood from Labrador and there are also three barges and two tugs being used to bring down wood from Labrador. They are doing everything possible to bring as much wood ns they can.

If the honourable gentleman would utilize "Information Services" he would get a copy of my latest remarks on the mill, about ten days ago, and that would give him a considerable amount of information. MR. WOODWARD: It is not correct. MR. CROSBIE: But he need never fear, he will have complete information on Labrador Linerboard woods operation~ HR. WOODWARD: I already have it - MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary. First of all, 6683

October 26, 1973 Tape 41 (morning) PK - 6 Newfoundland Information Services have not distributed the minister's remarks. I guess that means that perhaps Mr. Butler is assiduously courting in the wrong office. Hr. Speaker, a further supplementary. Although, I would like to see the honourablP minister's remarks if he could let me have a copy of - this is the Stephenville Rotary Club Speech? MR, CROSBIE: There are about 5,000 gone out now. MR. ROBERTS: I can believe that. That is about the only way we are ever going to use the capacity of Hr. Butler to anything like AN HON. MEMBER: Inaudible. HR. ROBERTS: Mr.

Speaker, a futher supplementary question, Sir. }ffi. CROSBIE: I did not know the honourable gentleman was that far advanced. u 684

Octor<er 26, 1973 Tave 42 rn-l f,lp. SPEAKER: flrcler please. T assumf' the Hon. Leader of the Opposition is attempting to ask a ouestion. I draw the nttention to the House that he should be heard in silence. Htl. ~OilEPT5: Thank vou, !>fr. Speaker. I was trvinr, to ask a sur,nlernentnrv question. rould the minister :indicate to us whether he has anv idea or anv renorts as to hm: much if ;mv ;,;ood will be left in Lahrador when the shipping season ends this year? PR. CFOSBIE: I will check for the honourable gentleman and f!et the .latest information. 'fV. ROBF.'RTS: Tn other words. he has no idea at present. MP.

CROSHTE: 1 cnnnot sav whether it is 80,000, I would have to check it out. NR. P.S. THOMS: 1!r. Sneaker, I would like to direct n. question t0 thr> l"inister of Forestrv and Agriculture. Could the minister inform this House if vork is at present heing carried out on the nronosed potato seed farm which he announced in mid-Sentember and could he also infor171 us as to the location of this farm? HON. E. MAYNARD: (MINISTER OF AC:RirULTUPF'. Alm FORESTS): J wilJ tnke the ouestJon as not.tee, Mr. !'::peaker. HR. THOM'S: A sunplementary question, 1'.ir. Speaker. Could the minister inform this House - Hf'.

SPEAKfR: Order please, The hon. member was out of order to ask a 8 upplementary question to a question that the minister has taken notice of. MR. THOMS: Thank vou, Jvfr. Speaker. Could I direct a further ouestion to the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture? Could the minister inform this House if the location for the potato seed farm had already been estahJished and if twenty-five men were vorking on this seed farm for one month and 'because of some unexplained reason the nroject was halted and :Lf the location of this seed farm was at Glenwood? VR. MAYNARD: T take that ~uestion as notice too, Nr. Speaker. 6685

Octoher 26. l n7 3 Tane 42 M'R. LH. W1NSO'P: 1'1r. Sneaker, 1 Hmld like to direct a CTuestion to the Hinister of Trnn.sportation and \ormnunicatinn. Cou1d he tel1 the Enuse whv the pnvin_r of the roaC thrnrn!h Cann;mviJle and f:ander Rav ><1as discontinued a fei,1 we:eks ago when similar vork is nov heinr, carried out nt full h]nst at l-lerr.dtage? tlQ~. T.\'. JiTfKEY:(!-AINISTE"R Of TRMrnPORTATJO'.\! /\ND f()\f}lt1~IrATTON):.. Hr. ~neaker, T cnnnot manufacture navinp, plants snd pav,inr equirirnent. Tt rleriencls on the cnntrrtctor, over whom I have limited control.

We ha•."' rlone all ve can tlli s venr in rarm;mvi 11.e under, J might sav, verv extreme circumstances. HR, HTNSffR: It i~ nnt hecnuse nf climatic cond-f.tfons, nolitica} or otherwise? "AP Tl.OBf:PTS: Thpre is ?. different clir.ate in Hermitage. MR. HICKEY: 1s thP honourah1e gentleman on the other side in rlisagrecmenr with ~••hnt is poinP on in Henrdtap:e? ::,'P. PO_~RT?_: "\n, h\1t vou um r'o the snmP th-f.nr: in CP¼rmanvi 1 le. AN HONflPRABLE Mf>.tflF.'f1: rlow nhout ,1 hv-election ln St. John's? 'fR, HirKEY: Do It .111 over. rave us n little time. You fellows h;H1 tPenty vears. MR. NFAPY: t1 r.

Spc,1ker, a 'lnal riuestion for the Hon. the Prern1.er, mv sparing nartner in this :mrl in other forums. T vould like to ask the Hon. the Premier when ,,,c can expect an announcement on the government's promise mnde reneatedly over the last year or so. the Premier's nromi.sP that the minimum wage in this province is goinr- en he increased tn t1 1n dollars and fiftv cents per hour? MR. MOORES: Hrst of all, provided that the honourable member for Be11 Island would admit to a final question, he has me somewhat in a state of shock here because I never thought he would admit to fl final position in anvthing.

It is ni.ce to know thnt he is speaking in for the opposition side. However, J never did make the promise that the minimum wage would F:O to two dollars and fiftv cents ai:i such. The minimum wage announcemPrit will be made at the same time as the social services announcement :mnouncement which, as I said yesterday, hopefully will he within the next ten davs, two weeks. 6686

October 26, 1973 Tape 42 !B-J MR. NEARY! Hr. Speaker, T would like to riirect a nuestion - no. this is not for my old buddy, mv sparing nartner. I am shaky in my :;;hoes todav. 1 had n surnr:10ns served on me yesterday and l aM shnkinp. in mv shoes. Nr. Speaker, I would like to direct a quest1on to the - AN HONOURABLF MEMBER: It is not for me. HR. NEAflY: That is what the honourah1e minister thinks. I met him right outside the buiJdin~. 1 said, "Hy old friend, how are vou?;' He used to work here at one time tn Confederation nuildJng. Fe said, "I have. i1 message for vou". I said, "No doubt from the Premier.'' MR.

SPEAKER: Order nleace. The honourable member from Bell Island is goint; to aBk a question 1 assume, eventually. t.fR. NEARY: Thank you, Pr. Speaker. 1 t-muld 1ike to ask the 1-1inister of Agriculture and Forestv i.f he would inform the House as to whnt st ens the government are taking to expand the ilhattofr at PlensantvJ 1 le or replace it vith a new <1hattoir. lLOJL E .1·1AYNARD(~INISTER OF AGRICFl TFRE AND_JTJ~_E£_T,.::<D_: T t,1!:e 1 t as notice· "'-l'R. NEARY: As notice? Hhy do you not go out and resign now and get :It aver ¥11th? '4f!. F. ROWE: Mr. ~peak er, I would like to direct a question to the Pon.

Minister of Education. Ts the minister prepared to recommend to Cabinet the government pay, the total cost envolved in the hold1ng of .school board elections'? This was a request made by the Federation of Schoo] Boards. HON, G. flTTENHEIMER: (MINISTE~ OF EDUCATT0N): Mr. Speaker, th.at question is out of order. I could not announce now what my intention would be with respect to recormnendat:ions to my colleagues. When the government make a decision, ohviously the Eouse and other will have full ri.r;ht to that knowledge hut it would he prf':mature now. ~. F. ROWE: ~r. Speaker, a supplementary question to that.

Is the , minister symr,athetic to that particular request? MR. OTTENHEIM'ER: Mr. Speaker, I certainly give all reasonable requests every consjderation. 6687

October 26, 1073 iB-4 ~R._.L_J_r:J_.!ff: Hr. Speaker, I do not Peli.eve that the minister answered the riuestion.

However, I would like to rltrect another question to the llon. the Minister of Erlucation. 1n view of the request to the Federatlon of School Roarcls, does the minister jntend to, we11 I cannot say institute, a minimum twentv-five per cent increase '.n operating grants effective /1.pril 1, 1974, ther.:fore, Sir, may I ask whether the minister is symnathetic to that r,arti.cular reoueRt from the Federation of School Boards, the t;,:enty­ flve per cent :incrense in the onerating rnmts to take effect Apri.1 l, 1[)74? H"Q.. 0TTENHf'.J~1ER: 1'-fr.

Sneaker. nll of these are rea.!lv mntters of public policy which ;,•ill be announce<l bv the government in due course. My o-wn sympathv, lack there of, etc,, is not a f,"lctual kin{t of auestion. It is a question of attitude. I do not think it is the ki.nd of nuestion i1hi.ch is reaHv of any henefit to the House or which is reallv in order. Now. i.f the honourahle gentleman's hrother has a question, ask one too hut I cannot answer one ouestion and listen to another at the same time. MfL F.

ROWE: A supnlementary question. 1'-!ight I ask the minister whether this is something that may he P,iven consideration by the ri1anninrr and priorities cnmrn.ittee si.nce it apparently does not involve the minister and cabinet? "lR, 0TTFNHEP•1FR: Mr. Soeaker, all of these mntters are considered bv the p.:overnment which is the cabinet or various committees of cahin< at various times. MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, mav I direct a riuestion - I am not too sun whom I should direct this question to hut I think :it is the Minister of Public Works.

Is there a regulation which states how a visitor should he dressed when sitting in the µnlleries7 Because yesterdav afternoon an unfortunate - or last night I think - yes, last night an unfortunate incident occured when the universitv student, when I think all of the members of the House had a student from the university followinf them, was asked to leave the chamher. I am not sure whether he was asked to leave the gallery or was not premitted to enter becnuse he was wearing a short-sleeved shirt. Is there anv regulation which pretains to that, Hr. Speaker? T think it is a very important questton. i.i688

October 26, 1973 Tope 1,,2 do not kno·w of anv rule or regulation that know that referred to the tradition of the House that there would he a shirt and tie. 1 wcu1d think H would he properly referred to the Spe,;ker. ~m. ~PEf.XEF: tf the honourahle member for Fogo would like to see r.ie later on today, ! t:hi nk we could d Ls cuss that. asBume my co1leap.:uP wi1 l see vou hut this is a matter that affects a]1 ;:if u,<:; in the House. Would Your Honour i11 :w appropriate time, make an announcement? have never heard of n.nv rul:ing.

If there is to he n nilin.:, it is sure1v Your llr:mour rrerog;,ti 0 ns the precincts of this House are under Your Honour's control. '.M:.vhc Public Works ::-upply the 1:mltor'.'> and the 1:irht hit T me::in Your Hem, has the effective contro] of this. Would Your Honour perhaps mnke ;i publlc announcement so the rieorle 1xo11ld know henceforth ;ind if thev nre to wear ties and Ahirts nnd what have you, thev woulrl corre so ~nrhPd. It ls unheard of to l<een nPorile out of the p:a11eries. \!P.. SPEAKEP: Is it mv intention to give an ansver to the honourah1e House as soon ns poss:ihle. ~1P. M.

WOODWARD: ~Ir, Speaker, 1 would like to direct a question to the Hinister of Tran:1rortntion ;i,nd Commuricntions. c,u1d he 0689

October 26, 1973 Tape No. t,J MR. WOODWARD: inform the House as to what stage the nepotiations have got ten concerning the Trans Labrador Highway, if there are three-party negotiating teams~ Quebec, the Federal Government and the province and if we can expect to henr something or get somethinp. started on that hi;.:hway possibly ne}:t summer? MR. HICKr:Y: Mr.

Speaker, i,1e are presently awaitinp the outcome of the Ouehec election to deterrnine Hhom the r'inister of Transpor c of that province fa roing to be, The joint propo,-;nl is just about complete, probably changing some words here and there but basically it is complete. The new minister and my.self pL:m tu get together sometime and from there it goes to the Federal Government. MR. ROBERTS: Inaudible. -----~-~ !'-!R. SPEAKER: The member for St. John's South adjourned the debate. Jf he cares he can continue now. MR. R. WELLS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Last evening 1 had outlined the history of collective. bargaining in this province and I indicatPrl to this House what T thought should be the hasic premise of collective barp,aininrr with the public service, the approach that should r>e made- to it, how

an act should be and that was that. On one side you should have institutions or groups such as police, which would not be allowed to strikP then the groups that are al lowed to strike, the institutions or departments where n strike would not be so detrimental to the province that it could not be allowed, they should be allowed to p,o all the way without reF=trictions upon them at all until agreement was finally concluded. This is how, Hr. Speaker, 1 feel that the thing should be done.

I also touched on one or two aspects which I consider, there as particular sections of course, and they will be dealt with in detail wher. this b:i.11 goes to the committee stage, but they are so fundamental to the bill that I think they go to the root of the general prii.ciple. Now the question of essential employees. If the mode of approach to this that T advocate were to be adopted, the essential employees 6690

October 26, 1973 Tape No. 43 NM - 2 would be decided first. It would be in the Collective Bargaining Act just as it is in certain other acts which have been passed by this House, who would be exempted or who would not be allowed to strike and who would, Now thia bill says that the Labour Relations Board should be the party to decide who are the essential employees. That, Mr. Speaker, I think could be improved upon. Myself. I would not like to see that power with the Labour Relations Board.

I think that this decision is so important that it ought to be taken by the members of the House, here in the House, here in debate where the matter can be thrashed out. This is not to say that there is anything incompetent about the members of the Labour Relations Board. Far be it for me to say that, I know differently. The Labour Relations Board has performed great service here in the Province of Newfoundland and has handled many difficult questions md handled them competently and well.

The point is there is a significant distinction between the members of the Labour Relations Board who are appointed and the members of this House who were elected by the people. It seems to me that this is such a fundamental question that it ought to be decided and debated here in this House so if then· is any flak from it, any trouble, any criticism, let it be directed at us who were elected by the people to decide fundamePtal and important questions and I think it should be done here in the House.

The decision as to who should be essential, what classes or groups, or as I feel, what institutions or areas of the public service should be prohibited from striking, let it be done here. Let people say what they want to say. Let the press debate it. Let the opposition debate it. Let the government side debate it. Let it be had our right here and not put it in the hands of men in the Labour Relations Board who, however competent they may be, are not elected by the people who are not directly answerable to the people as we are. MR. NEARY: Inaudible. MR.

WELLS: I will deal with - The Leader of the Opposition can make 6691

October 20, 1g73 Tape No. 43 NM - 3 his motions if I happen to agree with them or not, that is a decision for me. He will have to explain his purposes. I am talking about this bill and the principle of it. That is the first major area of the bill Lo which I propose when the time comes in cow~ittee to have more to say, Mr. Speaker. Now the second area of the bill which I think is fundamental: I am not goinR to deal wlth what I would consider the noncontentiom; areas of the bill in discussing the principle. The areas such as conciliation and all that, that is fine.

Everyone no doubt or various of us will have something to say in committee about thaL But then there is the rather interesting question of voting upon every offer, the executive of a union, having the obli1rntion to take every offer to the memberahip and let the membership vote on it. Now I think that, Mr. Speaker, i;:; a mistakt>, I think if you do that you are going to rob the executive of a union of the chance to lend. Now various people have all ,wrt:, of optnion as to whether unions have good executives, good leadership, bad leadership. I am not concerned with that, but if ,-:e pass this, 1..1r.

Speaker, this sort of principle, it will be impossible for them to have any leadership because every question.when you get to the real guts of it, the negotiating team or the executive will not have any power nor nnv influence at all. Everything will have to go hack to the membership on this question of an offer. So an offer can be minimally advanced, advanced by two cents an hour, three cents an hour. five cents an hour, back they have got to go,and how long is this process going to take? If a ~overnment negotiator wanted, he could string this out forever.

To me~ it is iust as wrong to say that as it would be wrong to say to the government with every new proposal we say; !>You go back to the people." Now that would be laughed at. That would be senseless but the principle is the same. G692

October 26, 1973 Tape No. 43 NM - 4 I say that this

section ought to be, in my view, more carefully thougtit about or at least more consideration should be given to it because it is a dangerous thing to say that every offer must be communicated - back and forth you will go. What would be the point of an executive, what would be the point of a negotiating committee? You have to give them some power. You have to recognize that they have intelligence, that they know the views of their membership.which have been communicated to them. Now I will say something elne too, Mr. Speaker.

It is often suggested and you often hear people suggestithose who are not too cl0' to labour management, things like. Ah! the executive of the union havt no control, "The executive are not leading. n I say I Hr. Speaker. that the situation has arisen in Newfoundland that the pressure comes more from the rank and file than from the negotiators. I have experienced this too often. MR. NEARY: Inaudible. MR. WELLS: Please. Please. Let me be heard. This has nothing to do with that. YOu will have your opportunity. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The honourable member for Bell Island well knows the rules and I ask that the honourable member for St. John's South be heard in silence, especially by the member for Bell Island. MR. WELLS: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, for the interruption but as I say this idea is thought by some people and I think thought genuinely, that you have a case where the leadership of the executive, of the negotiating committee are pulling the membership along by the noses.but I think that is false.

I experienced too many negotiations, seen too much of this not to realize that it is not so and that the situation in Newfoundland today is that very often a negotiating team or a negotiating committee will feel that a thing is adequate, they having the full knowledge that is gained in a back and forth situation across the table, only to find that the membership says, "No, you shall not. P 6693

October 26, 1973 Tape No. 43 NM - 5 If anybody has ever attended union meetings in this province in the last few years, they would know that and they would see that you get memberships pushing so hard that even some thin~s which are absolutely reasonable are not accepted by the membership and the negotiator or the executive of the union is sent back again. So I think that 6694

October 26, 1973 Tape no. 44 Page 1 - MRW also has to be realized. A clause such as this? this section (24) which requires everything to go back, it seems to me it misses the poinc. The point is that the people who are leading and negotiating for a union ought to be given some credence; they ought to be given some recognition that they know what their membership is thinking and that they will duly in an appropriate time go back with the offer of the government or the government's negotiators. I think that clause ought to be,in committee, re-argued and re-thought. Now, Mr.

Speaker, there is another rather fundamental thing in this legislation. The legislation would enact and would require that certain people be declared essential. I have no quarrel with that. I would go even further, I would say that a hospital is so essential, a fire department is so essential, a penitentiary is so essential, a police force is so essential that they not strike. I would go further but I would do it in a different way.

In any case even allowing the principle of this bill, we have the essential group or groups whoever they may bee Then the act goes on to say that when the Lieutenant Governor­ in-Council is of the opinion that a strike of employees is so injurious, etc., then the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council, which is the cabinet, can step in and stop it and actually order the return to work. I do not agree with that, Mr. Speaker, either. If you are going to give the right to strike, as I say, let it go all the way.

If you think there are proper cases where a strike would be prohibited, then prohibit it and argue it out here in the House ; take the criticism, take the flak but let it be done here. If you are going to say to people that you have the right to strike, for God's sake, do not say you have the right to strike as long as cabinet feels you ought to and when Cabinet feels that the time has passed for you to stike, chop, the strike is over, go back to work. If that be passed.and I intend 6695

October 26, 1973 Tape no. 44 Page 2 to argue strenously in committee on this point, but if that he passed, then this legislation is going to be unworkable, There is going to be more bad feeling generated by one or two things like that than you can imagine. Anybody I think with any experience of labour relations would have, 1 believe, to •gree. So we should have the essential workers, the essential institutions: r.y all weans, let them not strike but if we are saying to a ~roup, you can strike, well let them strike, let the chips fall where they may because you do not have to have this.

There is always the inherent power in the Legislature of this province. 1f a strike is so serious that the public are really suffering and somethi;1g has to be done, you can always call the House together. Now 1 do not like that, I do not like that and that is what is fundamentally wrong with this situation here today, We are arguing about public collective bargaining.

The X-ray and laboratory technicians are out and we are doing it in a crisis atmosphere, My experience with people, institutions and things.is that a crisis atmosphere may call people to rise to the occasion and deal with the crisis but when broader matters are being discussed in a crisis atmosphere, thinking sometimes becomes distorted. MR. was MR. MR. MR. CROSBIE: set before - WELLS: CROSBIE: WELLS: The honourable gentleman realizes that this date Oh, I do. Oh yes, 1 do. I am goin~ to deal•,;rit-,: this. We are not sitting now Oh, no, l absolutely realize that, MR.

CROSBIE: Another question the honourable gentleman remarked which was very interesting and much to the point - the honourable gentleman realizes, of course, that we have said that we are open and we will consider any reasonable amendment. In fact the government already have eight amendments itself proposed. MR. WELLS: lam going to deal with these. MR. CROSBIE: The honourable gentleman will therefore realize the receptive atmosphere. 6696

October 26, 1973 Tape no. 44 Page 3 AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible). MR. WELLS: I might say, Mr. Speaker, and 1 would ask the honourable member opposite (this is not on the principle of this bill) there is a time to seriously debate matters of public importance. This is a matter of public importance. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the honourable member a question? Would the honourable member permit a question? MR. WELLS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. MR. NEARY: This is such a serious matter, Mr. Speaker. Did the government caucus on this before they brought the bill into the House?

If so 1 did the member have an opportunity to express his views on it in caucus? Was there no caucus on it? MR. WELLS: I expressed my views in caucus, of course. MR. NEARY: They would not listen to the honourable member? MR. WELLS: Perhaps not. MR. NEARY: I just wanted to make that clear. I do not understand it, Mr. Speaker. MR. WELLS: If the honourable member should 'l>';:mt to wnh.> pnU t:icaJ hav well by all means do so. If he should want to keep it up. I sunpose :,p c,m destroy in effect my speech. MR. NEARY: Opposition MR.

WELLS: The honourable member is agreeing with the Leader of the The honourable member is not agreeing with the Leader of the Opposition. The honourable member has his own views. MR. NEARY: The honourable member should be over here. MR. WELLS: We either enter into a discussion, back and forth, banter, nonsense - there is a word for it but it is not parliamentary - or we debate. In any event, Mr. Speaker - I cannot remember where I was now, I feel that the time to decide these things is here in the House and 6697

October 26, 1973 Tape no. 44 Page 4 the place to decide them. I would prefer to see them decided here because always the House can be summoned to deal with an emergency that is so serious that the public interest is at stake. MR. CROSBIE: Would the honourable member permit a qu~stion, Mr. Speaker? MR. WELLS: By God, there are two of them, Mr. Speaker! There are two of them, MR. CROSBIE: If it were required that such a proclamation had to be approved by the House before it became effective, what does the honourable member think about it then? MR. WELLS: Yes, that would be a g_ood way possibly of dealing with it.

There are all sorts of ways of dealing with this. MR. NEARY: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker. We did not hear the comment of the Minister of Finance, which I think is very relevant to this. Would the minister tell the whole House what it was he said to the member. Apparently there is an amendment involved, Mr, Speaker, We would like to know about it. MR. CROSBIE: There is no amendment involved. MR. NEARY: Well the minister made a suggestion to the member for St. John's South, and we would like to know what it is. Why carry on a personal conversation inside the House? MR. CROSBIE: Wait for Hansard.

MR. NEARY: What was it? MR. WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of the trial of the Chicago Seven, in which they kicked up so much fuss that the judge had to put them inside a glass case so that the proceedings could go ahead. I think we are almost getting to that stage in this House. However, I will tryt Mr. Speaker, to come back to the principle of this bill, section (27). Mr. Speaker, this is hen,, I feel that it should be approached and that these matters are so important that they should be debated 6698

October 26, 1973 Tape no. 44 Page 5 calmly in the House first and then the decision made as to who can strike and who cannot strike. If by chance rather than having the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council give them the power to make an order such as this, if such a thing should be necessary, let the House be called and it be debated.

I cannot see how n union i~, voinr to deal with the government negotiator, especially H the gofog gets toui:zh. .111 agreement is not readily reached and a strike ensues, how are they really going to feel, Is not the strike elusory if the power is there- for .a meeting of cabinet to say, that is it, back to work now, you have played long enough. Now the House of Assembly has that inherent power and nobody can take it away from it and it is the House, l feel, if the worst comes to the worst, that should decide a question like that.

Now havint objected. if you like. to these questions, it will be said and j t was sort of suggested this morning in this House that there is something disloyal or there is something traitorous insofar as the government are concernP<' , r this side of the House in making remarks like that. That is not so, Mr. Speaker~ It mav be unusual but it is not in any sense traitorous to the party which I support. I will deal with that just in case someone says that it is. MR. NEARY: Nobody said it - MR. WELLS: Well it has been implied. MR. NEARY: By whom? MR, WELLS: By the honourable member. Here we go again. MR.

NEARY: I/ho? MR. WELLS: The honourable member for Bell Island. MR. NEARY: No, the honourable member for Bell Island might think that the member is a jellyfish but I did not imply he was being disloyal. MR. WELLS: Thank you; Well, Mr. Speaker, I suppose we will have to do ;Without the glass case. MR. NEARY: That is right. MR. WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the point ia that when a person comes to this ti699

October 26, 1973 Tape no. 44 Page 6 Mr. Wells. Bouse of Assembly, he has a responsibility 1 got into a bit of banter a couple of years ago with the honourable member on the other side and l remember his reminding me and he "Was quite right. that when you are elected here, you are elected not ,iust to represent the people in your district but you are here to represent the whole province. That applies to every one who is here. We represent all the people and above anything else, we have to approach problems I feel with intellectual honesty.

Whatever is there to be decided has to be looked at by us and in the final analysis, if somethin~ could be done bettcr 1 could be done differently, l feel that there is an obligation on all of us to say so. That does not mean that I am disloyal to the party• the banner which 1 ran under when 1 came into this House. I joined the party of which I am a member a long time ago . I can see some faces here who ~.:(•rt> Members wtwn I joined and welcomed me into this party but not too many. Let there be no sug~estion that in any sense is this disloyalty to the party.

What it is more is a belief,which I hold very stron!?;lY, that 1 and all of us have an obligation in this House to put forth suggestions, to argue and fight for what we feel would be better and more appropriate legislation for the people of this province to live under. That I think is my fundamental obligation and the fundamental obligation of all of us. 6700

October 26, 1973 Tape No. 45 NM - Now I will say a word, Mr. Speaker, ahout how collective hargaining,in my view, should be carried out. There grew up in Newfoundland over the years a sort of feeling that if the regular rules and regulations under which governments operated, if they did not suit you, go and see a politician. That feeling grew up, that way of approach to things grew up and it is still here, I remember negotiating and being part of negotiations with the previous administration.

I remember it being suggested from time to time to me, when negotiations had bogged down and they were not going too well with the Treasury Board negotiators, people saying to me, "Could we not go and see the Minister of this and that?" ttshould we not go and see the Treasury Board Prf'sident?" "Should we not go and see the Premier? n I said, "No, I do not think we should.

I do not think that is the way to bargain. 11 I think that the government of a province has a certain responsibility and when the government of a province has its negotiators that the deci.sions of the province or of the government should be communicated to the negotiators and the negotiators should deal with the union or group concerned and if changes were made in government policy that they should be communicated to the other side throu~h the negotiators.

That I think is the way to approach this, this whole subject of collective bargaining, If ever persons or groups or unions who are negotiating with the province get the feeling that the government 1 s negotiators are just little puppets who are there to express whatever view they are allowed to express as long as they are allowed to express and that someone will jump in at some other leve~ that is not the way to negotiate. That is not the way to negotiate with public employees and if that approach be taken, if that approach be taken now in the x-ray, laboratory technician matter it would be wrong.

It would bP wrong. It would set a wrong precedent, a wrong way of doing things and negotiations in the future would be more difficult. 6701

October 26, 1973 Tape No. 45 NM - 2 Nov, Mr. Speaker, the }.Jinister of Finance, when speaking yesterday in openin~ debate on this bill, had a word for rhe laboratory technicians. Now the situation of the x-ray and laboratory technicians is not really part of the principle of this biU but 1 hope that I will be forgiven, Hr. Speaker, as it is part of the collective bargaining process, from havinr; a word to the x-ray and laboratory technicians as well. preface my remark,; by saying that I am not speaking for the government.

I am speaking as an individual member of this House• elected by the people and i:;worn to do hi.s d1ity by the people and by the Oueen in this House.

As I understand, and I have listened to what has been said in the Bouse and I watched what was said on television last night and I listened partlcularly to what was said by a Mr, Vokey on television lust night in explaining the position of the x-ray and laboratory technicians, as I understand it, they negotiated with the government over a fairly long period until they got to the point where an offer was made which presumably was acceptable _to the negotiating committee of lAPE AND NAPE then communicated that offer to the technicians themselves.

I understand from what has been said and someore will correct me if r am wrong, that the offer was accepted by something over seventy per cent of the group. Now, it seems to me at that point there was agreement between the government and NAPE or that bargaining unit of NAPE and all that remains to do was set the agreement down in the fornal language of an agreement on paper, si~n it and it would become an agreement for whatever the term was to have been. l do not Jtnow whether it vaN one year or two years or what. Two.

That would have then been a two year agreement, so the only thing that did not happen was the putting on paper of the document with the blue or green back on it, whatever it is, and the signatures. It seems to me, from what I have heard, that the agreement was essentially concluded when the members said, "Yes, we will accept that offer 0702

October 26, 1973 Tape No. 45 NM - 3 and seventy odd per cent of us say so. 11 What happened? Obviously what happened, what we are told rather, happened is that somewhere along the line the laboratory and x-ray technologists had been told in negotiations that they would have or keep parity with the nurses.

Now there we come to an interesting thing which of course nobody in this House can really resolve, none of us were there, because the technicians say that this was communicated to them in collective bargaining and the governrnen~ through the President of Treasury Board and Minister of Finance, say that that is not so,and he has checked with the bargaining committee. I watched Mr. Vokey on television last night. I do not know but I do not think that the man is lying. I do not think so at all and I do not think the President of Treasury Board is lying.

I do not think for a minute the government of Newfoundland intended to communicate to anybody th.at there would be parity because this would be met. If there is going to be parity between similar groups, forget the thirty-two bargaining units. you might as well have one negotiator from the union side go and agree on what will be the comparable groups and that group will go and negotiate it and everyhody else has parity, forget it. That cannot be. Nobody can tell me that the government would say officially or unofficially through its negotiators that that was going to be the situation.

But yet I think, and this is a personal view only, I think that Mr. Vokey was telling the truth. I think someone did, without authority~ intimate to them that there would be parity. I do not think Mr. Vokey is lying about that but I think that person and this is my theory on it, exceeded every authority that was ever granted to him bv doin~ so. There must be some explanation for this. These two hundred technicians are sensible, responsible persons doing a responsible 6703

October 26, 1q73 Tape No. 45 _ioh for which they are highly trained. I do not think they are makinv, this un at this stage of the game but I am equally convinced that at no time did government ever authorize anybody to say that there would be parity between them and the nurses or parity hetween them and somebody else, because if they are going to negotiate that way, pack it in and let w-: go back where we were. one hundred years ago, I do not think that happened. Now, Mr, Vokey said on television tk1t he would not name the person, and I can understand his feelings there. Somebody goofed. obviously.

Somebody said somethinr, that w:rn not so and that there was no basis or reason to say. Perhaps it was n nice thing to say at the time. That is what t thlnk happened. The government of this province_and this House and the government's nep.otiatinR tenm cannot be hound by that. They cannot be bound hy that. l f that were said, 1t was said absolutely without authority or justification. If they do not want to reveal the name of the man or woman who said it, that is fair enough. Nobody wants to r.et an individual in trouble or pillory them but it seemr; to me that something like thr,t has happened.

Be that as it may, here is the situation and I would say to these technologists that their action has now created a very, very serious situation, not iust in the hospitals. He all know about the hospitals. I could not help but feel a lot of sympathy yesterday for the Minister of Health when he made a statement. His statement probably annoyed some of the laboratory and x~rav technologists but you know 1 would say to them that they have to keep calm and they have to think.

It is not much point beinµ in our society and trying to contribute to our society unless we can recognize and think as to what is going on around you. Take the Minister of Health, the Minister of Health is one of the very few people orobahly who are making a tremendous sacrifice by being in public life, by being in this House and by being in the cabinet. He has shown I think.he is one of the finer men in 6704

October 26, 1973 Tape No. 45 NM - 5 public life in Newfoundland at this time. He is not a negotiator. He is not a public relations man. He ls not a collective bargaining man and yet he sees this situation develop in which the hospitals for which he has the greatest responsibility, greater than any other single member of this House or cabinet he sees them falling down on the job which they are supposed to do and which ultimately comes under him. I have a great deal of 6705

October 26, 1973, Tape 46, Page 1 -- aph sympnthy for the feelinps which the f1ir:ister of Health must be undergoing, because he is not the collective bnrg:ainer, he is not the nerotiator. he does not decide how much money is available for salar les. I v:ould ask the laboratory and x-ray technicians to just hear that in mind. Just bear in mind .some of the pressure and some of the difficulty which that man has undertaken on behnlf of this province and is now r,nin? through, though it is basically outisdc his control. You have a situation, Hr.

Sneaker, 'Where this Bouse. it was announced that this House would open sometine ttpo fer dealing with this collective barr,aininr, legislation. The "l.1.boratcr:v and x-ray technicfans obviously recofmizc<l a clause in this hill which we nre debatinp- here now, and they recornizcd that if this ti 11 were nn.,,scci thnt the Lieutenant l>ovPrnor in round l w011ld irnve power ir.:mcdiritcly,after the passape of the bill an<l <1pproval hy the Licuienant Governor, would immediately have power to order them back to work. Why have they struck?

Nobody has told rec but it is obv'l.ous they have struck before this bill is passed. Thev lrnve not struck. they hnve resigned so that thev would not be sub i cc t to chis bill after the bill is passed. In doing BO, I Jo not deny their courage. It is not easy for a str~ll group to take on a ~overnment, it 1s not easy for a person to feel so stronr:ly that he r;oes and puts his livlihood on the line.

At the same time, I would say to these people, these Newfoundlnndcrs, that the ~overnment is in ri position and I am not speaking for the r,overnment hut 1 am I hope .rw intelligent member of society who can see the situation, the f?Overnmcnt having made the offers, havinp; concluded an .ap-recmenL except for putting the signature on it, how can the government retreat from that position now? If the government say to the technologists; "All right you arc creating trouble, we will up the ante again,' the government 0706

October 26, 1973, Tape 46, Page 2 -- apb ~orning might just as well forget it, leave collective bargaining, put the clock back where it was ten years ago. Forget it because there would never be ever any sensible collective bargaining take place again in Newfoundland. ~, HON, MEMBER: Then how is the problem going to be solved? !~:_)YELLS:, Just a minute, Just a minute. How can the government retreat from the position it has now taken and I think taken rightly? How can it? It is impossible.

If the government and the people in this House have a ~reater responsibility to the people of Newfoundland than they have - to the people as a whole than they have to any single group, even so, they have self­ respect for themselves in the process. How can they now say after the agreement was everything but signed I the agreement was really reached and arrived at, how can they say now; "We will give you more because you arC' striking'li, How can the government say: 1't-1ell, yes, I suppose you are due parity with the nurses or parity with somebody else?'" How can the government say that?

It cannot, I have every deep sympathy with any person, public employee in Newfoundland. Public employees in Newfoundland were not properly dealt with in the past. There nre public employees in Newfoundland even today whose salaries, in my view, are below the poverty line or just about it. Let us not go off half-cocked and say that the public employees of Newfoundland in the past or even now are bein~ paid vast sums of money. They are not.

To the higher levels of the public service,yes larp:e salaries are being paid.for the simple reason that you cannot get people to do professional and other work at the highest levels without paying. This raises another point. There is so much, so ~~ny things in this Province of Newfoundland that are so far beyond the authority and the power of this legislature to do anything about. We can do no more about them than about the weather. If to get a hii:zhly qualified man 6707

October 26, 1973, Tape 4(-, Pare 3 -- apb in Nct-1fmrndlaml we have to pny thirty thousand, thirty,~five thousand or forty thousand dollars ,we have no control over thnt. we have to pay it or the person concerned will work on the ~fainland or in tlie United States or wherever else he is qualified to wod·.. We have no control over that. Orn- might ask: •·why arc pub} ic: enployces so upset?'' Why all the strikes in Newfoundland this summer? Do not give me the facile explanation i.t is:because there is sorethinr:; \-:rong with the Labot1r Pelations Act.

The reason is that oric:es are increasinµ so rapidly and have Jncrf'nsed so rupidl v in fan.ad a and the Government of Newfoundland have no control nver prices rcall v in this rrovince, no control over the prices 0f a car, n0 control over the pr:lcc of building mnteri;:ls, no control over the price k1sicnl1y of anythinp. 11icsc. are international things and national things. But you ask: i-rn1y is labour militant j_n r;ewfoundland? 11 Sure it is militant.

Co to the supernarket and tnkc n walk ;rround nnd you will see why labour is militant. /\ person has to eat and he has to have clothes to ucar. he h,rn to house himself nnd he has to have n c.:n to pet around, that is why lahour is mil.it.ant.

The honourable Leader of the Opposition ta1kin):! about the early settlements of the government witli the puhlic employees :in Newfoundland said: "TI10se who settled early were the unwise ones, the victimized ones or whatever you want to cal] it.' Those who settled early settled probably last sprinr, last /Aarch nr /1.pr:i.1, 1.n n very different province in terms of prices than those who are settling today. You do not blame the people for beinp: militant. You do not blame them for wanting a decent wage when prices are rising so fast that what was .a decent living a year ago is no longer a decent living.

The more you earn the more you have to pay tax on and if prices arc goinr up at the rate that they have p;one up in Newfoundland in the past six or eight months and in Canada, beyond the control of this House, if prices are going up that fast, you need the 6708

October 26. l973t Tape !,-6, Par,e 4 -- apb money. I do not blame anybody for being militant. Unless this inflationary spiral can be stopped.and we cannot stop it here. that is for certain, but unless it can be stopped they are ~oing to be more militant next year, not only in the public service liut in the private sector as well and all the acts which we can debate and argue about for twenty years,supposing we go night and day for six months,are not goinf to solve the problem.

If the problems of our society could be solved by passing acts of parlia.."'!lent, either federally or provincially, they would have been all solved a long time ago. MR. ROBERTS: Would the honourable gentleman yield for n second? nn. WELLS: Yes. Absolutely. ti.!!.:: ... JlOBERT~:~ A very minor matter in his speech but a very major one to me - I did not say that those who settled early settled unwisely. I did say that they settled more cheaply. NR. WELLS: More cheaply. Yes. MR. ROBERTS: I mean there is a difference. I know the honourable gentlew3n did not want to do me a disservice. !-fF.

WELLS: No, the point I remember the honourable gentleman makinp. was that they settled at a lesser rate. HR. ROBERTS: }fR. WELLS: And in future years nobody w:i.11 want to settle first, That is right and I can see that. Because if we get thj;, rapidlv escalating price business, if this keeps up, there is no question we are in trouble now as a country. I am talking about Cannda now and all the Western World but if it keeps up labour relations and bargaining in the public and private sectors are going to become almost impossible. There is the situation we are in.

I understand perfectly how the technologists feel but at the same time I say to them; there is only one way out of this impasse and that is for them to go back to work. They do not have to go back to -work. Nobody can be forced to work in this society at a 6709

October 26, 1973, Tape 4C, Page 5 -- apb '.-forning particular _iob or stay in a 1ob if one does not want to. There is nothinr stoppinp: n man, his wife and his family from gettinr in his car and going to Alberta or British Columbia or anywhere else where he can get a iob. Ler:islat:ion perhaps could be devised to try to put a person bnck to work but as I said earlier; legislation is not the answer to things. Legislation never made any situation much better.

It is no good to talk about legal technicalities in n matter like this, they are a wnste of ti-r:1e, a wnste of breath. 'llH_ point is that the technologists have to realize that the government have a responsibility to all of the people of Newfoundland, tl:f'v haven responsibllity to make settlements which are adequate so thar. a person can live but at the same tip;e 1,1ithin the budgetary requirements of this prnv.i.ncc, that the Government of Newfounrlland do not negotfate ;ust with one civil service ne.e,otiator hut with a host of them and no government can say: •·oh because you got a raise a little higher, I must put somebody else." No En ion can surely allow the position that it can pick another group and say: ''He deserve parity with that r,roup nt all costs 0710

ilctoher 26, 1973 Tape 4 7 rn-1 and we. must be put th:'H'e because they were rut there. 1• I think if we allow that thinking and that type of thinking to dominate our negotintin_g and our 1ahour relations, we will come to grief. ~fot just will the public come to grief, not just wi11 the House of Assemblv find that legislation 1s impossible to solve nroblems hut the people who work for the govermr,ent and the unions who represent them will come to r;rief also because if you start nep:otiating, if you start doinp anything on n wronp: nremise and with wron~ thinking and in a wrong way. as sure as anything chickens are going tD come home to roost.

They do. So thnt T sav to the 1ahoratory technicians.there is onlv one way out of this, to recognize that vou have a rennonsibil itv to thf' peon le whom you serve, to the taxpayers, not the government two fl"J' you, to the honour of n situation where you agreed upon something freely and among yourselves in a vote and that the fact that someone else is getting a few dollars more,who mip.ht have r,otten a few thllars less last vear,or who might get a few dollars another year more nr Je!';s than you will get. That is not a valid reason, in my view, for tearing up what was in fact something that was agreed.

If you stay off 1 1 cannot and this House cannot, reallv, when vou come down to it, force you hack. You can get in your car and rlr1ve out of Newfoundland. Nobody can reallv force you back. There is no wav, in my view anVYay. that vou can force people to take up a ioh if they genuinelv resign it at the end. There is no wav. So, I say to the technologists, legaliti.es are nonsense in this situation. You have r?Ot to really sit down and think your position through. no you not cn,;e anv obligation to the people of Newfoundland uhom you serve?

AN HONOURABLE. ?AE'IBEP: So does the government owe an oh ligation to the neople of Newfoundland. MR. HELLS: So also does the honourahle member have the obligation at the moment to keep quite. The honourable member is not trv-fng to shift any blame. The honourable member will take any blame for anything that is deserved. If the honourable member would wait, I might have a word to the government as well as the technologists. 6711

October 26, 1073 Tape 4 7 rn-z Pr. Speaker. it is harrl to keep a train of thotH!ht, hard to talk about anythtng sensihlv in this House's sittint!, but I guees that is tl wnv it is. AN nm;OFRARL"E ""1£1'.fTIEP: Turn vour stomach nm•-' too. PR!.c WELLS: You see, "1r. Speaker. On and on it goes. You rea1lv wonder. I think I might have now a few minutes vithout being interrunted. We will try. So, Mr. Speaker.

I would say to the technologists that che onlY wav open to them is to ?;o back to work unless thev want to forget their responsihi.lity to the neonle who pav ther:i, "'·ho are the public of Newfoundland and the r,eor,.le whom they serve, who arE> the r,atients. J {lo not think and J helieve the Minister of Finance ;;.nrl the i"residcnt of the Trensury Boaro when he said thnt there was no authori tv riven to anvbodv to sav th;it there would be rrnritv with nurses for anv other grmm. This has to be so because anv other si. tuation would be absolutely sense­ less. Tt would be impossible.

It would rlestroy collective hargaininr before it starts. There is another thinp 1 would sav to the technolor..ists also, This legi!'>lation that we are dealing with now and the openln)! of the Hous; at th:i.s time was planned three or four weeks ,1fto anrl there was no wnv of anyone's knowing.at that time, that a situation would arise with the technologists where there would be a crisis or something close to it. That ts all water under the hridge now.

The crisis is here and we are debating a piece of 1egislati.on in this Pause which is going to hnve far reaching c-onseouences for two, three. four, five venrs perhaps, nerhaps for ten years or more and we are debating it in the wrong atmosphere because it ts impossible to view this a.ct today, it is impossible to d::!.scuss clauses of it without thinking in the backs of the minds of every member here and the press who are thinking it and anybody connected with it, the adviser/£ to government, without being cognizary.t of the fact that the laboratory technicians have resigned and that the hospitals are in trouble.

The surest way, in my view, to make a mistake 1,Jith a piece of legislation is to try to debate it in an atmosphere in which G712

October 26, 1973 Tape 4 7 IB-3 something which is not strictly relevant to the legislation is coloring the thinking. You get people angrv,, you f;et people upset. you get people in a crisis situation and they cannot give the calm, orderly consideration to a thing which they can at other times. I would say this to the technologists, that the fact that they chose to beat the coming of the legislation bv resigninp first has in a sense, whether thev intended it or not, created n situation ·vhich is not to the ~nod of the Province of Newfoundland and public employees far beyond their own bargaining unit.

T would not want to see things passed_,in_ this House in a hastv fashion, in an emergency or crisis situation, which are ,zoing to affect public employees for years to come. That is something that we have to be very careful about. So, I have turned this matter which way I can and T cannot see any way that the government can say, "Recause you are out 1 because you have resigned, we will now give you more money and parity with the nurses.'' I cannot see how thev can say it in honesty or in conscience. Therefore, I say to you or to the technologists, Mr.

Spea~er~ thnt they have a clear duty, above and beyond anvthing else ,to return to work anrl accept the offer~ not of the salary but of arhitration. You see, if I had my way, if this bill were framed in the w:1v that I would see it framed, hosnital technologists would be a class or group of persons and in fact the whole hospital,that could not strike because the work is too vital, too important~ the work of a hosnitaJ. I would say to you, you see when vou take away the right to strike, you have to give a concession .i.n return and in my v:iew that concession is binding arbitration.

Now, governments do not like that. Governments say - and there is a long historical precedent for this - that the parliament of the country or the province. as the case may be, has the final say on the ex~enditure of public monies. That is a hallowed sort of tradition. Even so and even granting the validity of that, I still say that in this modern age and in the collective bargaining s"ituation which we find ourselves, I still say that government should lay that right aside. The House should lay that right aside and say to a class of people, ''All ril?ht: if you are so important that you 6713

Octoher 26, 1971 Tape l; 7 rn-4 cannot strike, we will 1av aside that power and have an a.rhitration hoard and lee them j!ive a decision and ve vi 11 he hound by it also and you wUl he hound hv it/' I talk ahout arbitration hoards, n lot of hoards, they do not always '.1Crhaps, in the view of the parties, do the right thing but there are safegunrds. You do not apnoint fools to arbitration boards.if you have anv ;;ense.

The arbitration hoar,-1 that I t-10ulrl inngine and would v:isualtze inn case like th-ls, Hould he sornehodv closen hy the uni.on, somebody Cfosen hv the govermnent ;md an independent thirrl pnrtv ngreenh1e to hoth. Now, let us sav, ittst to pu]l round figures out of the air, that ;wu hnve a salarv of a hundred do11ai;s rier week or ~1.ono a week - it does not mntter - there is a]Bo the guide line of what the persons ;.1ho are not involved in the arhi.tration situation are r.etting, whether it be tvelve rier cent or thirteen ner cent or fifteen ner cent.

There i" a halance on the board and there is a chairman uho, surelv to lod; -1 i chMien hy hoth sides, must be a man of some common sense. So that if the salnrv is n hundred dollars n month, unless there were a grave iniustice in the hundred dollars a month, vnu wou1tl n0t exnect such a hoard to nut tt to $200 a month or S.400 a n:onth, Bv the i:;ame tol:en, you would not expect them to make it S105 a month or $101 a month. for examule.

So, I think there are enn11)'.!h safeguarrli:. 1n the arbJtrnrion svstem, safeguards to a11ov the government to acr'CPt the rrincip1e of binding nrhitrntion nnd e-nou~h safer:11rirds also for the unit or r,roun of emrlovees invo1ved.hecause there A.re ah·;ivs the gnides of other sectors of societv. There is the guide of what the people have nep.otinted who are free to strike. There is the ?,u-tde of even the nrivate sector. There are :i11 sort of guides so that no award of nn arbitration board on a monetary item is like]v to he too far out of line, too crazy, too weird, so wild that it does not G714

October 26. 1973 Tape no~ 48 Page l - HRW do justice to both sides, I would say that that is the way that we ought co proceed on the matter of essential employees. Now what have the government done in this case? Thev have mad£ the :,ffer. They have said: · All right.we agreed with you and you with us frnt we did not actually get a chance to pet it do-wn on paper hut all right. let ll" forget that, let us forget it, let us lay it to one side. Go back to work.where you are very, very badly needed and we will arbitrate the issue.

We will let such a board of arbitration decide if we are right or wrong, if you should get more or less or whatever else. What more could the government do? What more could it do? It could do one thing, yes. It could abdicate its respnnsibilitic.s t0 tJ!• people of this province and sa"Y;'' Here, take it~ write your ovn cheque.' I cannot advocate that. lf it is the last vote I ever ~et in this province, 1 cannot advocate that and 1 will not. Government has a responsibility and it has a responsibility to the people who elected it, which is the whole population of this province.

I say. what else can you do when you consider this? The government is in a position from which it cannot retreat. It has offered arbitration as the way out, which I think should have been offered in the Collective Bargaining Act as the approach co essential civil servants. What more can it do, except say that this is it and we stand firm but we would go by arbitration if you want. It is either that or say.come into the Treasury Board~ come into the Confederation Building and write your own cheque, we hm.rt· abdicated our responsibility. MR. NEARY: What is wrong with negotiations?

That is what the Minister of Health wants. He wants to negotiate. _MR. WELLS: Negotiations have gone! Surely, there is something in negotiating to a point where you offer something and the offer is taken and voted upon and accepted. Surely, you cannot dismiss and discount that. That has been done. Now let us do what I feel should 6715

October 26, 1973 Tape no. 48 Page 2 have been done probably even in the first place.in the case of essential employees, when agreement cannot be reached, go to arbitration. Will the X-ray technologists suffer by that move? l think not. That is my opinion. I do not speak for the government. I speak here as a man elected to this House, responsible for what he says and prepared to take the consequences for it. Mr. Speaker~ 1 would ask the laboratory and X-ray technologists to go back to work and to try the arbitration route, There is always another day.

I hope that this collective bargaining legislation goes through,with changes, hopefully to your bettermen and to the betterment of all public servants. Even if it does not, it can be changed next year, next month or the year after. It is not the end of the world, lt is not the end of the line. What other, in God 1 s name: sensible course is there but to open up the hospitals for practical purposes again! Let it be decided by arbitration and negotiate again when the time comes. What other honourable, sensible course? I cannot see one.

Now having said that to the technologists, I would say this to the government: The

section in this bill which the laboratory technicii..iu;, resigned on, not resigned on but the

section they resigned to beat, to get in there first, is section (27).where the Lieutenant Governor-in­ Council can order an emergency and put people back to work. I would say this to the government that perhaps in some respects the measure of a government~ the measure of a man, the measure of a group of personR anywhere, in any field, is that they can stop, take a second look, re­ examine a question, take a look at it, argue it out and see if there is any merit in the suggestions that are there,because this clause really is the clause.

I have made my position clear on what I think the laboratory technicians should do. This clause, the fact that it was promulgated, that it was going to be brought before the House is really 6716

October 26~ 1973 Tape no. 48 Page 3 what brought this into this crisis situation. They know that as soon as this is passed, the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council is going to declare a state of emergency and put them back to work. I think they should never have been off. I think that the approach should have been they are essential and that is it. At the moment, they can see that this clause will be used against them in that fashion and it is just as well to face tt. So it will be passed.

I would say to the laboratory technicians, go back to work. let this be decided by this House, not in an atmosphere of crisis but I would say to the government, look at that section, decide in this House who is essential or what institutions are essential and who is not but do not have a

section like this that can put an employee in the position that he is allowed to strike until, as the Leader of the Opposition, I believe said last ni~ht, it begins to hurt and then the strike is over. I would ask the government to stop and just think about it. That is not the wisest approach to collective bargaining. You see nobody in this life can have his cake and eat it too. This is what this sort of clause seems to mean to me. If they are going to be allowed to strike, let them strike. If they are not going to be allowed to strike, let them not. Do not change the rules in the middle of the play.

That is what I think this sort of thing would be doing. If it is necessary to do that sort of thing, let this House do it. Let the elected representatives of the people on both sides who can ar~ue and fight as they do in this House, let them do it. That is the most important one. Likewise I would ask the government to think about that clause where every offer, they had to go back - the union had to go back, because if it were in reverse and every proposal or in order to make a proposal the government had to go back to the peoplet call another election or have a referendum, that would be 6717

October 26, 1973 Tape no. 48 Page 4 crazy. So, too is it crazy not to recof!nize that the people by and large who lead unions have some sense; they have some contact with their membership; they have some feed-back to know what is going on. 1 would ask the government to have a look at that .also. Of course, I would ask the government to have a look at the earlier

section in the bill,

section {10). which deals with the certification of a bargaining agent. That point is all right, Then the decision as to who should be essential and who should not and where it should be made, Now I think and I hope and I have confidence enou!;h in Newfoundlanders, l have confidence enough in the laboratory technicians to believe that they are law-biding Newfoundlanders and that they are responsible Nevdoundlanders.

They do responsible work. 1 have confidence enough in them to believe that they will be responsible not just in the quality of the work they do but in their approach to their whole role in the hospital and in society. l ask the technologists to recognize that responsibility and to act on it, their wider responsibility to .all the public servants, in that they do not want, surely, actions taken by them to influence perhaps legislation which may have a bad effect on the whole collective bargaining problem and situation. I ask them to think that; ask them to go back.

I ask the government also in committee stage I believe while 1 was speaking the Minister of Finance has said they would to be receptive to thinking about changes in this bill because as it goes, as it stands there now and in my experience of labour matters, this bill could cause problems. I say to the government that it is a measure of greatness of a government or an individual to be prepared to say; all right, perhaps this needs further discussiont perhaps we should try it another vay~ Mr. Speaker, there we are.

We are in an atmosphere of crisii, but surely, we as Newfoundlanders, both inside and outside of this House of Assembly~ can rise to the occasion. Surely, we are 0718

October 26, 1973 Tape no. 48 Page 5 not going to be defeated as a people and in our institutions by revs that cannot be solved. Surely, we are ingenious enough to come up with machinery for solutions. I believe we are. Surely 6719

October 26, 1973 Tape !+9 (morning) we have enough humility and even honour to those we represent, not just we here in the House, people like the techno­ logists also who owe something to their community. to their own institution for whom they work and the taxpayer who pays them. I think and I have enough confidence in the people of this country and in groups of people within chis country to think, Mr. Speaker. that this problem can be solved. 1 hope that the outline of the approach that I have mentioned mny play some part or may have some input into the solution of the problem. Thank you. PK - l MR. JI. W. C.

GILLETT: Hr. Speaker, it is rather difficult for me to find words after listening to our honourable friend across the way. So far we have heard from lawyers only_ men who are learned and well versed in matters such as we have before us today. Nevertheless I believe that we are all rndowed with a certain amount of intelligence. The contentious sections in this bill were broup.ht before us yesterdav in the introduction,

section (lfJ) ;,nrl

section {27). It has been I am sure very heart warming for us on this sid1,,' to realize that even among the ranks of th(• government side there are men who have seen the light of day, so to speak, in this bill and had the courage to mention it. I am sure that he is not alone. he cannot be. If after hearing deliberations from men, from the honour­ able members, learned men of law,as we have heard today and yesterday, after listening to these honourable gentlemen surely goodness we are convinced that this hill hns to he chan~cd.

I commend our leader, the honourable member for White Bay North. on his deliberations yesterday. I think he opened the eyes of everybody here. But as the Chairman of the Board of the Notre Dame Bay Memorial Hospital it comes home to me very, very close. This is one of the most important things that I saw too,just as a layman so to spe.ak, in law­ making. But when I read down the

interpretation and saw in Section (27) ' 1 The corporation body or authority managing any hospital is deemed to be the employer", then over here.reading in Section (10) where the employer is a determining factor or body, if you want to say. detemining 6720

October 26, 1973 Tape 49 (morning) PK - 2 who is and who is not essential in a hospital. Then I felt the respon­ sibility very heavy upon me and I thought that this is something that I do not believe I and my board can accept. I agree with our honourable member who just spoke before me that the essentiality should be decided here in this House. Because it is possible_ it might be possible to take one or two persons in a hospital and say that he or she is not essential. But where would one draw the line? Where would one draw the line? What sort of a chaotic condition would we have in such a case?

Now I do not think I need go any further because it has been gone into in detail. I am sure that everybody here is convinced that Section (10) has to be changed. I feel it will be. I have sufficient confidence in my brother-man to know.setting aside all partisan politics, that this will be done. I circled Section (10) when the Honourable Minister of Finance mentioned it yesterday. ! also put a question mark around section (27) because he mentioned it also. In Newfoundland today we do have very serious perhaps - I think it is not only in Newfoundland, we have it in North America.

God knows they have had it in England for a long time, unrest in labour. I think the way we deal with labour is going to spell the future for Newfoundland. The way labour deals with us, do not let us make any mistake, it is not a one way road. It is a two way road. We have to acknowledge as I believe has been said here this morning that in the ranks of labour we have highly intelligent men, legislators, lawyers.

Eminent lawyers can spend months putting together a bill but it takes only a few, I have always said this, it takes only a few fishermen someday a-yarning with a chew of tobacco to find a loophole in that act. Rightness comes when we can acknowledge our mistakes. When we can say let us reason this thing out together, then ; · and only then will we have peace in our labour production when everybody is happy with his lot. 6721

October 26, 1973 Tape 49 (morning) PK - J I can only con( Joe what our honourable friend across the way has said before me, in speaking to the technologists and labatory and x-ray technologists. I might say that I was very happy yesterday morning. l't 9·30 o'r:lock I tele'l'lhoned ttie business m;innr.er of our hospital in Twillingate and asked him what was going on this morning, whether or not we had mass resignations. MR. SPEAKJ:R, Order please. I hope the honourable gentleman will excuse me for interrupting him but I wonder if he would like to adjourn the.> debate, and I will recognize him this afternoon.

It is now 1:00 o'clock. MR. GILLETT: I will call it 1:00 o'clock, Sir. :-m. SI'E/1.KER: It now being 1:00 o'clock I do leave the Chair until 3:00 o'clock this afternoon. 6722

October 26, 1973 Tape No. 50 NM - 1 The House resumed at 3:00 P,M., Mr. Speaker in the Chair. !j!t_, SPEARER: The honourable Minister of Finance. HON J.C. CROSBIE: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a ministerialst;,trf"lcnt The principle of the bill before the House is to permit strikes in the public service subject to certain safeguards with respect to public health an<l safety and to provide for collective bargaining in the public service.

As stated when the bill was introduced, we have amendments to put forward in committee.not affecting this principle, suggested by NAPE and one or two suggested by CUPE,and are open to suggestions arising from the debate as to other amendments that might be made to the bill in committee. With respect to the debate so far, the government has met with the caucus and I would like to inform the House that we will be bringing an amendment before the committee to amend

section 27. So far any emergency - ~OBERTS: To a point of order, ~r. Speaker, ministeral statements are allowed under the rules of this House :,;ffectin;! matters of government policy, the minister appears to be announcing that the government had collapsed on this bill. That may be the case, Sir, but that is not a matter of a ministerial statement. I submit. My point of order is that that is the government 1 s position, any minister may make it but during the debate ~hen we may debate it, Sir, not as a ministerial statement, Sir. That is an abuse of the priviledges of this House, Sir. MR. CROSBIE: Mr.

Speaker, on that point of order: This is a statement of government policy being given as a ministerial statement. There is nothing to prevent anyone speaking and debating· this in the debate. Ml.. ROBERTS: I object, Sir, I cannot speak again in this debate. MR. SPEAKER: Order please, The honourable minister I assurr.e is making a ministerial statement and I will let him proceed. MR. ROBERTS: To a point of order. Your Honour has ruled there is no 6723

October 26, 1973 Tape No. "JO NM - 2 point of order that thi.s ii, an tn-nnlt!r minititerial statement. ~1._R-~~Ej\J{YR-3 That is correct. "f:R~ CROSBIF: So. Mr. Speaker, to conclude, the government has decided that it would brin~ an amendment before the House in committee of the whole with respect to sect inn 27 of the bill so that any proclamation would not be effertive tJithout the approv,11 of the Hou...;e of Assemhly. nw Pnn:•nmPnr will also he hrinp.ing forward an amendment to suhset.:L n { J\ of

section 24 a:., has he<;n sugp.ested in the debate and if there are other worthwhile :,; rr,estions for amendments during the course of this dPhAtt'. we will also pjve them consideration and attempt to prepare amendments when the bill goes throu~h committee of the House. ~~-·-.R-0.!!J~TS: ~r. Speaker, if 1 may be allowed the same latitude to reply nnw that we have debates on ministerial '"t.ttcmcnts: I first of all welcome it Sir, because il if< the point put forward by this side of the House.

I congratulate the Premier on havinp. had the good grace to let the Minister of Finance announce his own capitulation. 1 want tc say on this side, Sir, ve shall continue to debate i.t. We have other amendments to put forward, particularly

section 2!1 (1), which is just as offem,ive as 24 (3) or more. The note T want to close on is to again note the irregularity of tlv government announcing a major capitulation by way of a ministerial statement instead of in debate where it can he dealt with in debate. I have no right tn speak again in this dehate, Sir. l have used my opportunity to speak. The minister has another opportunity to speak, I <lo not. But let me say, Sir, the governemnt are doing the right thin~ for once. For once they did listen. My (;od: if onl they would listen some more they would be out of the m;;,ss they are in now, Maybe, Mr.

Speaker, maybe if they listened a little more, if teddy bear down there will listen instead of lookinr, like an idiot, they may yet get to the situation where we do not have every hospital closed. MR. F. n. MOORES (PREMIER): To a point of order - 0724

October 26, 1973 Tape No. 50 MR. MOORES: To the point of order that was raised a moment ago when the honourable member was mai;inp: a statement- MR, ROBERTS: To what point of order! :MR. SPEAKER: The Honourable the Premier: I rule that there was no point of order and that the honourable minister could continue with his ministerial statement. MR. MOORES: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker: Referrini:: t.o tlw remarks of the Leader of the Opposition which I say were cn1t of order, the point of order, Mr.

Speaker, is that I just want to establish one very clear fact that has been brought up here by the Leader of the Opposition who has claimed that he is not able to speak again in this debate. That is quite accurate. I would like to raise the fact that this ministerial statement was in order because it showed that this ROVernment has flexibility - MR. ROBERTS: This is an abuse of the privileges of the House. That is a speechless point of order. MR. SPEAKER: Order please.

The honourable Minister of Finance has seen fit to make a ministerial statement and as has been the custom in this House, the Leadet of the Opposition or his representatives has had the right to reply to th.at ministerial stateIT'.ent, which I understand he has done. The honourable Premier has risen on a point of order and I shall hear out the honourable Premier's point of order, MR. MOORES: Mr. Speaker, the ministerial statement as far as we were concerned was in order. I think that to say it was not - MR. ROBERTS: Inaudible, MR. MOORES: Excuse me, Mr.

Speaker, if the Yahoo over there could shut his trap for one minute. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. The Honourable Premier as well as any other member in this House does have the right to be heard in silence. MR. MOORES: I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that it was very important that the Minister of Finance be allowed to make a ministerial 6725

0ctober 26, 1973 Tape No. 50 statement. That was out of order as far ,1s 1 t\f'l cnncs"•rnPd. He only announced the fact that we do have flexibility. we !1'.J have principle and we in tend, it is not capitulation I it is reason that we are talkinR about, ~m. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the Premier. of all the facetious points of order ever raised hy the Premier, who barely knows if he is punched or bored when it comes to the rules of the House anyway - !iON, ~EHBfllS: Inaudih le. MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. RO_Bj:~TSJ.. Hr. Speaker, may I continue with my point of order? HON.

MEMBERS: No. !:!_~_l!_Ol!_ERTS: Oh I see, no now. MR. __§_P~l(ER: Order please. I have heard the Honourable Premier and I shall permit the honourable Leader of the Opposition a few words and that shall be the end of it. ~- RO~~T£..:., Sir, as I was sayinR, the point of order is facetious. The Premier, I submit, gets up and makes a speech under the pdsr of a point of order knowing full well or ought to have known, maybt he did not know that it was out of order to make a speech.

If the Premier wants to intervene in the debate, Sir, my submission is that he should not do it on a point of order, he should do it on a debate but he gets up and raises a point of order which is facetfr;_::., and I submit, Sir, that he should be ruled out of order. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, he dld not in making his point of order raise any point at all and I invite Your Honour to check - MR. BARRY: To what point or order are you speaking? MR~. ROBERTS: I am speaking to the point of order raised by the Premier to point out it is no point.

If the honourable member for Placentia West is not able to tmderstand that, he should go hack under his rock. Mr. Speaker, I submit that the Premier ~honlrl hP. rn1Pri out of 6726

October 26, 1973 Tape No. 50 HM. - 5 order for havin~ raised what he claimed was a point of order because when it came tc1 the crunch there was no crunch. Order please! Order! I feel that this debate as such has boiled down to a matter of personalities which should not be and I suggest that we finish it here and continue with the other business of the afternoon.

Before we recognize the honourable gentleman from Tuillingate who adjourned the debate, I would like just to say that this morning in the honourable !louse the honourable member for Fogo expressed some concern as to the proper dress in the public galleries, In this day and age it is difficult for one to define what is meant by proper dress. However, to my knowledge,in the public galleries off the tenth floor, there is no specific mode of dress.

In the gallery at the back of this chamber, commonly referred to as the Speaker's Gallery, it has been a long standing tradition that persons occupying this gallery should be dressed in what one might call a dressy apparel, for example sweaters and blue jeans should not be worn in the Speaker 1 s Gallery. However, if and when every other seat in the public galleries is occupied and there are vacant seats in the Speaker 1 s Gallery, then I would consider permitting persons who are not attired in reasonably accepted apparel to sit in the gallery at the back of the chamber.

I do not want to be too severe with regard to this and I trust that honourable members. when expecting visitors will advise them of the type of dress which might be accepted. I also trust that the members of the general public ,:,;ill judge themselves accordingly. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Twillingate wishes to continue. MR. H.W.C. GILLETT: Mr. Speaker, if I recall when we were recessed for lunch I was about to say how pleased I was to hear from the hospital in Twillingate that no action had been taken on the part of 6727

October 26, 1,q7 3 Tnpe No. )0 th(> lahornt.ory anti x-ray technicians, that in fact the hospital was functioning as usual. Therefore 1 felt a Hi!nse of pride in our employees in Twillingate to know that in rhe 1ight of thh; pnrno.sed ler,islation, that they did not choo<:;e to resign. 0728

Octobf'r 26, 1973. Tape Si, Page l -- apb Afternoon I can only any now since we heard the so-called ministerial statement that as a result of the deliberations here last night n.nd today and as a result nf the newspaper reports that the government have seen.and I repent what I said this morninf!, the light of dny in its legislation, I personally could not support this bill no.(123) as it stood for reasons mentioned this morninr in section (10) 1 also for reasons that have been mentioned by several speakers, in section (27).

I believe that the power to legislate and compel people to go back to work should not he vested in the cnbinet no matter who that cabinet but actually hy the House itself, wh:ich is the peopl PR I House, representation of the people. BcforC' 1 sit down, ~r. Speaker, T would like to address a few remarks to the x-ray and the lahrntory technicians. I would ask them to go hack to work. Reapply immediately and I am sure their applications will be accepted. Go back to work. Surely goodness a labratory and an x-ray technician realizes how important he or she i.s. how very important.

Daily they view x-rays of pcopl!! and their knowledge of x-rays must sometimes shock them, the revelation of them. The same thing applies to the laboratory tests. Surely. they have a sense of dedication. Ri1Zht now, at this moment, 1 do not need them but there are hundreds maybe thousands who do. They do have a dedication and I feel, Mr. Speaker, thnt before many hours Newfoundland will hear that the laboratory tecl1r-icians and the x-ray technicians will have decided to p,o back to work. I also would li'ke to address just a few words to labour and to the labour lenders, Particularly the labour leaders, Mr. Mr.

Speaker. Sometimes I wonder whether or not they know just how important their position is. It is much more :important than mine. I am just .a member of this House. I would say that with the size of our labour force,unionized as it is today, the leader of a big labour union i.s very closely akin to that of the Premier of the province, 6729

October 2f,. 1973, Tape 51, Page -- npb 1\f ternonn n grave and a great responsibility as a lender. Pot.1er has heen placed in his or her hands by a union and placed there in pood faith. Whether it be a rovernm(:nt, whether it be a labour union, no natter who it is, I think thn.t that power has to be used wisely and 1,1ell. everything tnken into consideration. In the cnse of the public service whit:h will be affcctec Py the passnge of this bill in its reform or any form~ I think they have a hiµ respnnsihil ity to the people of this province.

It is most unfortunate that the lahour unrest this sumner hns iwen allowed to mnterialize and come to this point. 1t is JTtost unfortunate, rerrettahle. Let us hope that this is a less.on t0 the nflministration and nll administrations from now on. He have to barr:ain and bargnin in good faith. 1 know sometimes it must be difficult. As an employer. 1 know. Tines lrnve changed, people have changed and 1. know it is not easy to deal uitli some of the proC'lcms that present themselves to labour and to r.anagement today.

The hir;h cost of living niust be, it has to be a source of anxiety to everybody but in the puhlic service I believe there should be a sense of responsibi1 ity to th(' people of the province. J arn speakinr. now particularly, once ngnin. to the hospital workers. I th1.nk right now, rei::ardless of this hill, to deal with it in this crisis,as we have mentioned hefore,is a VPTY difficult thing to do. I feel that we have to mention the very seriousness of the strike that is taking place now - now a strike but cessation. as a matter of fact resiimation of the labratory and x-ray technir:·ians. Mr.

Speaker, we shall see what hnppens from now on until this bill No. (123) finally receives approval of the House. From what the Minister of Finance has said,it would seem that the g,overnment are willing nnd have shown their greatness (if you want to use that word) and let us hope that the labour unions do the same thing. Nobody has to lose faith, Mr. Speaker. Nobody has to lose faith. We have too much at stake here. We have a province at stake. t.730

October 26, 1973, Tape 51, Page 3 -- apb Afternoon I stand with this side of the Bouse in sayinr that I am unable to support the bill as it is and we shall see what happens from now on .. HR. SPEAKER: The honourable member from St. John's North. 1'!¥~ ~RT_§:~; }tr. Speaker? I have a few short remarks to make on this bill. First I would like to make my position perfectly clear. Althoup.h I do not particularly like this bill, I feel that it could be vastly improved, I nm prepared to give it a try, give it a chance. The more controvprsi.nl clauses can easilv be amended if they are found to be unworkable.

Passing this bi.11 will take it out of the realm of the speculative and academic and put it to the test. I would like to divide my remarks into three parts. First a few comments on the making of legislation generally, second the matter of government restraint in financial matters and thirdly, what in my view should follow this legislation if labour strife in this province is to come to an end. This House is known asthe lep:islature and we can properly be referred to as lef!islators. Yet when it comes to the test all we are asked to do is say '<aye'' or 11 nay ' and perhaps alter a word or two.

It does not in nv view encourare active participation. As far as I can learn,lcgislation is prepared by a leJ!islative draftsman in the Department of Justice after. preliMinary preparation in the department concerned. Therefore it is the civil service who are the real legislators. Our only function is to approve or disapprove. Sometimes ler,islation already in effect in other provinces is found to be suitable for our needs. Then all that is necessary is to change a word here and a title there and there you are. This is what is known as trusting to luck. It should not be used as standard procedure. Agreed?

Lep:islation should be prepared by a committee of this House usin? the civil service as advisers and researchers. It is the members of this House that should worry through the more complex and contentious hills. 6731

October 26, 1973 Tape 52 (afternoon) PK ~ 1 To be more specific what could have been and should have been a creative adventure and experience in labour relations is in grave danger of degenerating into partisan bickering. I have no objection, Hr. Speaker, to spicy debate and sharp retorts but it is quite apparent that the present adversary raethod of handling legislation lends itself to partisan hitterness and upmanship, Furthermore, the existence of a great foggy heap of legislation, sometimes far more than is necessary, can bring into being many dead - letter laws. It could bring the law itself into disrepute.

So for practical purposes, in many respects, the civil service is the govern­ ment. The. ~0 lected members are society's chosen safety valves. They direct the civil aervic.e but they depend upon them for advice. They carry out the directions of government. There can be no government in any real sense of the word without the civil service. -n1ervfor the civil service always know what is going on. Even the cabinet directive which is not made public is a secret widely shared.

Now I am not suggesting for a minute that confidences arc heing broken but the knowledge that civll servants legitimately gather must affect their _iudgement especially in matters referdnr to their own compensation. Furthermore, researches have shown that the grape vine is over eighty-five per cent correct. We must assume that the Newfound­ land Civil Service is normal in that regard. So if the government nre being extravagant, if they are abusing their privileges, if they are giving away rights to resources, the civil service know it.

Make no mistake about it, they know how much and when and where and by whom and to whom. Is it unnatural then not to expect them to take their cue from government. They will show as much restraint, no more and probably no less than the government, If the government watch itself, the civil service will be reasonable but If they do not the lid is off. 0732

October 26, 1973 Tape 52 (afternoon) PK - 2 I have a resolution before this House, ~!r, Speaker, for later consideration. Without going into it,it was motivated by the realization that we are trying to solve today's problems usinp, yesterday's raethods. A strike is a drastic weapon. Mass resignation is even more drastic. It is the final solution, not a satisfactory solution, but certainly final. It is even beyond the ::iowcr, in nv vi.e'W. of this 1cf'l;:;1ntion to regulate. The immediate solution 1n the case of the x-ray and technicians strike is for them to come back to work c.nd accept arbitration.

But our deliberations must go far beyond that. V.1e must set up machinery for regulating labour dinputC's so that workers will no more consider strike action than a parent--teacher association will consider a lynching party. MR. SPEAKER! The Honourable the Minister of Mines and Energy. 1'1R. BARRY: Hr. Speaker, the legislation presently before the House "An Act To Govern Collective Bargn:inin~ Respecting Certain Employee!'.i In The Public Service In The Province,' it is in my opinion good legislation. I did not come to this decision quickly - AN HON~ MEMBER: Inaudible, MR. BARRY: I will come to that.

I did not come to this decision quickly nor I do not think carelessly but onlv after some RPrlo11s consideration of the principle involved in the bill. Now there have been a number of red herrings all through this House of Assembly, the last two days of debate, Mr. Speaker, I would submit. The princi