May 12,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No.

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the

Minister of Labour about reports of a very serious accident that occurred on the

Bull Arm site this morning. I want to ask him if he can provide the House with

details. A number of hours have passed, apparently, since the report. Is the

Minister investigating the matter perhaps with a view to conducting an inquiry

into the incident?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yes, I will confirm

that there has been an unfortunate accident and fatality at the site. In fact,

through the implementation just recently of the twenty-four hour accident

reporting line, a call did come in this morning at about 8:30 - 8:37, and

immediately it was relayed to the director responsible for Occupational Health

and Safety. They have immediately sent people to the site to begin the

investigation at the earliest possible opportunity. We do have limited

preliminary details that I prefer not to discuss in terms of this point in time.

The individual has unfortunately passed away. The family is suffering the

immediate effects of the trauma. The investigation is ongoing, and I think, in

large part, a very little time lapse because of the implementation of the

twenty-four hour response line some time ago.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Leader of the Opposition, on a

supplementary.

MR. SIMMS: No, Mr. Speaker, I have a new question.

I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Forestry,

Mr. Speaker. On April 30, if you check Hansard, when I asked the minister in the

House to confirm reports that the government was considering privatization of

the Wooddale Tree Nursery operations he said, and I quote, "I never said

anywhere that government was considering, for the past three years, privatizing

Wooddale." A day later, he said to a local newspaper, the Advertiser, that he

was speaking off the top of his head the week before, when he told the same

paper, 'It has been suggested by people, and we have considered the situation of

looking at privatizing the nursery. That is a possibility. It is a possibility.'

Now, Mr. Speaker, my question to the minister is this: How

can people trust the statements of this minister when they change so radically

from day to day? Will he now tell the people of this Province and the workers at

Wooddale once and for all, is privatization of Wooddale on the list of areas

being considered or being studied by either officials or any ministers?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I stand by what I said when I recently answered the question.

The hon. member quoted Hansard, and I think I said that this government is not

considering privatizing Wooddale. Now, the fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker,

when I became the Minister of Forestry in one of the first two, three or four

Cabinet meetings, I saw a document that was sponsored by the hon. member, the

Leader of the Opposition, by the government of the day, and the title of the

document was a report by the Senior Expenditure Review Committee that had

identified and recommended to the previous government that Wooddale be

privatized.

Mr. Speaker, I say now to you, Sir, to the workers of

Wooddale and to the members of the House of Assembly, that this government has

not been considering - we saw that report, I don't know how long anyone spent

thinking about it; but we saw the report, saw that it was a target in the mind

of someone among the senior civil servants appointed by the previous government,

Mr. Speaker, who believed it should be recommended to privatize Wooddale.

This government, at this point in time, do not believe we

should privatize Wooddale. We haven't given it any consideration and we haven't

paid much attention to the recommendation made by the previous government that

Wooddale should, indeed, be privatized.

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

MR. SIMMS: Ah, Mr. Speaker, the minister can try to

practice the antics of the Premier and try to use trickery and verbal allusion

to fool the people and it is not going to work. It is not going to work, Mr.

Speaker. The difference is that we rejected that recommendation that came up

from officials. We rejected it, that is the big difference.

Now, Mr. Speaker, let me ask him this while we have witnesses

here in the gallery today. I have another question to ask him.

Will the minister confirm that he told workers, during a

meeting, in Central Newfoundland, that we are going to have to try to find some

make-work projects for you and for others this summer because it is an election

year? Did he say that to those workers?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, I said to the workers - as a

matter of fact, I only met with, I think, three or four or five representatives

of Wooddale, and I said to them today, as I have said on many occasions, as I

say every chance I get, that we are going to try to create jobs. We know thirty

people will not be recalled at Wooddale, which concerns me very much and, as a

government, we are going to try to do everything we can to provide jobs to

replace that lost income. At no time, Mr. Speaker, did I say that we were going

to try to create those jobs because it was an election year.

MR. SIMMS: You never said that?

MR. FLIGHT: No, I did not say that.

MR. SIMMS: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, the minister now, suddenly, has

found something to lead him to suggest that they will provide jobs or find jobs

for these thirty people who are laid off. What about the other people who are

going to be short of work weeks? Has he covered all of that ground? And let me

ask him this: Since many of these people - some of them now, by the way, do not

receive any income. Will he tell them, will he tell the House when can these

people expect to hear from him and the government as to what they are going to

do to help those people, when can we expect to hear that?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, we are pursuing all the options.

The hon. member refers to people who will not receive enough work weeks to

qualify for UI. That number now is about fifteen - it originally was

twenty-five. As a result of looking at all options we reduced that from

twenty-five to about fifteen. I am in the process, working with my officials, to

try to make sure that we can identify work that will guarantee that the

seventy-nine people recalled at Wooddale qualify for UI.

Inasfar as When will I tell the people who do not have any

income when they can expect to be recalled to work? - it will be done as soon as

I have an option, as soon as we find a means of providing jobs for those people.

I suggest to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, Mr.

Speaker, that I would feel a lot better if he were to help me solve the problem,

as opposed to grandstanding in front of workers who know they will not be

recalled.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, if we could wake this minister up

I would be happy to help him. The problem is we cannot wake him up.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: Let's see how smart he is with this question,

Mr. Speaker. Will he tell the people in Central Newfoundland, the people of this

Province who have a concern about the forest resource becoming seriously

depleted, like our fishery resource, and assuming that the minister has some

foresight into the future and some plan for the future, what is the plan for

Wooddale next year?

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

Agriculture.

MR. FLIGHT: Mr. Speaker, if we can continue, and we know

of no reason why we cannot continue the level of silviculture - I should say now

too, that the level of production in Wooddale this year is as high as the

average of any year. It is higher than last year. Only seventy-nine people will

be recalled. It is higher than last year. The average production at Wooddale

since 1981 has been just in excess of 5 million seedlings. The average. This

year it is close to 8 million seedlings. So, in as far as next year is

concerned, I will do everything I possibly can. My staff, the Department of

Forestry, feel that if we maintain the level of silviculture that we are doing

this year, for the seventy-nine people, hopefully, those jobs will be permanent

jobs - permanent seasonal jobs.

Now, one other thing I would want to say while I am on my

feet, that is, that close to 90 percent of woodlands in Newfoundland forest

lands regenerate naturally - natural regeneration. The silviculture treatment

you provide to those lands is thinning. Even if you had 300 people working in

Wooddale, or if you had triple the production of seedlings, only roughly 10 per

cent of the forest lands that are harvested in this country are planted. The

rest is by and large natural regeneration. The Department of Forestry and

Agriculture, as the ex-minister knows identifies areas that are not regenerating

naturally, identifies it, scarifies it and seeds it. Mr. Speaker, we are not

even coming close to planting that 10 per cent so as soon as we can find the

monies that are necessary to employ more people, to put them out into forestry

planting trees, we will do that but now we are going to run the nursery as we

agreed.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Minister of Social Services but I notice he is absent again today. Yesterday I

raised some questions and the Government House Leader tried to respond on behalf

of the minister so probably he might try to give it his best effort again today.

I raised the question yesterday about a very disturbing incident that took place

in the remand centre the other night. Yesterday I asked the Government House

Leader about that incident. When listening to the news reports this morning I

understand there was another incident that took place last night and I wonder if

the minister would tell the House about that incident?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the minister was away yesterday,

as the hon. member knows, to the Women's Lobby in Gander. The member asked a

question about incidents that happened on Sunday night and I believe I answered

the questions. The member says there was another incident last night that I am

not aware of.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, is there anyone over there aware

of it that could answer the question? It is difficult getting answers.

I understand from reports within the department that there is

a large increase in the number of youths being taken into secured custody. This

year there is an increase of somewhere between 30 and 40 per cent. Let me ask

the minister if he believes this has placed a strain on the facility and the

staff at the correctional centres in this Province?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, there is an increase in the

number of youths sentenced or judges that insist on secured custody for young

offenders. The facilities are beginning to get to near capacity however the

particular situation that the member refers to had nothing to do with the

incident that happened Sunday night at the Pleasantville centre, nothing at all.

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Speaker, I say to the minister that these

incidents are warnings of problems, indeed serious problems at the youth

correctional centres. What steps has government taken to find out the reasons

for these incidents and to make sure they never happen again, besides cut the

Budget by -

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I suppose if I had fifteen

minutes I could discuss with the House and the hon. member, and anybody who

wants to, the details behind the particular incident that happened on Sunday

night. It was not because of what the hon. gentleman says it is.

I pointed out to the House that there is an inquiry under way

right now involving the Department of Social Services, the Department of

Justice, and the RNC, to have a look at that particular incident on Sunday

night, which was a very, very serious incident and we take it very seriously. I

would remind the hon. gentleman that a couple of the individuals who were

involved have previous records of such incidents and such kinds of behaviour,

and that the incident was handled in a superb manner by the RNC and was resolved

without danger and without damage to any of the individuals involved, which is

the prime objective in any situation like this - to resolve the situation

without people getting hurt and injured. The RNC did a superb job in that

regard.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have questions for

the Premier.

Last week, answering questions put by the Member for Humber

Valley about Lundrigans' financial difficulties, the Premier told the House of

Assembly that the government: "Will provide whatever level of help it is proper

to provide." Since then the Premier was in Corner Brook and met with people

associated with Lundrigans.

I would like to ask the Premier to report to the House of

Assembly on what transpired since he last addressed the Lundrigans crisis in the

House last week. Will the Premier tell us what requests for assistance were made

by Lundrigans' employees, by Lundrigans' principles, by Lundrigans' creditors,

and what offers of assistance were made by the Premier or any other

representative of the government? Will the Premier indicate to the House of

Assembly, with as many specifics as he can now provide, what the government is

prepared to do to maximize the economic activity and the jobs associated with

the Lundrigan operation, and when I say jobs I mean both operating division jobs

and head office jobs.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I lost count of the

questions. There were probably thirty there. I do not remember. I suppose I

could get Hansard and check it when it comes out, but it is obvious that it is

not possible to keep track of that.

A couple of other things should be obvious as well. As the

hon. member is aware I have met - I think I met, in fact, on three occasions

while I was in Corner Brook - with Lundrigan representatives, I met with an

organizer of one of the unions, I talked with another organizer, I appeared on

an open line radio program, and I have had discussions as late as this morning

in relation to the matter.

Government's position is essentially the same as it has been

in the past. We will do everything that we possibly can that is within

reasonable and acceptable bounds to try and make sure that, to the maximum

extent possible, the economic and employment generating activity of the

Lundrigan Enterprises will continue. What the government cannot do is use

taxpayers' money to interfere in the normal competitive business process. We

cannot do that. The Lundrigan people know that, the representatives of the

employees, the unions of Lundrigans, are aware of that. I talked to them about

that. I have explained the government's position.

I can say that some discussions are underway at the moment.

Whether or not they will be successful is more than I can say. But there are

some sincere discussions underway that have some possibility of trying to find a

solution. This kind of a discussion of all of the detail that the hon. member

asked for now in the House of Assembly would probably make sure that they won't

work. So it wouldn't be in the best interest of the Province, the Lundrigan

Enterprises, the employees, the creditors or anybody else concerned for me to

get involved in that kind of detailed discussion in the House today.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the Premier whether he would agree that

the Lundrigans organization is greater than the sum of its parts. Specifically,

would the Premier agree that a piecemeal sale to various concerns of the

operating divisions of Lundrigans would result in an economic loss, specifically

to the Corner Brook area but also to the Province? If the Premier believes that

a breaking apart of the various operating divisions would result in a loss, will

the Premier undertake to do whatever is reasonable to keep together the

operating divisions and the administrative office, either by facilitating a sale

as is, a sale of the whole unit, or by working with Lundrigans and their

creditors to see that Lundrigans are able to continue in business?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I guess, Mr. Speaker, you could take a

look at this House of Assembly and say: it is greater than the sum of its

members. Indeed it is. It is more than the sum of its members. It has other

characteristics beyond being a totality of membership. Any major entity I

suppose is in a way like that.

But I cannot and will not undertake that the government will

cause all of the various operating divisions of Lundrigan's enterprises to be

kept together. I think it would be an unwarranted interference with the normal

commerce and competitive operations in this Province for the government to

undertake to do anything to cause Avis Rent-A-Car to remain under Lundrigan

control, to cause City Motors to continue to be involved or kept under this one

umbrella together with other operating divisions. Or Atlantic Concrete, or

Atlantic Building Materials. That would be a totally unwarranted interference

into the normal business operations of the Province, and the government cannot

do that.

I agree that the Lundrigan construction division has an

engineering and construction capability that is very significant to this

Province, and of great value to the Province. I would like to see that continue.

I would like to see if there was some means that we could find of ensuring that

would continue. But it would be most inappropriate for the government to

interfere in normal commercial competitive operations.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier indicated

last week, responding to questions put by the Member for Humber Valley, that the

gypsum plant in Corner Brook, one of Lundrigan's operating divisions, does not

have any competition from other businesses within our own Province. He said he

knows of at least four significant expressions of interest in purchasing the

gypsum plant, and indicated that round the middle of last week a major gypsum

operation had engineers in Corner Brook examining Atlantic Gypsum.

I would like to ask the Premier if he has any concerns that a

major gypsum operator might purchase Atlantic Gypsum in Corner Brook, and

because that Corner Brook plant represents competition, quickly close it down?

Generally, I would like to ask the Premier what he and the government are

prepared to do to see that the gypsum plant in Corner Brook is kept open and

operating and maintains its competitive position.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: If I am not greatly mistaken, if any

company purchased a gypsum plant to close it down, that might constitute an

offence under the competition act. I would have to check that out. I think that

is unwarranted interference with competition, and any company that did that may

well find itself on the receiving end of rather more trouble than it expected.

So I do not have a great concern that that is a problem.

I do have a great concern that I would like to see the gypsum

plant continue. The government wants to see that continue, continue to provide

the employment opportunities and the economic contribution that it makes. So

yes, we are endeavouring to do our best to act responsibly within proper bounds

to try and see what we can do to help ensure that the gypsum, and perhaps other

aspects of the Lundrigan operations, will continue.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is also

to the Premier. During the campaign of 1989 the Premier made some very elaborate

suggestions and promises with regards to post-secondary education in the

Province. I would like to make one quote from that manual: post-secondary

facilities will be expanded to allow more students in rural areas to participate

in career development without being penalized by high costs of accommodation and

transportation. To achieve this we will expand the curriculum of Grenfell

College in Corner Brook to include third and fourth-year courses so that in time

bachelor level degrees in the basic arts and science disciplines can be obtained

at Corner Brook and Grenfell can become a degree granting institution in its own

right.

Mr. Speaker, would the Premier now tell the House what his

government's plans are for Grenfell College in Corner Brook?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the government's plans remain

the same. That is still our dedicated purpose. In these difficult financial

times you cannot do everything you would like to do overnight. I should hasten

to add, Mr. Speaker, that here I am not blaming the former government solely.

They contributed significantly to our financial problems, but we are also facing

the difficulties of a national economic recession. We are facing the

difficulties of substantial cutbacks and actual reductions in transfers for

education and health purposes from the federal government, actual reductions in

dollars. So the government just can't simply do that which it desires to do

overnight.

It is still our dedicated purpose, Mr. Speaker, to ensure

that Grenfell College is developed and promoted so that third and fourth year

courses will be granted and, hopefully, in reasonable time it will become an

independent degree-granting institution. Mr. Speaker, we don't foresee that

happening overnight. We don't foresee coming to the House of Assembly and asking

suddenly for $30, $40 or $50 million, whatever it would take to achieve that

overnight. I see that as building over a period of time.

Mr. Speaker, I had the pleasure of attending the first

convocation held at Grenfell College when twenty-three graduates in fine arts

graduated this weekend, and it was good to see it happen, good to see that kind

of development take place, and it is good to see that kind of a focus build up

at Grenfell College. Now, Mr. Speaker, lest people think that twenty-three is

not very much compared with the main campus, I would remind hon. members that

the first convocation ceremonies of Memorial University of Newfoundland in 1950

graduated five, and look at what it has built to today. I have no doubt that in

due course Grenfell will build proportionately.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

The Premier didn't say in his campaign manual - if he had

enough money or if the federal government helps. It was an outright promise, Mr.

Speaker, in 1989.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, Grenfell College is now

experiencing some very serious short-term problems, especially when it comes to

lack of lab space, lack of library space and lack of classroom space and, Mr.

Speaker, trying to educate 1100 first and second year students in a space that

was built to accommodate 650 students.

I ask the Premier today: What are his plans now to address

the immediate short-term critical problems with regard to Grenfell College in

Corner Brook?

PREMIER WELLS: I will ask the Minister of Education to

provide the detailed information.

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

DR. WARREN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

These are difficult times in education, but we have been

moving ahead, Mr. Speaker, in the area of elementary and secondary education.

This government is putting together the first long-term capital plan in the

history of this Province, long-term to look at the needs over a period of time.

Very shortly, when the Royal Commission Report is released, we will move forward

with that initiative. We are doing the same thing in post-secondary education.

Mr. Speaker, it is not a matter of simply putting things on

hold. We are looking to the future. We have provided this year, for Memorial

University, an extra $2.5 million, $2 million to upgrade the buildings. They got

$4 million last year. We, this year, in these difficult times, provided $2.5

million extra, $2 million to upgrade and $500,000 for labs and libraries, for

labs in particular. We are going to do that with all the post-secondary

institutions in the Province, including Grenfell College.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary is also

to the Premier.

This administration has had three years and four budgets

brought in here, Mr. Speaker, and there is not one dollar in capital

construction for the Grenfell College of Corner Brook, I say to the minister and

the Premier, not one dollar.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WOODFORD: Now, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that

Grenfell College seems to be, so-called, lost in the shuffle when it comes to

funding through Memorial University here in St. John's, and because Grenfell is

located so far from Memorial University in St. John's, would the Premier

consider giving Grenfell College a separate budget, the same as is now being

done for the Marine Institute in St. John's and the medical school? Would he

consider that and act immediately on some of those programs?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am rising instead of the

minister because of the opening remarks by the hon. member opposite. We have had

three years and four Budgets. That is right - four Budgets.

The first Budget had to cope with their failure because they

let the whole year end go by and did not have the guts to bring in a Budget

because they could not meet it! That is what they did!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: At the end of May, when we came and saved

the people of this Province from the wreckage created by the former government,

we had to bring in a Budget three months later because they had failed to bring

in a Budget, because they could not cope with the responsibility. They did not

want to answer to the people before they called an election. They put their own

political interests ahead of the interests of the people. Yes, we brought in

that first Budget with no provision for Grenfell.

Then we brought in our next Budget. That was at the time, as

hon. members will remember, when the minister put forward his green paper, or

his white paper -

AN HON. MEMBER: White paper.

PREMIER WELLS: - white paper on education that dealt with

those issues. So there was nothing in really what was the first formal Budget of

this government, after taking care of the mess that the former government

created.

Then, in the next two Budgets, we had our restraint measures.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

PREMIER WELLS: We had our restraint measures in the next

two. Now how in heaven's name could a responsible government in those

circumstances provide for $20, $30, or $40 million capital for Grenfell College?

No responsible government could do it, and no responsible opposition could

suggest it should be done.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Humber Valley, time

for a short supplementary.

MR. WOODFORD: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, and

also to the Premier. It is nice to be able to see they can bounce back and

forth. It is obvious that we have a problem.

Could the Premier tell me this then. He was in long enough

before the first Throne Speech in 1989 to analyze and see what was there with

regard to public spending, with regard to the public treasury, and indeed there

was a surplus. Could the Premier now explain to the House why he again, not only

in the campaign manual but again in the Throne Speech of 1989, promised the same

thing - identical -as what he did in his campaign manual previous to taking over

the government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I just answered the question, but I would

remind hon. members that I believe we opened the session of the House so that we

could deal with the budgetary mess by the end of May - about the 27th or 25th of

May. I have forgotten when the Throne Speech was - maybe the 25th of May or

something. We were sworn in on the 5th of May - twenty days to bring together

the mess that they left, and try and make some sense of it. We did a pretty good

job in the first year, I would say, and we brought in then -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

PREMIER WELLS: There was not, in fact, a surplus. There

was, in fact, a deficit. It was a small one, but it was a deficit - a small

deficit of about $5 million or so, I think. It was a small deficit of about $5

million.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I would advise hon. members please to ensure that members

answering the question are given the courtesy of the House. I would ask the hon.

Premier to finish up very quickly, please.

PREMIER WELLS: Yes, I am pretty well finished now, Mr.

Speaker.

The answer to the question is essentially the same as the

last question because it is essentially the same question, but I assure all hon.

members that we will be here for a long time and we will have ample time to meet

those commitments.

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

MR. SPEAKER: Before moving on to routine business on

behalf of hon. members I would like to welcome to the Speaker's gallery today

two young ladies from Alberta, Terri Smith and Allison Lockwood who will be

bicycling across Canada speaking out on child sexual abuse. The two ladies are

accompanied by representative Mr. Horwood Guzzwell, first vice-president of the

Kiwanis Club of St. John's and Julianne Le Graff public relations person for the

Break the Cycle Foundation.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

A matter related to your welcome to the Speaker's gallery for

those people here, I would like to ask members if they would be so kind as to

provide unanimous consent of the House to pass the following resolution:

BE IT

RESOLVED that members of the House of Assembly unanimously endorse and support

the efforts of the Break the Cycle Foundation to raise public awareness

regarding child sexual abuse.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. MATTHEWS: I have spoken with the Government House

Leader about this and we would certainly like to go on record with the

resolution from all members. As the Speaker so rightly pointed out we have the

two women in the gallery who are going to bicycle across the country to speak

and raise public awareness about this ever increasing problem. As well we have

the representative of the St. John's Kiwanis Club and there are also

representatives of another sponsoring club in the gallery, that of the Kiwanis

Club of Grenfell. I would like to move that resolution and ask members if they

would be so kind as to pass it unanimously.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, we would agree to forego the normal process of such a

resolution and give consent of the members on this side of the House to passing

that unanimously now. It is a need in our society all across Canada and we are

pleased there is such interest in the trek across the country to make the point

of child sexual abuse. That cycle of abuse has to be broken so we would give

unanimous consent.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have no hesitation in rising to support unanimously the

resolution presented by the Opposition House Leader. I had the pleasure of

meeting the two women who will be undertaking this task of riding across the

country and to in fact ride with them on Sunday from city hall to Bowring Park

in their pre-takeoff trial run on Mother's Day Sunday afternoon. It is, of

course, a resolution that we all have great concern about, and to pass a

resolution in this House, I think, will underline our commitment to raising

awareness and concern about the issue, and also assist in kindling our concern

to take whatever legislative measures might be necessary in the near future to

assist with this problem and the reporting thereof.

MR. SPEAKER: I take there is unanimous consent with this

resolution. Agreed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to table the annual report of the Pippy Park

Commission.

Notices of Motion

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow ask leave to introduce a bill entitled, "An Act To Amend The Human

Rights Code, 1988."

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I did not give notice that I was

going to do this but I would like to request time to give an answer to a

question that was asked earlier today in Question Period. I just got an answer

for it and it has to do with an incident that happened last night.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the minister have consent to answer a

question?

AN HON. MEMBER: Agreed.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, there was an incident around 9

p.m. at the St. John's Centre, last night, not at the Pleasantville Centre. It

seemed as if several residents tipped over tables and chairs, started breaking

up chairs, using pool cues and so on to threaten staff. It was an attempt to

incite other residents to join in a general riot, or an uprising. There were

twenty-two residents in the centre at the time. There were four individuals

associated with this particular incident. It seemed like it was a copycat

incident from the one the previous evening.

Mr. Speaker, because of the expectation or the fear of a

copycat incident of the one at the remand centre the previous night, there were

several extra staff already there and the staff handled the incident before the

RNC, the one car arrived at the scene. I believe a couple of the staff did

receive some blows from pool cues and so on, but the four young men were

handcuffed and taken care of by the staff so, Mr. Speaker, that is a general

summary of the incident for which the member asked.

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I have here the answer

to the question asked by the hon. Member for Grand Falls, the hon. the Leader of

the Opposition, when he asked me, a while back now, on the current status of the

Greenwood Hydro Electric Development proposed by Abitibi, I will table that and

he can look at it at his convenience and if he has any further questions,

certainly do not hesitate to call me or ask me in the House or whatever.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 6, Mr. Speaker, a first reading.

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

introduce a bill entitled "

An Act To Amend The Provincial Parks Act". (Bill No.

23).

On motion, Bill No. 23 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Motion 7, Mr. Speaker.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy to

introduce a bill entitled "

An Act To Amend The Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic

Accord Implementation (Newfoundland) Act". (Bill No. 24).

On motion, Bill No. 24 read a first time, ordered read a

second time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Order 3, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Pardon?

MR. BAKER: Order 3.

Motion, second reading of a bill, "An Act Respecting

Elections, Controverted Elections And Election Financing." (Bill No. 1).

MR. SPEAKER: Before recognizing the hon. Member for

Kilbride, it has been brought to my attention that, I do not know whether they

have arrived or not but I have been told in the public galleries, at about this

time, there should be ten members from Kiwanis of the Grenfell Club. If they are

here, please extend a cordial welcome to them.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I should point out to hon. members that

there was a bit of an irregularity yesterday with the second reading of this

bill. We are now operating by leave of the House and the Member for Kilbride had

adjourned the debate.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

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

have a couple of minutes to continue but before I do speak on this bill, I have

a special welcome to the House of Assembly. One of the members of Grenfell, a

former teacher of mine, Mr. Sexton, and I am very pleased to see him in the

gallery. He had a tough time trying to get me through school, but he was a fine

example of a good teacher and what teachers should be and I have always admired

him and I am glad to see him here today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.

MR. TOBIN: He has more hair than you.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Pardon?

MR. TOBIN: He has more hair than you too.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Yes, he has more hair than I have and he

looks younger than I do so maybe -

MR. SIMMS: What is his name?

MR. R. AYLWARD: Chuck Sexton we called him. Mr. Charles

Sexton is his name.

Anyway, Mr. Speaker, in the couple of minutes that I have, I

just want to say to the Government House Leader that the report presented by our

Elections and Privileges Committee should be accepted by the government. There

are very good recommendations coming from that committee. I think the way this

committee worked on the Elections Act, which is good legislation anyway, is a

fine example of how the committee system should work in this House of Assembly.

We worked hard, we had differences when we started, and we found compromises to

make our committee recommendations work.

I just want to say that it was a pleasure working with the

members of that committee, and there was one other committee that I worked on

since this session of the House started that was also just as pleasurable but we

didn't accomplish as much because the recommendations that we made weren't

accepted by the government at the time. I found that to be unfortunate because

we made all of our recommendations in good faith.

I just want to say to the government in this instance that

the recommendations are made in good faith. I think they are good

recommendations. I would hope that the Government House Leader, when he

concludes the debate in a few moments, or maybe in a half hour I hope, that he

will give us an indication of how many of these recommendations the government

will consider so that when we go to the committee stage of this bill we can be

prepared to debate, support, or not support some of the things that the

government wants to do.

Mr. Speaker, if we have an indication that some of them are

not going to be accepted, I would certainly be willing to move the proper

amendments to have some of our committee report recommendations accepted. I am

sure the committee members on that side of the House will support it because we

didn't make any of these decisions lightly. We gave them all a lot of

consideration. We took into consideration the possibility, I guess, of ease for

the people of the Province to be able to vote. That was our main concern. We had

a concern about expenses. We had concerns about different areas of the Province.

weren't as fortunate as the rest of us.

But our recommendations are made in good faith, Mr. Speaker,

and I hope that they will be accepted by government. Even though I say this

Elections Act is good legislation anyway, it is time for reform for our

Elections Act. It is time for all members of this House of Assembly to be

accountable, especially financially accountable to people who are giving

donations during elections. It should be full disclosure, and that is generally

one of the reasons why I support this act. I think I was the only member of the

House of Assembly during the last election who did give full disclosure of all

monies collected and all monies spent.

The Member for St. John's South says no. Mr. Speaker, he is

not correct because I am the only member of the House of Assembly who did that.

There was one other member who ran in the election who did it. He was a former

judge and ran in Mount Pearl. Mr. Speaker, he was defeated. I believe in that

method. I believe we should all have been doing it voluntarily, but maybe for

some reasons some people might have given to members of this House of Assembly

and requested that it would not be made public. I don't know why they would.

Certainly, I would not accept that money if somebody said that to me.

Mr. Speaker, that is why this legislation is good, it can be

made better if the recommendations of our committee can be included in the act

before we pass it through second reading. With those few words, Mr. Speaker,

thank you very much.

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

the President of Treasury Board speaks now he closes the debate.

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

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

point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As Your Honour knows,

yesterday when the debate resumed, the Member for Eagle River spoke until it was

discovered that it was not proper for him to speak. All hon. members, including

myself, in order to accommodate the Chair of the committee which reported to the

House to hear what he had to say permitted him to speak, and after that all hon.

members permitted the Member for Kilbride to speak.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is only appropriate that hon. members

be asked to give leave to me to speak on behalf of my party on this piece of

legislation which is generally supported by all parties on the principle of

fairness and balance.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, to the point of order. He is only

going to speak for - he is not going to speak forever. He might speak for ten or

fifteen minutes maximum, maybe. In view of the fact that it is important to have

all party support for this legislation - I remember when it was first

introduced, last - when was it? Fall or the spring or sometime. The Premier and

I both spoke to it, and then - that was last fall, actually. We talked then

about the necessity to have all party support for the initiative.

So in keeping in line with that, and in view of the fact that

we have precedent by giving the Member for Eagle River I understand yesterday

some leave, and my colleague for Kilbride leave, then I think in all fairness -

I know how much the government likes to beat up on the NDP and the Member for

St. John's East. But I think on this occasion the Government House Leader should

show the generosity of spirit that he often shows in trying to cooperate.

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition as

usual has it all confused. It was introduced in a previous session of the House.

I believe that the Premier spoke to it, the Leader of the Opposition spoke, and

I believe the Member for St. John's East spoke to it at the same time. So he has

had one opportunity to speak to the Bill. Then, because the Bill died on the

order paper, it was reintroduced, this time again -

AN HON. MEMBER: A new bill.

MR. BAKER: - just wanted to straighten this out,

reintroduced as a new bill. The same Bill with a different number. Exactly the

same with a different number. Mr. Speaker, I introduced the Bill and we had some

debate, and the Member for St. John's East also had opportunity during those

couple of days debate, whenever it was, to speak. I guess he probably was absent

from the House that day and that is how come I got up and closed debate.

So there was ample opportunity, but at the same time, if the

Member for St. John's East wants to take a bit of time and talk about the Bill

again, Mr. Speaker, I am not going to stop him. So we would give leave.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess I have to

remind the President of Treasury Board, of course he knows that it is not proper

to comment on the presence or absence of a member from the House, particularly

when he does not know whether what he is saying is true or not. I think if he

checks he will find out that he was not correct at all.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I could be more gracious, Mr. Speaker, if the

President of Treasury Board was more gracious in his unanimous consent that he

personally was offering, despite some of the backbenchers shaking their heads.

I would like to make some comments on this legislation at

this stage of the proceedings. It is a piece of legislation of great importance

to the Legislature and people of this Province because for the first time there

will be -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Because, Mr. Speaker, this legislation will

for the first time ensure that the electoral process will not be decided in the

back rooms of the Liberal, PC or any other party. But the electoral process -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, when I was granted leave I was

not granted leave on the basis I was going to be kind to the Minister of

Forestry and Agriculture. I do not intend to give him any more credit than he is

due. So I will go on to say that this legislation will prevent some of the

excesses that have gone on in the name of democracy in this Province over the

last number of years particularly, since Confederation began our new, modern era

of democracy in Newfoundland.

I see that the Committee has come forward with a number of

very constructive proposals for change. I think in

part it is a test of the

government's sincerity with respect to the committee system, and perhaps the

esteem in which it holds the Member for Eagle River, as to whether or not these

recommendations might be considered worthy of implementation by the government.

So we will see when the time comes whether or not the government has any respect

for the work of its committees and for the chair of this Committee, who has, I

have to say, worked hard on this project. He had a number of meetings and, as is

annotated in the report, received a number of submissions.

I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, there are a few things that they

haven't fully considered and perhaps would be prepared to consider in the House

when the time comes. There are some problems still with the disabled people

having total access to the electoral process and the voting process. I say, Mr.

Speaker, at least one of the recommendations of the Canadian Paraplegic

Association with respect to electoral expenses has been included. I think it is

quite favourable that the committee would report suggesting that there ought to

be an increase in the rebate for the expenses incurred by a disabled candidate,

to increase their reimbursement to 70 per cent from 33 and 1/3 per cent. I think

that is quite commendable and in keeping with the recommendations of the

Canadian Paraplegic Association.

However, they didn't see fit, Mr. Speaker, to include an

increase in the expenditure limits for disabled persons who may have greater

expenses when pursuing an election. Whether it be a disabled person who is

unable, by virtue of physical disability, to travel with the same ease as a

person who is not so disabled, special transportation facilities and special

costs associated with that, or perhaps a candidate who is deaf, doesn't have the

ability to hear and speak. There may be an additional expense associated with

that, Mr. Speaker, the hiring and paying for a translator who might have to go

from door to door and travel with the candidate.

In the provincial House of Ontario, Mr. Speaker, there sits

now a person who was elected in the last election who is unable to hear. This

person was elected, Mr. Speaker, in the last provincial election of Ontario and,

for the first time in all Canada, there sits in a provincial legislature, a

federal legislature, a person who is deaf and who has the proceedings of the

House translated simultaneously into American sign language.

So, Mr. Speaker, the committee could easily have adopted that

recommendation of the Canadian Paraplegic Association and provided for an

increased expenditure limit for those disabled persons who would have, by reason

of their disability, an increase in cost in conducting a campaign. That would be

very simple and straightforward, Mr. Speaker, and I would ask that that be given

consideration by the House when it reaches the next stage.

There are, Mr. Speaker, a number of matters that are still

unsatisfactory to me and my party in connection with the equality that is

assumed in the legislation between corporations and trade unions. Mr. Speaker,

anybody who knows anything about how a corporation is formed knows that it is a

quite simple matter now to have a set of documents prepared, and forms filled

out and filed at the Registry of Companies to create a legal corporation which

has all the rights and privileges of an actual person. Under this act, Mr.

Speaker, this corporation would, therefore, then be able to donate the sum of

$10,000 to any political campaign during a year. Now, Mr. Speaker, by the simple

act of incorporation, that sets loose this privilege under the new elections act

that is before us.

The trade union, on the other hand, Mr. Speaker, is a

collection of individuals who collect together for the purpose of engaging in

collective bargaining and furthering the interests of members in a democratic

way, and these democratic organizations, Mr. Speaker, are also given the same

expenditure limit of $10,000 under the legislation.

Mr. Speaker, there is no equality between a corporation which

may, in fact, be just an individual who has incorporated himself or herself to

conduct business, and a trade union which might have ten or fifteen or twenty or

thirty thousand members. That, Mr. Speaker, would be only fair.

Now, I don't have any difficulty - and the Member for St.

John's South nods his head in agreement, knowing that I have no difficulty

whatsoever in the disclosure rules which require that any organization, whether

it be a trade union or a sports organization, a business organization, a

business corporation, that is going to give money to a campaign, that there be

public disclosure, because one of the basic principles of proper election

legislation is to allow the public to know and understand fully what is going on

in the electoral process.

I have no difficulty with that, but I do have a difficulty,

Mr. Speaker, in saying that there is some equality between a democratic trade

union, which might have 500, 1,000, or 10,000 members and a business corporation

because it happens to be incorporated. I think the Member for St. John's South

would have to agree, because if he decides that he wants to go into business,

and goes to the registry of corporations down in the basement of this building,

fills out some forms, pays his $250, and becomes a business corporation to

conduct business, that automatically entitles this person to give $10,000 to a

candidate. That is just not fair. There is no equality, Mr. Speaker. I think

that ought to be considered and looked at. It is not right, Mr. Speaker, to see

that happen.

One other aspect of that, I suppose, Mr. Speaker, is that the

decision-making of a business corporation is usually left in the hands of the

Chief Executive Officer. That individual doesn't often consult the shareholders

in these corporations before going ahead and engaging in the kinds of donations

that are made here,

whereas for the trade unions, it is usually a decision that

is made at a meeting of the trade union members, a democratic decision as to

what to do with the dues that they may have collected or other funds that they

may have raised for these purposes.

So, Mr. Speaker, there is difficulty there that I don't think

the Committee have resolved. It is unfortunate they haven't, although they have

addressed a number of other points which I hope the government accept, because

most of these recommendations are quite agreeable. Some of them, of course, are

correcting some of the errors that have crept into the legislation. It is a

large and complex piece of legislation and it is not surprising that there would

be such difficulties.

I agree, Mr. Speaker, with the committee's recommendation

that a special ballot be introduced. The proxy voting system, as the Member for

Eagle River has said, and as others have mentioned to the Committee - including

myself, as I did have an opportunity to sit at a couple of meetings of the

Committee to hear representations and offer some comments - that the proxy

voting system would prove to be detrimental in that it would deprive an

individual of the freedom or the confidentiality of a vote, and also the private

individual of the certainty as to what the proxy might or might not do on their

behalf. It could also lead to other problems, Mr. Speaker, particularly

administrative problems in getting together and meeting the regulations that

were set forth in the act, of having to have advance notice of a proxy vote,

forms to be filled out well in advance of the election, making it difficult for

people who are not in their home ridings during an election to actually vote.

So the notion of a special ballot, I think, is a very useful

one. I think perhaps it is unfortunate that the Committee didn't put together a

model clause for the bill so that it could be easily adopted in the Legislature.

I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that the government have taken the recommendations of

the Committee under advisement and have gone so far as to seek proper and

appropriate wording for such an amendment to provide for a special ballot,

because if that is not done it is going to be very difficult to draft such an

amendment on the floor of the House.

I assume that the government have already taken under

advisement these recommendations, and the provision for a special ballot has

already been drafted in the form of an amendment to be presented to the House.

Some of the other more technical amendments are easy to be done and drafted in

the form of amendments for acceptance. Perhaps the Government House Leader will

present the House with a list of amendments very shortly so that we can have a

look at what amendments the government are going to be introducing and what

amendments individual members may have themselves devised for the purpose of

bringing into effect the amendments that are here, or some of the others.

I think it is less a government bill than most legislation.

It is a piece of legislation that really, all parties have an interest in having

properly thought through, and any amendments that are designed are for the

betterment of the legislation and not for the particular advantage of any

individual party. All members have an interest in seeing that this legislation

is as good as it can be.

There is another concern that I think ought to be considered

by members. I would invite hon. members to have a look at Clause 26 of the bill,

which are the rules to determine whether or not an individual is ordinarily

resident. The following rules are set out, and there is a list of seven or eight

rules. I would say that this is extraordinarily complex and has the effect of

giving a great degree of discretion to an individual on voting day, which would

be the

interpretation of this rule, would end up being determined by the Chief

Electoral Officer's agent, or the deputy returning officer in each polling

station, or rather in each constituency, on election day, usually, whether or

not a person can vote. At that time, of course, it is often very difficult to

obtain any proper rulings or have any sensible opportunity to debate, or change

the mind of somebody, and people who ought to be entitled to vote will not get

the opportunity to do so.

The legislation, as was before the House, has another flaw

which was pointed out to the Committee, in particular by the Newfoundland

Federation of Labour. It was a concern that the legislation prevents the

Newfoundland Federation of Labour from participating in financially supporting

candidates or parties in the election by virtue of the way that the definition

of trade union is crafted in the legislation. There was a debate at one time,

led by the Member for Kilbride, on the basis that it appeared that it was

intended to exclude only them.

It was explained to the Committee by the President of the

Federation of Labour that it is part of the tradition of the Federation of

Labour, and a number of unions in the Federation of Labour, that they play their

political role through the Federation of Labour; that the Federation of Labour

is a labour central of some 44,000 members; that they have a political action

committee; that they have various resolutions passed at their convention,

democratically passed, where they make decisions about what they are going to do

in terms of their political support. The legislation prevents them from

following through on those democratic decisions with respect to what they might

do with their funds, or what they might do with their political action

committees and their political action resolutions. So that is unfair.

It is unfair that, on one hand, you can have a

democratically-elected body like the Federation of Labour, through their elected

officers, make decisions about political participation and that not be allowed

because of this legislation and, on the other hand, private corporations who do

not go to their shareholders for decisions of that nature can make decisions and

donations based on a mere decision of a board of directors.

I find that to be odious, particularly, Mr. Speaker, in the

circumstances where the Federation of Labour has indicated, which it has every

right to do, it intends to become active in persuading its members across the

Province to oppose the policies of this government and to make an electoral

response to that by seeking to persuade candidates for election to follow

policies which do not support government's approach to collective bargaining.

Although the legislation, itself, may not have been drafted for this particular

purpose it has the effect, Mr. Speaker, of preventing active involvement in the

electoral process by the Federation of Labour. It is wrong, Mr. Speaker, and it

ought to be changed.

However, this is the second reading of the legislation and I

have to reiterate what I said in the speech that I made when this was first

introduced as Bill 55 in December of last year, in the previous sitting, that we

do support this legislation in principle. It is a long-awaited piece of

legislation that we, as a New Democratic Party have campaigned to see put in

place. We have insisted, that this government and the previous government get on

with the passage of new election legislation. We see very comprehensive

legislation before us and I have to say that, in principle, our party supports

this legislation and would like to see it put into effect, together with the

changes that have been recommended by the Committee, and others which may be

presented by members during third reading of this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

If the President of Treasury Board speaks now, he closes the

debate.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I don't intend to spend a lot of time. Both members opposite

indicated that they would like some kind of definitive statement with regards to

the amendments that we are prepared to accept to this bill. I cannot make any

definitive statement at this time. The amendments will be done when we get to

the Committee stage. At the beginning of that exercise, Mr. Speaker, I will

inform everybody as to what types of amendments we would vote for and would

support from that recommendation. At this point in time, I can't make any

comment on it at all because we have not had a detailed discussion about this in

Cabinet. This is a Cabinet decision, I suppose, or a caucus decision, and we

haven't had a discussion in caucus either. That will be done very shortly and by

the time we get to Committee stage of the bill, we will know.

I just want to reiterate, Mr. Speaker, once again, that we

are very proud of this particular piece of legislation. It is something that was

long overdue in the Province. The federal government, for a long time, have had

their Election Expenses Act in. We have seen the system operate with the federal

government. We have been part of the operation and we know the problems that

arise from the federal Election Expenses Act but we also know the benefits that

are contained in such

an act. We believe we have put together

an act here that

goes beyond the federal Election Expenses Act and is, in fact, a much better

piece of legislation. Again, I would like to point out that this is a good

Liberal piece of legislation. It was developed by the Liberal Party. It was

developed by the Liberal caucus and the Liberal Cabinet with input from all

parts of the Liberal Party, and now it was put out to a Committee of this House

to get input from the politicians on both sides of the House. We will take that

input, Mr. Speaker, and let the hon. House know what we are going to do with

that input a little later on.

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say that I am very, very

proud to move second reading of Bill 1, "An Act Respecting Elections,

Controverted Elections And Election Financing."

On motion, a bill, "An Act Respecting Elections, Controverted

Elections And Election Financing," read a second time, ordered referred to a

Committee of the Whole House on tomorrow. (Bill No. 1).

MR. BAKER: Order 2, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order 2, Bill No. 17.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN (L. Snow): Order, please!

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, I first of all want to see if we

have agreement here in terms of the process that we are now going through. Do we

have consent to have, like, ten minutes each back and forth as we normally do in

Committee stage, or are we going to go the full twenty each back and forth, or

what? We found it more expedient in the past to have, where possible, ten-minute

exchanges back and forth. Do we have agreement on that?

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

West.

MR. TOBIN: So you are not restricting anyone to ten

minutes. If we want to speak back and forth, we can. Okay, sure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is not clear now on what we have

agreed on here.

MR. BAKER: I think we had better be fairly specific.

Because if the hon. member wants to make it, continue on with twenty minutes,

and then not take advantage of the full twenty minutes if you don't feel like

it, then that's fine. I don't mind. I just want to get the ground rules

straight.

MR. TOBIN: We have no problem with the ten minutes, as

long as the same speaker can speak again after someone responds.

MR. BAKER: Yes, absolutely.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Is that the understanding that the members

have? Fifteen-fifteen, and then ten-ten, or just ten-ten straight through?

MR. BAKER: It doesn't matter. Ten and ten.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 1?

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

AN HON. MEMBER: Another attack, another vicious attack!

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Chairman, I want to take

part in this

debate again. I have spoken on the bill and on the amendment put forth. As we

expected, the champion of labour in the Province stood in his place and attacked

the people he is supposed to represent. But coming from that particular

minister, it is nothing unusual to see that he would do that kind of thing,

resort to these tactics. I accused the minister earlier of being derelict in his

duties in representing labour in this Province, and I have to say the same thing

again.

Because the minister, after championing the cause of labour

for a number of years, as a former president of a public sector union in this

Province, turns his back on them and does what he can to get rid of collective

bargaining in the public sector unions of this Province. So, yes, the Minister

of Labour is right, we have no choice but to level accusations that he has been

less than forthright and honest in his dealings with the labour movement in this

Province.

Now, as I indicated earlier, on two occasions I have spoken

on this bill -

AN HON. MEMBER: Your time is up.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Chairman, I will let the minister know

the time will not be up. Perhaps school will be out and we will have the chance

to have 7,000 of his former colleagues to be in here asking for the minister's

head on a platter before this is over. No, the time is not up, and if the

minister continues to goad me, then I might stay up a lot longer than he

expects. In this round I only had anticipated going for fifteen or twenty

minutes, but if he keeps it up I will certainly go on longer.

Now, what this bill is all about, and we noticed yesterday,

the minister and the Minister of Education - no, the Minister of Education

wasn't here. But the minister stood in place and voted against free collective

bargaining for public sector unions in this Province, and that is what this

piece of legislation is all about. Mr. Chairman, since yesterday an interesting

piece of correspondence has come to light, one that the President of Treasury

Board wrote to the President of the NTA on May 5. Mr. Chairman, it must be

awfully uncomfortable out there for the Minister of Labour and the President of

Treasury Board, as he goes around the Province, to engage in the kind of debate

that he does.

Mr. Chairman, he says in his final paragraph, "Teachers,

however, tell me that the NTA says that we have twice broken your collective

agreement. Would you please clarify this misunderstanding so that the teachers

can make whatever decisions they will have to make with the advantage of sound

and proper information." Now, Mr. Chairman, what hypocrisy! Of all people, the

President of Treasury Board to be sending out to a union telling them how to run

their affairs, the same minister who presided over the taking away of collective

bargaining in this Province.

For that particular group that he addressed, it has been a

long, hard fight for teachers to have the rights to free and collective

bargaining in this Province. Mr. Chairman, with one stroke of the pen that has

been taken away from them, the right of public sector unions to negotiate.

Now, Mr. Chairman, what the President of Treasury Board and

the Minister of Labour have done on several occasions in this Legislature is to

say to the public sector unions: We haven't frozen your wages. Mr. Chairman,

they say: We haven't frozen your wages. All we have frozen is the total

compensation package. The total compensation package will stand at zero and, if

there are other things in your contract you want to negotiate, then we are quite

willing to do so if it doesn't cost a dollar. One dollar more, Mr. Chairman, and

we cannot entertain it.

The question I have put to the minister - and I will ask the

minister again today. I have to get the minister's attention. He is not

listening. I want the minister, when he takes

part in this debate in a few

minutes, to tell this House what provisions of existing contracts he wants

stripped, what ones he wants taken away from the unions so that their total

compensation package could increase. Now, Mr. Chairman, that is going to be

quite interesting when the minister resumes the debate in this House and tells

us which ones, what elements of the existing contract, the government would like

to see stripped - because that is what they like to see - so that a monetary

arrangement of some kind can be made.

Now, Mr. Chairman, with respect to this latest letter: When

the President of the NTA responded - and some dates are quite interesting, Mr.

Chairman. For Bill 16, government, through the services of a conciliation

officer and a conciliation board eventually agreed on a salary scale. The

President of Treasury Board, as late as February 8, 1991, signed off that

particular agreement saying that the negotiated increases for the NTA would be

at 3-3,4-3, and 4-4. Mr. Speaker, that was on February 8. I think it was on

March 7 the minister announced that there would be none, there would be no

benefits for the period from April 1, I think it was, to March 31, 1992. Now,

Mr. Chairman, that was only a period of thirty days.

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, the minister, after entering into

this contract, saying that we are going to submit to conciliation, knew at that

point in time, thirty days before, that he would not live up to the contract

that he had put his signature to. Now, Mr. Chairman, that was the second

example, since the minister on February 8, 1991 signed his name that he would

ratify or agree to the amounts that had been negotiated by the conciliation

board. That was on February 8. On March 7, less than thirty days - and the

budget didn't get prepared that fast. It takes a week or so according to how

long it takes other things to get released in education. It certainly takes

longer than that for a budget to get printed. So the minister knew then, on

February 8, and then shortly after he is told, shortly before the meeting of

1991: our executive director and myself were requested to meet with the Premier

and yourself and we were told that government has decided it must recover a

significant amount of money from public sector workers. The form of that

recovery was not specified, and, Mr. Chairman, the reason that the NTA had to

get included, was that they could not do it through layoffs, it could not be

done through layoffs to effect the savings that he wanted, because of the 2 per

cent savings clause that existed in the contract already, so he could not lay

off the hundreds that he might have wanted to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: - well he changed the legislation again to

break the contract again -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: - oh yes, you could strip the contract even

further, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is right. He wants to

strip the contract even further and I suspect he had that in mind this time,

that he might do away with the 2 per cent savings clause because that is how he

will be known. I won't say what it will be, but not Roger the Dodger, he will

have another name, Mr. Chairman, because this minister is quite willing to go

along with his colleagues, he has abandoned the people whom, he for a number of

years supported and they trusted this minister.

I can remember when the minister was first elected, just

prior to his becoming the assistant to the Premier, the minister was on radio in

central Newfoundland and they asked him what he expected to get, and he expected

he said, a significant Cabinet portfolio. Mr. Chairman, the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations, now present, yes, Mr. Chairman, he expected it

then and I suspect that teachers were hoping that he would get the Minister of

Employment and Labour or perhaps the Minister of Education. I suspect that at

the time, because he was such a champion for their cause, that he would never

see their rights being trampled upon but, Mr. Chairman, a Jekyll became a Hyde

for sure, because it did not take that minister very long. I think maybe the

little bit of training he had in the Premier's office made that minister forget

all that he knew about collective bargaining in the civil service -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: No, the time is not up and if the ten minutes

is up I will be ready to get up again, Mr. Chairman. I am certainly not giving

up my seat yet because I have not started at the minister yet and if he keeps

interrupting, I will have to go on for two or three hours.

Mr. Chairman, March 7th, became the infamous day in the

collective bargaining in this Province and I see the President of Treasury

Board, the other co-conspirator with the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations, in taking away the rights of the public service -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. WINSOR: Ten minutes already?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this debate in

committee on Bill 17. I have always been a little bit interested when the

opposition critic for Employment and Labour Relations stands and speaks of his

view of labour relations and negotiations and how things should work and so on,

because it continues to amaze me that he is the critic for this type of

portfolio and every time he speaks in debate he exhibits more and more a lack of

understand of how negotiations or labour relations or anything else really

works. He just continues to talk in a very narrow frame of using three or four

little buzz phrases that he has picked up over a couple of years and I am not

even sure that he understands exactly what they mean, so I just want to take a

few minutes this time in the debate to reference two or three items that the

hon. member brought up in his first ten minutes because I am certainly hoping

that he will rise again and continue on in debate in committee on this bill.

To correct some of the things that had been stated before,

they have been corrected in this House before but for some reason he continues

to bring them up as if they are in some way true or as if in some way they have

merit, when it has been explained fully and completely so that anybody and

everybody would understand the difference, but I guess when you choose not to

listen, there is not much anybody else can do, and the first one I would like to

address just very briefly, is right back to the comment he made about following

the election in 1989, that myself as the member for Exploits had been

interviewed in central Newfoundland and asked what the expectation was, and that

I had stated that I expected a significant senior Cabinet portfolio. The only

reason I can understand, Mr. Chairman, why the hon. member repeated that is

because I guess he is a bit of a parrot for the gentleman who is now the

Opposition House Leader or the Leader of the Opposition I should say. He used to

be the Opposition House Leader. He was much better at that job than the one he

is doing now. He was pretty good as an Opposition House Leader, but he is

struggling along as Leader of the Opposition.

I suppose I could repeat the story about how he didn't want

the job. You can understand a man struggling in a job he doesn't want, when you

don't want it and you are going home checking with your son every day to see if

you are doing okay. In most families, Mr. Chairman, the sons and daughters come

home at the end of the day or once in a while and they check with their parents

and say: Am I doing okay, Dad? Am I doing okay, Mom? But with the Leader of the

Opposition it is the exact opposite. So the father goes home and says: Am I

doing okay, son? How are we doing today? How are we making out? Do you think I

should stay on as Leader of the Opposition? What do you think? Or should we give

it up and put it to another vote?

The big problem he has is that he can't give it up and put it

to another vote because nobody over there wants it. I mean it is awful to feel

that kind of frustration in your life when you are absolutely, positively stuck.

AN HON. MEMBER: Neil wants it. No, Lynn wants it.

MR. GRIMES: I mean there is absolutely no doubt that the

man would give the job away if he could give it away, but he can't give it away.

Because the hon. Member for Grand Falls, when he was in his role as the

Opposition House Leader, got up and made a statement which was corrected in the

House, that I had said I expected a significant senior Cabinet appointment after

the election of 1989, and was corrected to say that, had the hon. member been

actually listening to the news he would have heard exactly what was said. That

question was asked: what did I expect? The answer was clearly given, and I will

give it again in case you didn't hear it the last time. We can even get the

tapes from the radio station, and maybe even from 'The Advertiser' which is the

local paper saying that I, just like all other members elected on the

government's side of the House, was ready and willing to serve in any capacity

for which I might be invited or asked by the leader of the party and the Premier

of the day. That is the case, and I have been proud to do so ever since.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: To make sure, Mr. Chairman, it is hard to

understand why people would get up and continue to say something that has no

basis in fact when they have already been notified of the difference. They can

verify the difference of it for themselves if they choose to do so, but I guess

at times they don't have anything else to say so they say stuff like that.

The other thing in relation to Bill 17, Mr. Chairman, the

hon. Member for Fogo keeps referring to -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. GRIMES: I was hoping you would bring them up again

because in his remarks in the first ten minutes, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member

talked again and used the phrase 'contract stripping'. I would suggest that the

only reason he uses the phrase is because when he was a member of the NTA and I

was involved with the negotiating team for the NTA, we unfortunately had to

travel around the Province, all throughout Newfoundland and Labrador and advise

teacher members like the hon. Member for Fogo that the government of the day,

the then Progressive Conservative administration, was at the bargaining table

not only asking, but absolutely insisting from teachers that certain provisions

in their contract must be removed.

This was a direct request from the government negotiators

supported by the Department of Education, Treasury Board, the school trustees

and so on in the bargaining process. We had no choice but to go to the teacher

members and say: You people need to know that your employers, the people who

sign your cheques and hire you, are insisting that you give up certain of your

rights and benefits in the contract. The phrase for that, when the employer

comes along and wants to take benefits from the employees in a contract, that is

referred to as contract stripping. That was explained to the hon. Member for

Fogo because he was there sitting in the audience, jaw agape, ears opened,

amazed that he would hear such news -- absolutely amazed.

Now contract stripping in that context is something which is

initiated by the employer going in and trying to take something. In Bill 17 it

has been explained to everybody in the Province that if the employees -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

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

order.

MR. TOBIN: Mr. Chairman, the hon. minister is making

reference to Bill 17 and contract stripping and the whole shebang.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: I am not asleep! I can (inaudible) -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

Would the hon. member get to his point of order?

MR. TOBIN: The hon. minister has not been relative to the

debate. He moved into Bill 17, contract stripping, which had absolutely nothing

to do with the bill that is before the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There is no point of order.

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The fact again that hon. members would rise on a point of

order - it is no wonder that they still do not understand the concept of

contract stripping, because they did not listen the last time I explained it to

them. They did not read Hansard. They are not listening today. They have some

notion that there is a little buzz phrase out there that is supposed to get

people upset and disturbed because it is not nice. Contract stripping is not

nice, but there is absolutely nothing in Bill 17 that indicates or shows that

the government, the employer, wants the employees to do anything. We are saying

there is an opportunity, if the employees or their representatives want, of

their own volition and by their choice completely, to approach the government

and say: Our people want money more than anything else in this world and you

people have said that there is a zero compensation package in place this year.

But if you want actual take-home pay, then all you have to do is come to the

government, point out to the government items in your contract that also cost

money other than salary, and if you wish to trade those, you can take home pay.

That is completely different, totally removed, and not even related and should

not be mentioned in the same breath as contract stripping.

It is obvious and clear again that the members opposite have

no understanding whatsoever of what is in Bill 17, what is available to the

different bargaining units in the Province at the present time. It is clear that

they have no real understanding of what contract stripping is. They support a

party that, when it was in power, was always trying to strip contracts. They

made it a way of life. They made life miserable for all the bargaining units in

Newfoundland and Labrador. None of that is contemplated in Bill 17, and it

should be clear that they should acknowledge the difference.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to an

opportunity to continue (inaudible).

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

MR. WINSOR: The defence of the indefensible.

Now the former President of the NTA, the Minister of Labour,

talks about what government did. I have to ask the minister: Does the minister

not realize that in order to get the present contract that teachers have, that

they already gave? That they already traded off a number of concessions so they

could have the level that they have now? Does the minister remember that? All

the goings on back and forth when NTA gave up certain things to get what they

have? Gave up benefits and everything else?

Oh, no they have not done that over the years. The NTA did

not make any trade-offs or anything like that over the past number of years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Yes, trade-offs. All kinds of things have

been traded off in contracts and now he wants them to give more. The minister is

starting to sound something like -

MR. GRIMES: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WINSOR: A point of nonsense. Watch, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: On a point of order, again I am trying to

make clear and sure in the debate on this bill that all hon. members understand,

as I have been saying, that the government does not want anybody to give up

anything. We are saying there is an opportunity for people to take home money in

their pockets if they wish. The government does not want anybody to give up

anything, but if they would like to demonstrate that they have things that they

would like to trade for take-home pay, that is possible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

There is no point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: There is no point of order, as I expected. A

rose by any other name, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the minister is starting to remind me of

Shylock. He wants one pound of flesh and one pound only, I believe, back in the

Shakespeare play, The Merchant of Venice. He is starting to sound like that. He

wants every ounce of blood there is in the NTA and he is not going to be

satisfied until he extracts every drop. That is what this minister is up to. I

can't believe that he has turned so much. The Minister of Finance, maybe. The

Minister of Finance has not been very supportive of the NTA for a number of

years.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) the classroom because he is

in the boardroom.

MR. WINSOR: I will leave these remarks for you when you

get up. Now, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations on

occasion after occasion gets up and says that: we are not telling the NTA that

they have to, we are suggesting that that is a possible avenue open to them. Now

I have to ask the minister, why does it take - as a matter of fact the minister

might have been involved then. I think negotiations began back in November of

1989. Now if that is all that is to a contract, to negotiate monetary items, why

did it take from November of 1989 up until May of 1991 to come to some kind of

an agreement?

It's because there are other things that get negotiated, and

as the minister says, traded. What the minister wants to do now is to trade off

some benefits that have been earned through collective bargaining for the last

twenty years.

MR. GRIMES: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations on a

point of order.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you. On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

I do not understand why a member in the House would continue to address this

Bill and use language suggesting that the government wants to do anything with

respect to benefits. The government is providing an opportunity for any

bargaining agent on behalf of its members to come in and exchange benefits for

take-home pay, if that is the desire and the wish of the bargaining unit on

behalf of its members. The government does not want anything. The government has

pointed out that the total compensation for the year will remain as last year.

So the total objective of the government is met in that statement. The

government does not want anything. However, the members of each bargaining unit

have an opportunity to take home pay if they wish and if they initiate the

action.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

There is really no point of order. The hon. member is trying

to clarify a situation. I guess it is a point of clarification, if nothing else.

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: The Chairman should refuse to recognise the

minister when he is standing because all he is doing is attempting to interrupt

the flow and exchange that is going on. He has nothing of any substance to

contribute, so, Mr. Chairman, I suggest you not recognise him when he gets up.

He is not taking

part in the debate, he is just wasting the time of the House of

Assembly.

What he is trying to do is invent a new thing in this House

of Assembly. Because we are told that you are not allowed to use the word "lie,"

and if you try to do it through any other means, whether it be fraudulent or

anything else, we get called to task for it. Now the minister is trying to

invent a new way to say contract stripping is not contract stripping. He cannot

do it, he has asked the Chair for intervention on two occasions. The Chair

refuses to accommodate him because what the minister is saying is not right. The

minister is engaged in contract stripping, because he has taken away the rights

and benefits - or he is trying to - to take away the rights and benefits that

have been given to the public service unions for a number of years.

Now I asked the minister, the minister had ten minutes. I

challenge him again to do it. Rise again and tell us what benefits are they?

What are the benefits that the minister alludes to when he says there are a

number, and he goes on to say 15 to 30 per cent in some contracts, of benefits.

Now is he talking about the remuneration that would be paid to a teacher who

drives fifteen miles from one school to go to another one? Is that the kind of

benefit that he is talking about taking away? The minister might not be aware,

but in this Province today there are some teachers who have to teach in two

schools.

The minister is suggesting that they take it away now. If the

minister wanted - okay, I will ask the minister this: what are the benefits that

he is suggesting - and the government would say, hoping - that the NTA would

come back and say: we want to take these benefits from our members? Because what

they are engaged in is an attempt to force the union to take sides.

MR. R. AYLWARD: If the NTA comes in and makes those

suggestions they will take them anyway and give them no raise then.

MR. WINSOR: That is exactly what they will do, Mr.

Chairman. That is the preparation for round three. Round three comes next year

when they will say to the members: now look, you got yourself 3 per cent last

year because you took away all the benefits you had negotiated. You gave up your

pension, you gave up your sick leave, you gave up in-service. Mr. Chairman, he

will say, you got 3 per cent last year so you can get the same thing if you give

up some more benefits because we are not going to give you that 3 per cent that

you agreed to for 1993 because we cannot trust the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations, the President of Treasury Board or this administration.

In one contract the President of Treasury Board on February 8

indicated that teachers in the Province would have an increase and then on May 7

he takes it away. The dealings with NTA members must be getting awfully

uncomfortable. I know my colleague from the Stephenville Crossing area had a

meeting with his NTA branch on Monday night and I see he returned from the

district unscathed so his attack could not have been too vicious. It might have

been a bit verbal but at least it was not too physical because he has returned

unscathed.

There are a lot of angry people out there, not angry because

of a wage freeze either. That is part of it but what upsets most people is the

way the wage freeze was implemented. The wage freeze tears up contracts that

have been negotiated. The President of Treasury Board stood in his place, I

think it was a day or two ago, and said that a contract is different if it is

signed with government. Mr. Chairman, I fail to see the difference. I saw an

article in the paper last week where the consumer affairs representative from

this administration talked about how you have to say to people you do business

with: if you signed a contract then that contract is binding. The only people it

has not been binding on is this government. It has been binding on workers

because they use this Legislature, and only because they have a majority and

only because people, like the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations, who

is suppose to champion the cause of labour in this Province refuses to stand up

and support them.

That is what is happening with this administration and that

is why this bill is there. That would not have happened had the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations done what his office dictates that he do, and

that is protect the rights of both the worker and the employer. In this case he

only protected one, the employer, and he left the worker to fend for himself and

he is going to use this Legislature to protect them. Mr. Chairman, what is

right, what if fair, what is balanced about that kind of relationship, when you

use the Legislature to circumvent the law? That is what the minister is doing.

The minister is using the Legislature to circumvent the law.

By leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Somebody should interrupt this NTA

meeting.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Employment and

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. Member for Fogo in both of his representations now,

in each of the ten minutes he has spoken, has asked a couple of times that maybe

I give clarification as to what kinds of benefits members of certain bargaining

units could give up in exchange for increase in take-home pay and salary. When I

first clarified that was a possibility under Bill 17 that was not there under

Bill 16, to allow for some possible negotiation if the bargaining agents on

behalf of their members would like to initiate it. It will not be initiated by

the government. The government has no wish to do anything other than balance the

books the same as they were last year in terms of the salary bills, however if

the workers in any category, and the Member for Fogo spends a lot of time

speaking about the teachers, understandably I suppose from his own past

experience and my own past experience, but there are all kinds of workers out

there covered by agreements in the public service and all have the same option.

The hon. member keeps asking: well identify, spell out two, three, or four

things that they could give up to get some money. Tell us what government has in

mind. I point out again that it surprises me that he would ask me to do that

because it shows, I guess, what continues to concern me as some lack of

knowledge and understanding of what happens when you have a recognized

bargaining agent to do your work for you. Whether it be the nurses, the

teachers, or any other category of public servants they have a recognized

bargaining agent who by checking with their members and by going through the

existing benefits in their collective agreements can identify a wide range of

benefits other than salary that cost money to provide in the agreement.

When I first introduced the idea I indicated because I was

asked by a member of the media: what kinds of things are you talking about? I

said, I don't want to try and negotiate for these groups. Each one of them knows

the benefits that are in their packages in their contracts. They know the ones

that their members might even consider giving up for a short period of time so

that they can take home some pay, and it would be inappropriate for me to

suggest to them what they would consider trading for money. They are the people

in the bargaining units. They are the people who determine what is a priority

item for them at this time, but I have indicated and I have also stated publicly

that if any one of the bargaining agents representing any one of the worker

groups wanted to come into government either through the President of Treasury

Board or through myself just out of curiosity and wanted to sit down and say:

you people said that publicly, that we could trade some things for money. What

were you talking about?

If they were to ask me just as an individual, any one of the

groups, I am pretty confident that I could go through with them in their

agreement and show them a dozen things that are potential for them if they

wanted to. At least a dozen things in any one contract, and that would only be

with a very preliminary perusal of the contract that they could consider trading

for additional take-home pay if that is what they wanted to do.

That all goes back to an understanding of another thing that

the hon. member for Fogo continues to say. The hon. Member for Fogo continues to

say that in negotiations, groups like the NTA gave up some things in order to

get salary. That is not true. Just about every group - again it shows his lack

of understanding because he has never negotiated a contract for anybody. He

doesn't know what collective bargaining is all about. He has never experienced

it from either side of the table, and from what he has been saying so far it is

a good thing he hasn't.

He should check with some of his teacher friends who

understood the processes. When the packages were exchanged at the beginning most

of the teacher colleagues that I dealt with used to look at ours and used to

represent it to their membership at public meetings. They would say: Don't

forget, this is our opening package and this is really only like our Christmas

wish list. We don't really expect to get this, and you people shouldn't expect

to get it. But this is what you said we should ask for. If this was an ideal

world, these are all the wonderful things we would like to have. Because we are

your bargaining agent, we are going to put them on the table and we are going to

ask for all of them. In the process as it got narrowed down over the months and

with the previous administration, by the way, with that one group that I know of

with the Newfoundland Teachers Association, one time it took us two and a half

years to negotiate a contract. So there is no difficulty in spending certain

periods of time negotiating. It depends upon exactly what you are hoping to

accomplish.

So it is not a matter of giving up benefits. It is a matter

of realizing through the process when you are negotiating that some of the

things that you would like to achieve are not attainable. In the process at some

point in time the salary increases that people ask for were often not

attainable, so they would get less salary than they asked for at the beginning.

A very common occurrence. As a matter of fact it is almost unheard of that you

would ever get what you asked for in the first place. If anybody doesn't

understand that about collective bargaining, they don't understand anything.

So there were trade-offs, and there are trade-offs in every

round of negotiations. Many times at the end to make a bargain to finalize a

deal, in fact other benefits other than salary would be put into the contract

because the salary wasn't attainable. Now what we are saying is that those other

benefits that were often added, that were put in there because the amount of

money that was asked for could not be achieved. Because they are now in the

contracts, if the members, through their bargaining agents, look at it and say:

years ago we were hoping to get money. We didn't get money so we got this

benefit that we weren't really expecting. Now we have these benefits and we know

we can't get money, so if they choose to do so they can now turn around and come

in and suggest to the government that some of these benefits we will offer up to

you if you will now give us some money so we can increase our pay. That is what

we have been trying to say so that everybody will understand the contents of

Bill 17.

I will say it again. The government has no wish and will not

take the initiative to ask for that to occur with any bargaining agent. However,

if the bargaining agent on behalf of its members, or if the members want to

approach their bargaining agent and suggest it to them, if they say that our

number one priority right now is that we would like to have some more take-home

pay, this bill makes it possible. But it can only be achieved if the bargaining

unit, itself, on behalf of the workers affected, decide that they would now like

to suspend or trade-off or give back some of those other benefits that cost

money, on an annual basis, so that they can have salary in their pockets

instead.

Now, I know it is a concept that members opposite find

difficult to comprehend and understand, because the other comments they have

made, make it clear that they do not comprehend and understand very much about

the whole process, in any event, so it would be difficult for them to understand

this, but the reality of it, Mr. Chairman, is that nobody should misunderstand

what the intention of the government is. The intention of the government,

through Bill 17, is to maintain spending levels on salary and all cost benefits

relating to employees, at last year's level. The choice as to whether they will

be paid on benefits or on take-home pay is entirely and totally up to the

members of any bargaining unit, through the negotiating process that is

available and possible under Bill 17.

It is not for me, Mr. Chairman, and I will not entertain the

fact that I will in any way try to prejudice or influence a group to suggest

that, 'I think you should come in and give up that, you should come in and trade

this, you should trade something else.' They know better than anybody which of

their benefits they hold dear and sacred and which ones they would never

consider trading. They also know which ones they would consider giving up if

they want the money. If they make such decisions, the President of Treasury

Board or anybody else in government, will entertain discussions and negotiations

with them. If they choose to trade no benefits, there will be no discussion and

the government's objective will still be accomplished in that this year's bill

on total compensation will be the same as last year's.

I welcome and appreciate the opportunity again, Mr. Chairman,

to speak briefly in the debate at the Committee stage. Thank you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It is with some pleasure that I sit back and listen to the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations talk about the present state of

unrest in the labour field in the Province. A lot of that unrest certainly is

due to the minister, because he is the one who really should be making sure that

there is peace and love within the field of labour, but you certainly don't see

it.

The unfortunate thing about it is the debate this afternoon

has centred around negotiations with the Newfoundland Teachers' Association, an

organization of which the hon. gentleman was president for a number of years

and, as he, himself, said, involved to some degree, a minor degree I must say,

but to some degree, in the negotiating of some of the contracts. He knows full

well that when he was taken along on any negotiating jaunts that whatever was

discussed and agreements made, then he walked away knowing full well that the

agreements would be lived up to. And this is really the crux of the concern in

relation to Bill 17, that is, agreements reached were not lived up to. Despite

what the minister says and despite what the President of Treasury Board says and

writes or somebody writes for him, the agreements made with the Newfoundland

Teachers' Association were not as they are said to be today, that many of the

agreements made with them have been dishonoured and they, like others, have been

sold out.

Now, you can call it contract stripping or whatever you like,

the thing is that a number of organizations, groups and agencies signed

agreements in good faith, and in signing any agreements, there was give and

take, so anybody who received anything - and they did very well, that is the

problem, that many of the organizations or the unions did very well because the

government gave them practically everything they wanted. Most of the general

public were quite amazed that agreements were reached with the unions so

quickly, so amicably, and they were, because government basically said: 'Well,

what do you want? Here it is,' knowing full well, that while they were saying

that up front, in the back rooms they were planning to take it all away, and

that is exactly what happened. And, of course, now we have all kinds of concern

and unrest in the labour field.

I suppose we have concern and unrest in the labour field; I

said it here I think, when I spoke on the bill originally. If there is as much

concern and unrest as there is supposed to be, where is the opposition to it?

Some of the labour leaders, doing their cosy interviews on radio, state that

there is no opposition in the House. Well, there is no government in the House,

either. That is the hardest part of it, because opposition you might do without,

but it is very tough to do without a government, and it is about time we had one

in this Province. We haven't had one now for three years, and the excuse that we

have for a government contains some very pitiful ministers.

I mentioned that the labour leaders said there is no

opposition in the House. For x number of days now, the Opposition members have

been trying to stress to government on behalf of whom? - on behalf of the

average hard-working, dedicated individual out there who has absolutely no

voice. Where are all the labour leaders if they are so upset with Bill 17? We

are getting letters from people saying, 'Bill 17 must be stopped.' Yet their own

leaders are saying very, very little, and doing less. They are telling their

membership, 'This is a terrible bill. The government is shafting us.' And they

are. They are right there, but what are they doing about it? - absolutely,

positively nothing, sitting back. The bill will pass in a matter of hours or

days, or whenever, I guess, closure is rammed through, as is usual.

The only obstruction at all between the passing of this bill

is the Opposition. That is the only word you hear uttered. The only objection

raised is here in the House of Assembly. So you wonder sometimes, when you look

at the people out there who are extremely concerned, and who are now being told

by the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations that, 'Oh maybe you might be

able to bring home some money this year. 'We didn't take away anything,' he

said, and that is not true either, because by giving absolutely nothing you

really took away. By giving nothing on one hand, the minister, through the

signing of contracts with the freeze, meant that there was no extra money in the

total package, and the Minister of Finance, with his tax grab, took away some of

what they had, so, in reality, the average working person is going home with

fewer dollars today than last year. Consequently, there is a taking away from

the average hardworking individual.

Now, they are being told, 'If you want to come in and give up

some more of your benefits, we will give you a few paltry pennies to take home -

benefits for which they have worked hard over the years, and benefits upon

which, of course, they will build the future in relation to collective

agreements. That statement is undoubtedly made to the - I was going to say the

bureaucrats, and they are bureaucrats, I suppose, who work in the union offices

- the power brokers; the ones who write the letters and do the editorial and sit

back in their easy chairs and draw in their salaries and tell their members how

hard they are fighting on their behalf, and who cosy up to government quite

often and say very little. These are the very individuals who could easily come

in and sell some of the jobs down the river for some improvement in contract, so

they can say, 'Oh, we made gains' - made gains at whose expense?

It is a tough situation in which the average hardworking

individual in this Province find himself or herself. They are caught between the

devil and the deep blue sea. It is like walking the plank with the water full of

sharks on one side and the sword on the other. They have their own leaders who

are doing very, very little to help them, and they have a government who

couldn't care less.

So, Mr. Chairman, it is with concern, I suppose, that those

of us in the House who are concerned about what is going to happen stand here,

knowing full well that you are helpless to stop a bill when the numbers are not

there, unless some of the members on the other side who realize what the workers

out there are going through will stand and vote against it; members like the

Minister of Transportation, who, on the weekend, I know, was certainly advised

of the concern of people in relation to Bill 17. Being a good, honest, caring

individual, undoubtedly he listened and accepted these concerns, and when the

vote comes, it will be interesting to see if he stands up and does what he was

asked to do - object to Bill 17 to make sure it doesn't pass, to make sure that

there is free collective bargaining in the Province.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. HEARN: The Member for St. John's South is there

mouthing off, as usual, another person who always shows his concern for labour,

who's concerned for labour in the Province. He is always talking about what has

happened over on the Southside and how many people over there are affected, and

his great care for the worker. Well, here you have a situation where the worker

is being badly treated, and hopefully, the member again will stand up when the

time comes, and be counted. We will see if he cosies up to the unions as he does

and if goes along with the Member for St. John's East and supports the anti-Bill

17 movement.

It is not a matter of saying you are siding with unions, you

are looking after the rights of the working person in this Province. Because

what we see here is something we have never seen before, the destruction of

collective agreement in the Province. It is not a matter of the freeze, as we

said before. Freezes occur if the money isn't there, that is common sense. But

to take away what has already been signed, to sign contracts in good faith and

then to be told that they are going to be just thrown out the window - there

will never be any trust again in any government in this Province. If the private

sector sees what is going on, well, they are going to take a page from the same

book. Why should they worry about honouring agreements? It doesn't matter. You

can sign what you like, you don't have to deliver, because now the precedent is

set by government, the very body that makes the laws and rules about labour in

this Province.

The ironic thing about it is to listen to the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations talk about all of this, when he, himself, just a

couple of years ago, was the head of one of the professional organizations in

the Province. I won't use the word 'union' because it is not a union, neither

should it be a union.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HEARN: We will get back to it again, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Health.

MR. DECKER: Mr. Chairman, I think I am going to take

advantage of this opportunity to say a few words in this stimulating debate.

Normally, it is the role of the Opposition to get up and outline things that are

in the Budget. But, really, as the hon. member just admitted, we don't have an

Opposition. The Opposition is so ineffective that I am soon going to arrange a

few seminars with myself and the Member for Port de Grave, and a few of those

old - maybe we can find Beaton Tulk to come back - to have a few seminars with

the Opposition members and teach them how to carry on the duty of an Opposition,

which is a very valued function in our democracy.

Now,before I talk about the Budget,I want to just refer

members to an event which took place in my life, when I was a very small boy,

actually, around 1949. In 1949, in Roddickton, the biggest sawmill in

Newfoundland and Labrador existed with a big steam engine. It was a very

elaborate outfit. The saw logs used to be cut in the winter months and towed

into the town of Roddickton in the summer. One night in August in 1949, just

after Confederation, we had one of the most vicious windstorms, I suppose, that

Newfoundland and Labrador has ever known. And, Mr. Chairman, the boom burst, and

there were logs up on the shore. There was chain carried up in the woods. The

beaches, from Roddickton right on down to Hampden, were littered with saw logs.

Such a mess was never seen before in the history of the Canada Bay region. The

beaches were littered.

It took me, what? Between 1949 and 1992, that is forty-odd

years, forty-two years. It took me forty-two years to find a mess which I could

compare to the mess that I saw on the beaches in Roddickton in 1949. You know

what it was, Mr. Chairman? I will tell you what it was. It was shortly after we

were appointed to Cabinet, and we got an opportunity to open up the books and

look at the mess that the previous administration had run up in ten short years.

The mess was never seen before.

Twenty-four million dollars, the banks were screaming, $24

million was blown on Sprung - a greenhouse, Mr. Chairman. Remember the cucumber

days? - when the gunslinger with a cucumber in his holster was going around and

pulling them out: 'We can build them in six days.' Remember that? Quite

unbelievable! That was just after Peckford. Peckford had gone on the public

media and said: we are approaching the 1930s all over again. Remember that?

Everybody remembers that, we are approaching the 1930s, but he left something

out. What he left out was this, it was his administration, it was his ten years

of mismanagement which made us approach the 1930s all over again. That was the

component that he left out, Mr. Chairman. The mess that I saw as a boy in 1949

could only compare in some small way with the mess that this administration

inherited. As Maxwell Smart would say: just in the nick of time. We came that

close to losing our status as a Province. Can you imagine the seriousness of

that?

Had the Peckford administration, or the Rideout

administration been re-elected I am willing to bet dollars to donuts again, and

so far I have been striking a very good average when I bet dollars to donuts, I

am prepared to bet dollars to donuts again that had a PC administration been

elected in 1989, today there would have been some form of Commission of

Government in place. That is exactly what we would have had. Think of the

quandary that the Prime Minister would have been in had he had to try to appoint

a Royal Commission to run this Province. Who could he have gotten, Mr. Chairman?

The Prime Minister is a political person and he has been known to make political

decisions, but where in the whole Tory Party of Newfoundland and Labrador could

he have found the ability to even run a commission? He would have been in an

awful quandary and he would have had to call upon the Member for Gander and

myself, I do not want to boast, Mr. Chairman, but I have to state the facts. He

probably would have had to call upon our Leader. He probably would have called

the Minister of Education. The Minister of Finance would have probably been the

Chairman of the Commission. It would have been extremely difficult for the Prime

Minister to appoint that committee but appoint it he would have had to do

because he would have seen the boom burst, he would have seen the mess that

Newfoundland and Labrador was in and he would have been obligated to try and

clean it up, Mr. Chairman.

I wonder what he would have done with Sprung? I wonder what

the Prime Minister of Canada would have done with Sprung when he appointed this

commission to run this place? Would he have said we have to look after the poor

old member, poor old Neil? He has not been a bad fellow you know. He sweat for

his party. He put his blood on. He went for the Leadership but I am afraid he

would have had to give it up. Mr. Chairman, what a mess we saw! We went out and

looked at some of those construction programs they used to have. What did they

call these road construction programs that Ron Dawe did? What was the name Rex

Murphy put on them? They went out and paved driveways in the back woods out

there. Remember that? He paved a road which there was no access to. You had to

airlift by helicopter your car into the back woods to get to some of those roads

he paved for his relatives. That was the way they did things, Mr. Chairman. Poor

old John Butt. I remember them now in the House. They used to come in and they

were so pompous. Remember Ron Dawe. Ron would come in so stiff and so straight

with his briefcase. He could hardly bend over.

Then John Butt would come in. He was the Minister of Fun.

Remember that department? The Minister of Culture, Recreation and Youth. Over in

his own department they used to call him the Minister of Fun because the most

important thing I saw poor old John Butt do - and this is no reflection on John

he was a fine fellow - but the most important thing he did in the five years he

was in Cabinet, and the hon. Minister of Education will be glad to hear this,

they decided he would give out some caps. Remember those green and white caps?

They did not even have them in blue. They were going to give out those green and

white caps on some sort of special soccer day, a baseball day, a football day, a

marbles day, or a ping pong day, some particular day. John came in with a full

load of caps. Of course he started to hand them out to his own backbenchers, his

own part of the House and then -

MR. MATTHEWS: For participaxion.

MR. DECKER: Participaxion, I believe it was. The Member

for Grand Bank is right. He gave them out to his own backbenchers. He gave them

out to his own Cabinet ministers. There was a little bit of graft and corruption

on our side as well in those days because if you live near something long enough

eventually it will rub off on you. In Sodom and Gomorrah poor old Lot had to get

the hell out of it because it was starting to rub off on him. We were in this

House with that government for so many years, if we had been there another five

years, Mr. Chairman, we could well have had it rub off on us. So we took our

caps.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you get caps?

MR. DECKER: We took our caps. Yes, we certainly did. I

believe Beaton Tulk got two or three of those caps. Beaton had been around

longer. Even the Member for Humber East, I believe she had one of those caps.

She just put it on, sort of thing, and did not make a sound about the

discrimination on the fact that they were not designed for women, they were

men's caps, and all this sort of thing. But she went along with the party line.

That is the way it used to be. It is a bit humourous.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) double-daylight savings time.

MR. DECKER: No, he didn't.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't?

MR. DECKER: He didn't. See, here is where the mistake -

here is the case of a man suffering for something he did not do. It was the hon.

Member for Grand Bank who was the minister of that department when they brought

in the double-daylight time. But the change took place shortly thereafter, and

poor old John Butt had to carry the brunt.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh no!

MR. DECKER: Yes sir. John did not believe in

double-daylight saving time and I can understand that. But the hon.