May 14,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No. 37

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Statements by Ministers

The hon. the Minister of Education.

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I don't have a written statement

today, but I would like to draw the attention of the House and, indeed, the

Province, to the presence in the gallery of twelve outstanding students who have

participated in one of the most exciting educational programs this government

has introduced in the last three years, co-op education programs. These

students, with their teacher, Mr. McGrath, are doing co-op education at Gonzaga.

They are doing it in a course in law and democracy. They are part of, I think,

about 300 students throughout the Province this year who are doing co-op

programs in various community settings. They have been here with us, working in

government offices with government members for the past few weeks. They have

gained experience, they tell me, that they would not have in the schools but I

want to tell them that we, too, have learned from them. They are a delightful

group of young Newfoundlanders and Labradorians and we want to thank them for

what they have brought to us, as well as congratulate them on their program.

They have brought a great deal to us, we are delighted to have had them, and we

want to wish them all the best in the future.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the

minister in welcoming the co-op students. We say to the minister, we know that

government probably learned a lot more from them than they learned from the

government.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HEARN: Hopefully, they learned enough to know that

for the betterment of education generally in the Province there will be a change

in government the next time around.

MR. SPEAKER: Before proceeding to the next item of

business, on behalf of hon. members, I would like to welcome to the public

galleries today the following schools: first of all fifty students from Holy

Trinity High School, Heart's Content, in the district of Trinity - Bay de Verde.

They are accompanied by their teachers, Ms. Maureen Robinson and Ms. Margaret

Tucker. We also have sixteen students from Oceanview Pentecostal Academy in

Ming's Bight and they are accompanied by their teachers, Mr. David Snow, Mr.

Keith Rowsell and Mr. Dale King.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

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

the Premier.

A week or so ago, the Minister of Health was questioned by

the media and here in the House of Assembly, as well, about the results of blood

tests on the people in the Placentia area, which showed abnormally low

lymphocyte counts; now, I want to ask the Premier if he has any information to

confirm or deny these findings, and has government yet ordered the full

scientific study to determine if there are health problems in the Placentia area

that could have been caused by toxic emissions from the Long Harbour plant?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, as I explained to the member

when it was raised the last time in the House, I have started an investigation,

I have received the assistance of a Dr. Roy West, who is with the research

division of our medical school. He is the professor of Epidemiology over at the

Faculty of Medicine and, assisting him, is a Dr. Beuhler, who is also an expert

in Epidemiology, Mr. Speaker, Dr. Sharon Lynn Kelly Buehler, she works with the

medical school, as well.

Now, they have done some preliminary looking at the

statements made in the media some weeks ago, and there is no indication that the

incidence of cancer, in general, is any worse in that area than it is in other

parts of the Province. You will find there are glitches, for example, if, last

year, there was no gall bladder operation in Bide Arm and this year there is

one, well, the incidence of gall bladder operations would have gone up by 100

per cent, but that doesn't mean to say that somehow Bide Arm has an excess of

gall bladders.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, this is a serious subject and I

would like to have the opportunity to explain for the people of the Province

just what is going on.

So the general statement is, there is no higher incidence of

cancer per se in the Placentia area than in other parts of the Province, but, as

I explained, there are glitches where something happened this year but we are

dealing with such a small population, it would probably throw your statistics

out in a specific case, as that happens all through the Province.

The study, itself, Mr. Speaker, is a very small sample, there

were only ten people studied. That is being pursued by those people with the

health research department of the University. It is being looked into. So I

suppose the simple answer, Mr. Speaker, is, yes. We are investigating it. Now, I

cannot come up with a snap answer. Hon. members must realize that in order to do

an in-depth analysis of these media stories, it is going to take a little time.

I am meeting on the weekend or early next week with the

doctors who are doing this investigation, for an update, Mr. Speaker. But hon.

members will have to just be patient. It takes time to do an in-depth study. We

cannot try to go off half cocked on this. We have to do a reasonable assessment

of the statements that have been made.

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

MR. DOYLE: Mr. Speaker, let me say to the minister that

the government's response, and the minister's response to the issue, so far, has

been to try to discredit the study and its author, Dr. Bertell. Now, if that is

the strategy, do so on the basis of scientific evidence, not political slander

such as the minister has been involved in over the last few days regarding Dr.

Bertell.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DOYLE: I say to the minister, order a full study,

because the people of the Placentia area deserve it. Now, let me ask the Premier

or the Minister of Health if he is aware of tests which show high levels of

radon gas leaking into the atmosphere from the slag left over from the operation

at Long Harbour, and is the information available to the public? Have readings

confirming these findings been taken by either the Department of Health or the

Department of Environment and Lands, and will that information be available to

the public, if it has been done?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I have to address the first part

of the vicious attack on me which accuses me of political slander. At no time

have I questioned the credentials of the person who made this statement. I did

say in the House of Assembly the first time the question was raised, 'I don't

know who the person is. I don't know if there is some hysteria involved. I don't

know just what lab did the investigations. All these things have to be checked

out. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, if this is someone - I don't know Dr. Bertell, as

the old saying goes, from a hole in the ground. But if there is another motive

there we have to check out that. We can't just go off into a frenzy every time

someone says there is a high incident of cancer on the Grey Islands. We have to

check these facts and make sure there is some accuracy there, and their could

well be some evidence. It is not evident at this time, Mr. Speaker, but we are

in the very preliminary stages of checking out the media report.

Now the high levels of radon gas, Mr. Speaker, I am not aware

of that. I understand there was a report done by the Department of Environment,

but I would have to take that portion of the question under advisement and check

out for the hon. member whether or not there are high levels of radon gas in the

area. At this moment, to the best of my knowledge, there is not, but that is a

technical matter which I will take under advisement and get an answer for the

member.

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

MR. DOYLE: Let me say to the minister as well that radon

gas can lead to the very condition reported in Dr. Bertell's study. Now surely

the government knows the facts about pollution at Long Harbour and the risk to

the people there, and surely the minister would not want to hide any information

that he might have on that. I ask him again, will he ensure that all the

relevant information that is available to the government will be made available

to the people in the Placentia area? Now answer it yes or no.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, we have a unique administration

which does not attempt to hide things from the people of the Province. We are

the most up-front government seen in this Province, maybe in the history of

Newfoundland as a province.

There is no attempt to hide information from the public. If

there is any information which the public should know we certainly will make it

public. But we will not try to cause any form of hysteria which the hon. member

over there is trying to do, based on their same old silly way to get on with

assumptions and hearsay and all this old nonsense. We are trying to find the

facts. If the facts warrant that some action should be taken, Mr. Speaker, I

believe the people of this Province know full well that our past three years

have shown that we are not afraid, that we are always ready to take the action

that must be taken.

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

MR. DOYLE: Supplementary to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. I

get the impression from the Premier, and from his ministers as well, that they

are not too much concerned about the pollution at Long Harbour. Yet the other

day the Premier said that it is going to take twenty years and tens of million

of dollars to clean it up. Now if it is so harmless, why is the cleanup going to

take so long and why is it going to cost so much, or is the government hiding

information from the public because it does not want to offend Albright and

Wilson?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the long number of years that

they produced phosphorus at Long Harbour produced a substantial amount of

pollution into the ground, into the settlement ponds. It is a very difficult and

costly thing to clean up. I suppose the facility was put there and operated

there at a time when there was a different understanding and different approach

to the environment. So it caused problems that we would just not tolerate today.

Now I do not know the technical details of why it is going to take a lengthy

time. The experts tell me that it will take about twenty years or so to clean it

up.

The one thing that I can assure the House is that we will

leave no stone unturned to ensure that those responsible for the pollution will

in fact clean up every single iota of pollution that exists in Long Harbour.

Now if the existence of it is causing some particular problem

that can be dealt with immediately, the minute we identify it as a problem, if

there is any validity to what the hon. member says, I have no doubt the Minister

of Health will be going night and day to find a solution to the problem.

It is unfortunate that the members opposite try to create

this kind of scare amongst the public for their own political motives, it is too

bad that they do that kind of thing. If there is a genuine concern, then deal

with the minister. Deal with the Minister of Environment or the Minister of

Health, and I can assure the House that every possible step will be taken to

clean it up immediately.

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

MR. DOYLE: That is what we are doing, Mr. Speaker, and we

are doing it right here in the House of Assembly, whether he likes it or not.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. DOYLE: A final supplementary to the Premier.

The Premier said in the House a number of days ago that

Albright and Wilson wanted the incinerator at Long Harbour in order to pay for

the cleanup of their phosphorous operation. Now is government concerned that

Albright and Wilson may withdraw from the cleanup operation if they do not have

another source of revenue from Long Harbour to pay for it? And is government

under pressure to approve the incinerator project for that reason?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that

question, I think one day last week. Maybe the hon. member did not hear it or he

was not available to hear it. I do not know, but I will answer it for him again.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with it. The responsibility

of Albright and Wilson to clean up the situation at Long Harbour will not in any

manner be affected by what goes on, whether or not there is a hydroelectric

generating, or an electricity generating facility at Long Harbour. The position,

as I understand it, is a proposal to use, in a manner that would be of economic

value, some of the fairly valuable assets. Hon. members may well remember that

the Long Harbour facility had a capability of handling, I believe it was 130

megawatts of power, and for that you need substantial electrical infrastructure.

That is there. It can deal with it coming in or going out. It does not much

matter how electricity flows through such mechanisms. It can go either way. So

that capability is there of handling substantial quantities of power, and they

were looking to find some use for that.

As well, there is a major wharf facility there, so they were

looking for something that could economically use the facilities that would

remain, and that, to the best of my knowledge, is a major factor in the

promotion of this proposal.

Even though it is highly desirable, or it may be highly

desirable to use it; even through it may be highly desirable to generate 150 or

200 jobs; it may be highly desirable to use the wharf facility; the Province

will not allow any such facility to be built unless it is absolutely conclusive

that it is totally safe to do so. The Province would never consider for a moment

allowing it to be done if there was any possibility of causing harm to the

environment.

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

I had a question for the Minister of Environment and Lands

but, in her absence, I will put the question to the Premier. Would the Premier

confirm that a company called American Refuel from Long Island, New York, is

conducting intensive negotiations for the operation of an energy waste plant in

the St. John's area?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I will inquire. I will get the name from

the hon. member and I will inquire and advise the House.

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

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

The Premier knew as much about this particular project as he

knew about single men and women living on welfare and getting $120 a month.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to get on with the question.

MR. WARREN: I direct my question, Mr. Speaker, to the

Minister of Health. My question to the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker, is:

Would the minister advise whether agencies of his department are discussing this

particular project, an energy waste plant for the St. John's area with American

Refuel from Long Island, New York? Would the minister confirm that?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, not that I am specifically aware

of. I would think, in any given time, the Department of Health is probably

dealing with 100 different requests, but I am not aware of this specific one.

Again, I will have to take this question under advisement and see just what is

going on.

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

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

There were two questions asked, Mr. Speaker: One asked the

Premier that he didn't know anything about and one asked the Minister of Health

who didn't know anything about it. Is there anybody on that side who knows what

is going on in this Province?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. WARREN: Apparently not, Mr. Speaker.

Would the Minister of Health find out this afternoon if

hospital boards in the St. John's area are carrying on negotiations with

American Refuel of Long Island, New York, for an energy waste plant in the St.

John's area?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I don't know what the hon.

member is talking about. There is a possibility he is talking about something

with regard to disposal at the hospitals, biomedical waste or something. I will

just have to take it under advisement and see what is going on there. I am

floored actually, Mr. Speaker, with the attitude the member has taken. I will

check it out.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Housing in a

statement April 10 recognized the fact that we are into a social housing crisis

in this Province at this point in time. He also made mention of the fact that

federal-provincial funding for social housing has been reduced by some 21 per

cent this year meaning there will be an even greater problem. In fact we have

some 1500 applications on file, I am told, at the moment from people who are

faced with a two year wait or longer, those people who are desperately in need

of housing accommodations at this point in time. Would the minister like to tell

us what plans he has in view of this serious situation and in view of the

reduced funding federally-provincially? What plans does the minister have, Mr.

Speaker, to deal with this crisis?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: The Newfoundland and Labrador Housing and the

department are involved in negotiations with Central Housing and Mortgage and

with the appropriate minister, the hon. Mr. Elmer MacKay, jointly with other

provinces to address the immediate cutback. As late as yesterday there was a

response that came in from the minister which is being evaluated at the moment

and will be a part of ongoing discussions in probably restoring that part of the

budget which has been cut.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: I thank the minister for that and we support

his efforts to try to restore that federal-provincial program. In addition to

that, Mr. Speaker, is the minister considering what may be done through the

private sector? We all know that the home building industry has been hit very

hard by tax increases over the past couple of years. I remind hon. members that

the industry employs about 20,000 people and puts some $750 million into the

economy of this Province, which is more than the fishing industry and the forest

industry combined.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. WINDSOR: That is right. Mr. Speaker, that industry

has been hit by an increase in retail sales tax from 8 to 12 per cent and had

been hit by a payroll tax increase which I am told by members of the housing

industry will impact as much as $4000 on small home construction industries.

There have been increased corporation taxes. What is the Premier going to do to

try to stimulate the private sector? Will he look at incentives for the private

sector to get involved in building acceptable social housing to deal with this

problem? Will he otherwise help the industry to create some employment and some

economic activity in this Province?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, the member's questioning comes at

an ironic time. I guess ironic is the right word for it because it was only this

week that I held discussions with the executive of Newfoundland and Labrador

Housing to approach new and innovative ways to create social housing starts this

year or next year, as soon as the money is available, and to initiate new

innovative ways with the federal government in joint approaches through the

various funding agencies that are available through Mr. MacKay's department in

this regard. Into the latter part of this (inaudible) there is a major

conference along those lines that we hope to actively participate in.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the home building industry is

very concerned about this particular situation and concerned about the impact

these tax increases have had on that particular industry. They have issued a

statement saying that the only thing that will happen as a result of this

budget, referring to the minister's latest budget, is negative growth. The

Newfoundland and Labrador Home Builders Association predicts a vast increase in

the underground market where no taxes are paid and everyone loses. Now, is the

minister aware that this is about to happen in the home building industry? Is

the minister aware that legitimate housing contractors, because of the tax

burden on them, are seriously considering closing down their legitimate

businesses and getting involved in what is known as the underground housing

construction market, the moonlighting and that sort of thing which will cost

this government million in terms of tax dollars? Is the minister aware of that

and is he prepared to deal with it?

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such

movement and as I can assure the hon. member I have had extensive discussions

with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing over the last number of weeks and I

recognize the housing area as an area where probably somebody can initiate and

innovate some good construction work and job creation. I can assure him that we

have been pursuing it to the ultimate and in my particular department it is the

one area, apart from capital works and other areas that I can personally pursue

in innovative ways of creating employment. I have been doing that with the

officials of the department. Just last week I attended the opening of the home

builder's show, and met with some principals in there casually and socially, and

never got any vibes on any underground, or any concerns along those regards.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Mount Pearl.

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I encourage the minister to do

that and to come up with some innovative ideas. Will he perhaps look at some of

these suggestions? The minister is aware that people - particularly those in

social housing, receiving assistance from the Department of Social Services -

have three major expenditures: rent, heat and light, and food.

Rent is often dealt with through the social housing program

when it is available, and this is a problem we have to deal with and we have

been discussing. The second problem is heat and light. From the funding that is

made available by the Department of Social Services, the homemaker - be it a

senior citizen, a single parent, a family unit, barely able to survive on the

social assistance payment - always has this problem between paying the light

bill and buying food.

Will the minister have a look at reducing the cost of heat

and light? Specifically, will he take the lead of other provinces in Canada?

Will he adopt R 2000 standards for social housing, thereby reducing the cost of

heat and light to these people by some 40 per cent? Will he consider

refurbishing some of the older units that we have in the Province which are in

many cases barely insulated, if insulated at all, thereby saving up to 60 per

cent in the cost of heat and light to those people? Will he consider doing a

program with Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation and Newfoundland

Light and Power which ensures that heat and light is included in the rent, and

that a proper allowance is made from Social Services so that heat, light and

rent can be taken care of, and that all these people have to deal with are the

everyday needs of food and clothing for themselves and their families?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: Part of the items that were outlined by the

hon. member, Mr. Speaker, are part of the considerations that are being

undertaken now, and part of the discussions which I had last week, and ongoing

this week. Some of it is new. I would be interested if he has it written down or

I would pursue it through Hansard and get his specific suggestions, and be only

too delighted to follow up on them with the housing authorities. They do have

some merit, because I have already suggested some of them myself.

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

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

the President of Treasury Board.

Schedule B in Bill 17 allows for negotiations

with the faculty association of Memorial University to correct certain anomalies

in the pay scales of that faculty and librarians at the University. What are

these anomalies, and will the minister confirm that these anomalies could result

in retroactive pay of up to $10,000 for some faculty members?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, that is an internal matter in

terms of the administration of the University and its union, and it is something

that I am not familiar with.

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

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, I find it strange that the

minister who sets the rate for them is not involved in it. But anyway,

essentially we are against Bill 17 in principle, but we welcome that little bit

of flexibility that the minister has given the University to carry out these

negotiations. However, there are other anomalies in the agreements which the

government has made. The Labrador benefits, for example. The most serious of

these was pay equity. Will the government allow for the correction of this

anomaly with full retroactivity?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the member is under a

misunderstanding. I should straighten him out, I suppose. We do not set the

rates at MUN. Memorial University does its own negotiations and so on, and they

are a separate entity. We do not set the rates. So the hon. member's premise is

totally incorrect. We in Bill 16 and now again in Bill 17 have made allowance

for pay equity to be introduced over a period of five years. That is now in the

process of being done. We are still continuing negotiations to bring about pay

equity in the public sector of this Province.

But, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member suggests this is something

simple, you can snap your fingers and do it overnight, thank heavens that hon.

member is not over here.

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

MR. WINSOR: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Does this

exemption given the University allow for the continuation of step progression

for all faculty members, as Dr. Graesser suggested yesterday morning on the CBC

radio program?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, Bill 16 and again Bill 17 allows

for step progression. It always has. I don't know where the hon. member has

been. That has been discussed in this House for the last year.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is to the

Minister of Education. I wonder will the minister tell us if there will be

changes in September in the method of allocating and paying student assistants

who work with the handicapped students in the schools (inaudible).

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, we have been meeting with

trustees of the association with a view to examining the whole grant system. We

have a committee looking at the new grant system. We are putting $12 million

more into the operation and maintenance of schools for the next school year. We

are looking at the whole grant system, and part of that is looking at how we

fund student assistants as part of the grant system, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, let me be a little more specific.

Does the government intend to give each board a block of money, in other words

to block funds for hiring student assistants? And will it be left to the boards

to hire whatever members they can afford to hire?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, we have done a complete

assessment of the needs for student assistants throughout the Province. We are

looking at the needs district by district, and I think the study has been just

about completed to ensure that the monies provided reflect actual needs in the

district. We are looking at the block funding approach as one approach to

dealing with this issue. Mr. Speaker, block funding is used across the country

to finance a number of programs, and we are looking at that as part of the

review of the whole grant system.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about what the

minister intends to do. So I ask him when - not if - they do block fund boards

how will the minister ensure a consistent and high level of quality care for the

students throughout the Province?

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, you must have a formula to deal

with block funding. You must have some kind of way of doing it. The government

will base any block funding amounts on need. So we will ensure that as many

student assistants are provided as possible. In fact this year, Mr. Speaker, we

have added $1.3 million to the student assistant fund to reclassify student

assistants. In these tight times I am delighted that we could find additional

monies to reclassify student assistants and increase the amount from $4.1

million to $5.4 million, and we will ensure that school boards are provided with

the monies they need to continue to fund that if, Mr. Speaker, we move to block

funding, if we move to block funding.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, the minister is avoiding the

question because he knows well like every other thing they downgraded or

downloaded on the system, that if they block fund boards the money may not be

there to provide the quality care. I ask him again, will he guarantee that

regardless of how they fund boards that sufficient funding will be there to

provide the same level high quality care that has been given to the students,

and that there will not be student assistants left out where they are needed

throughout this Province.

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, I want to repeat something I

said earlier.

AN HON. MEMBER: What is that?

DR. WARREN: This government, in the most difficult period

we have been in in many years, has found an additional $12 million a year to

give to school board operation and maintenance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: We have for this current fiscal year found $9

million more, over and above equalization we paid in the past, over and above

what they would have gotten from school taxes, over and above what we give them

for student assistants.

Mr. Speaker, if they listened to the school boards of this

Province, the school boards are delighted that this government finally decided

to equalize educational opportunity in this Province.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I was asked some questions about

the companies for Enterprise Newfoundland. They are still being compiled and I

hope to have them in a day or so.

On the Order Paper there was a question regarding trips, I

believe, made by the hon. minister, and I think it was asked of all ministers,

between September 17 and October 15, which I believe was the by-election time at

Baie Verte. It would be interesting to ask how many trips former ministers made

to Windsor - Buchans during their term and who paid for them.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was asked (inaudible).

MR. FUREY: It was asked but never answered? The question

was never answered?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Order, pleas!

The hon. the minister may not have been here. I want to

repeat the ruling for the sake of the hon. minister.

In this particular item of business, the Chair has ruled that

the minister should answer the question as briefly as possible. I know the

minister has not gotten into it or anything, but he has been standing on his

feet for what I would consider long enough to have the question answered.

The hon. the Minister of Development.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I will be very quick. I will

table the answers.

MR. SPEAKER: Further answers to questions? The hon. the

President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 12 from the Order

Paper dated April 30, Mr. Aylward requesting that information be tabled

regarding:

(

i) the number of trips taken by the former Honourable the

Minister of Justice for the period September 17, 1991 to October 15, 1991 - I

believe that is the date of the Baie Verte by-election - inclusive, (including

dates, destinations and the duration of each trip; and

(ii) the total of all expenses claimed as a charge against

the taxpayer by the former Honourable the Minister and persons accompanying him

on all trips referred to.

During the period in question, Mr. Speaker, the number of

trips and the cost was zero, both zero.

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

In respect to the same question, I provide the answer that

the number of trips and the cost for that period of time was zero.

Petitions

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I may want to ask for the usual leave of the House to present

this petition, signed by 450 people of the southern Avalon. However, the

petition, as the Clerk advises, is addressed to the government. It says: "We,

the undersigned, petition the government of the Province of Newfoundland and

Labrador." I understand the legalities say that it must be addressed to the

House of Assembly.

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will make the exception

in this case and allow the hon. gentleman to present his petition.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes.

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

I think it goes back to what we said a few days ago about

petitions. Most people sending them in think they are sending them to the

government anyway.

The petition says: "We, the undersigned, petition the

government of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador to reject all proposals

for the establishment of a caribou farm or ranch. We urge government to consider

the long-term effects of such proposals. We desperately need jobs, but we are

not so desperate that we would consider the possible destruction of our caribou

herd, our biggest drawing card for tourism.

"Not only will proposals of this type be detrimental to our

tourism industry, there is no guarantee of long-term jobs. There is the risk of

the spread of disease and the possibility of hunting and forestry areas becoming

inaccessible to local people.

"We, being residents of the southern Avalon, request the

government to consider the long-term implications that such proposals will have

on the resource and to make environmentally responsible decisions now, not years

down the road when our caribou herd has been destroyed."

As I mentioned, it is signed by approximately 450 people from

Portugal Cove South through St. Vincent's, the area where the farm is suggested

to be located.

I mentioned some time ago, Mr. Speaker, when I raised the

issue of the caribou farm in the House, that a lot of people in the area are

really unfamiliar with it. Even a lot of people who signed this are signing it

basically because if they are going to make a mistake they want to make a

mistake on the side of preserving what we have, and not taking the chance on

perhaps destroying the caribou herd and other related game in the area. Their

decision to sign such a petition is based perhaps upon a lack of knowledge

rather than knowledge either one way or another. I reiterate the fact that both

the people involved in locating, or trying to locate a caribou farm or ranch in

the area, and government, have been lax in really letting the people of the area

know what is involved.

I asked the Premier some time ago if he would make provision

for his department or departments involved to have some kind of public forum or

hearings so that people would have a chance to discuss the matter to get some

facts and to voice their own concerns. That opportunity has never been given to

the people, so they are doing what I guess is a last resort to make sure that

government understands where they stand on the matter. As presently exists with

the lack of information they have, they are suggesting that government not

approve the caribou farm or ranch in the St. Stephens - Peter's River area.

I present the petition on behalf of the residents, Mr.

Speaker.

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

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

I want to say a few words also about this particular

petition. As the critic for Environment and Lands, including wildlife, I believe

that this petition does illustrate a very, very important issue - a serious

issue in this Province. It is the lack of importance that the Minister of

Employment and Lands is giving to her particular portfolio.

Environment and Lands is one of the most important

departments that this government has, and this particular application has been

in to the department for months on end, and no action from this minister. There

are other -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. BAKER: The hon. gentleman is supposed to confine his

remarks, and Your Honour knows exactly what he is supposed to confine his

remarks to. He is going off again on another flight of fantasy, personally

attacking a minister and so on. I do not think that is quite proper, so I would

ask for relevancy.

MR. SPEAKER: To the point of order, I think all hon.

members are aware that in presenting petitions there ought not to be any debate,

the member should restrict his remarks to the material allegations, signatures,

etc. on the petition. I ask the hon. member to abide by the rules, please.

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

If you read carefully the prayer of the petition I believe,

Sir, that I interpreted that it did refer to the Department of Environment and

Lands, and that is exactly what I was doing.

The minister has a large department, a department that is

very sensitive in this Province, and she is not paying enough attention to it.

That is where I am coming from - that we have to be sure that our environment

and our wildlife is protected in this Province, and this is what this petition

is saying. I suggest to the House Leader that the Department of Environment and

Lands has to look more seriously at what they are doing in this Province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is doing

exactly the same thing again. I would suggest that if the hon. gentleman cannot

address this petition, and if he cannot get away from personal attacks and

vituperative, vindictive statements, I suggest he allow somebody else to speak

sensibly to this particular petition.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes, to the point of order.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Torngat Mountains

is talking about the Department of Environment and Lands not having made a

decision on the petition, and that deals directly with the petition. It is a

petition asking the Department of Environment and Lands to make a decision.

They also are aware that a request has been in for months and

months on end, and the department has not dealt with it. Consequently, the

people are petitioning the Department to make a decision. So the petition itself

reflects directly on and to the Department of Environment and Lands.

MR. SPEAKER: I would advise all hon. members, number one:

this is the problem that we run into, this is precisely the reason why a

petition is not supposed to be addressed to the government. It is one of the

reasons why a petition is addressed to the House of Assembly, because it is

supposed to have a prayer petitioning all members of the House and that is

specifically why petitions are done in that particular way. If the hon. member

can read into that, that there is criticism of the department, the hon. member

should refrain from it because it is not adhering to the rules of the House, but

speaking to the petition as the hon. member heard it speaking to the prayer of

the petition and speaking to the number of signatures contained in the petition.

The hon. the Member for Torngat Mountains.

MR. WARREN: Thank you very much. I want to say, Mr.

Speaker, that with respect to this particular petition, we want the Department

of Environment and Lands to take action on the application that is before them

for the last number of months and make a decision as to whether they are going

to go ahead with this caribou farming or not, and, Mr. Speaker, this is what I

am trying to say to this government, that Environment and Lands has to get off

their fat butt and do something. Thank you very much.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It gives me great pleasure to respond to this particular

petition. We urge the government to consider the long-term effects of such

proposals and, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure these students that we are

considering the long-term effects of these proposals.

They point out that: we are not so desperate that we would

consider the possible destruction of a caribou herd, our biggest drawing card

for tourism. We desperately need jobs but we are not so desperate that we will

consider the possible destruction of our caribou herd. So, Mr. Speaker, I

appreciate that sentiment expressed by these students, I think it is a very

noble and very honourable attitude and opinion.

They express the opinion that proposals of this type will be

detrimental to our tourism industry and they point out a couple of reasons why,

and they say: we being residents of southern Avalon, request government to

consider the long-term implications such proposals will have on the resource and

to make environmentally responsible decisions now, not years down the road, when

our caribou herd has been destroyed.

So, Mr. Speaker, I first of all want to make sure that these

students know about that so I am assuming that the hon. gentleman who presented

the petition will indicate to these students that the petition was received in

the House, and they will be given copies of what has been said with regards to

this petition.

Mr. Speaker, we certainly support the consideration of the

long-term implications as indicated in this particular petition. Before we make

any decision like this, we want to make sure that we consider all aspects and

not simply, immediately jump because there happen to be a few jobs there, which

is the crux of what these students are saying. I would like to commend the

students on the honourable, sensible attitude that they portrayed and

congratulate them on getting involved in an issue that is of interest in this

Province and I want to guarantee them, Mr. Speaker, that we appreciate it and

will take it into consideration.

Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for St. Mary's - The

Capes, on a point of order.

MR. HEARN: Just for clarification, the President of

Treasury Board mentioned students on a number of occasions. The petition is a

petition taken up from the general public, it is not students, just for

clarification.

MR. SPEAKER: There is no point of order, a point of

clarification.

The hon. the Member for Humber Valley.

MR. WOODFORD: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask leave of

the House to present a petition on behalf of - I talked to the Clerk earlier but

I meant to see the President of Treasury Board when this started, but he was all

taken up with this particular petition, so I would not approach him. But in any

case, it is from 1,168 residents of the White Bay area and other areas around,

mainly about the Hampden intersection with regards to power. The original

petition has gone to Newfoundland Hydro and they sent me a copy, the Premier has

a copy and the Minister of Mines and Energy, so this is a copy and it is again:

We the undersigned do hereby request that the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador, so I will just ask the minister if it is okay, if not, I am willing to

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, in line with the attitude that we

have portrayed since we have been here, I do not mind the hon. gentleman

presenting that petition.

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

MR. WOODFORD: As I said this petition is signed by 1168

residents of the White Bay area and probably some other areas in the immediate

area just outside of White Bay. It is pertaining to providing electrical

services to the Hampden intersection area, by the Hampden intersection and the

Trans-Canada Highway. The White Bay South Development Association has become

involved in this now over the last couple of years to try to help out certain

business people in that particular area. There is a service station there right

now, Mr. Speaker, and there are other people interested in putting some

developments in that particular area but the reason they have not is because

there is a lack of electrical power.

I suppose what makes them so frustrated is the fact that the

Cat Arm development is down at the bottom of White Bay and the Hinds Lake

development is on the upper end and they are sort of in the middle with the

transmission line passing right over their heads and they just cannot figure out

why they cannot have power. The reason as explained by Newfoundland Hydro is

that it would be an expensive proposition. I think it is something like $200,000

or $250,000 but those people figure that would be a small amount to pay for the

services that would be rendered after the transformer to take the power down to

the big line, step it down so they could have electrical power in that area.

Mr. Speaker, there are some 100 cabins in that particular

area. There is, like I said, a service station there now and another couple of

developments are proposed for that particular intersection. The White Bay South

Development Association is also planning to put a tourist chalet in that

particular area which would be beneficial to those people as well. The

Development Association and the people of White Bay are always looking for ways

to try to stimulate the economic situation in that particular area and this

would be a great help. This would be the thing they need to make sure that any

potential business is going to be a viable operation, Mr .Speaker. They have to

use now, as you know and as the minister is aware, generators, and I do not have

to tell any member of the House what it is like to use a generator to run a

business.

It is running twenty-four hours a day, and just cannot stand

up to it, and it is a very, very expensive proposition and a real drain and drag

on any business. I would ask the minister responsible and the ministers opposite

to impress upon their colleagues, and especially Newfoundland Hydro, the

importance of possibly taking a look at this area and have the transformer put

there so they could take the power from the main line, step it down, so they

could use it for their own purposes. I thank the minister for letting me present

this petition on behalf of the people of White Bay South and I look forward to a

favourable reply.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Mr. Speaker, I stand in support of the

petition presented by my colleague for Humber Valley. This is an area which I am

very familiar with in that I service my own district through Deer Lake airport

most of the time and I have to drive past this particular intersection many,

many times a month. One of the things that has struck me about that particular

intersection is that it is an area quite literally of wilderness. You leave Deer

Lake and you do not get back into what you might call electrical civilization

again until you get to the Baie Verte junction. In that general area there is a

large cabin development around the Sandy and Birchy Lake areas.

As the member pointed out there are some businesses springing

up at the junction area itself all of which need a reliable source of electrical

power. Mr. Speaker, this is a poor area of the Province as well and any source

of electrical power which is readily available and can stimulate business

activity would certainly help the economy of the area. I guess for the local

people it is somewhat of a cruel irony that the watershed of their locality is

used to provide electricity at reasonable rates to people throughout the entire

Province, throughout the Island grid, while, at the same time, they have to

watch the wires go overhead and not have a lower voltage power be delivered to

them for domestic and commercial consumption. I would consider the cost of a

couple of hundred thousand or so to step down the voltage in this particular

area to usable form, not as a cost to Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, but an

investment by the government in the economic, recreational and tourism potential

of this particular area. As I said, as a motorist travelling by there all the

time, one would like to see at that particular intersection, more gas stations,

more activity, because the nearest electrified area of civilization when you are

driving that part of the highway is the Baie Verte junction.

So, Mr. Speaker, I have absolutely no hesitation whatsoever

in supporting this petition. I ask that the government consider it as an

investment, a small repayment of the investment that the people of the local

area have given to the entire Province by the provision of electrical energy for

the Newfoundland grid. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Orders of the Day.

MR. BAKER: Motion 6, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 6.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker -

MR. SPEAKER: Yes?

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to present a

petition. I was waiting for the Speaker to ask if there were further petitions.

MR. SPEAKER: The Speaker doesn't necessarily ask. We were

into Petitions. If the House wants to move back to Petitions, fine. Does the

House agree to move back to Petitions?

I just want hon. members to know that the Speaker doesn't

always call - when the head is called, everyone knows what it is. The Speaker

does not necessarily always call for further, or whatever. Hon. members know

that. If I am into Notices of Motion or Answers to Questions for which Notice

has been Given.

The House has agreed to revert to Petitions.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I apologize to the

Chair, but I stood exactly as the other member sat down. So I do apologize for

not speaking, but I did stand immediately.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to

present this petition on behalf of 1,200 residents of Shearstown, Conception

Bay. It is a copy of an original petition that the people of Shearstown sent to

the House of Commons, to their MP, because of the closure of the post office in

the community of Shearstown.

The prayer of the petition reads: 'We, the undersigned

residents of Shearstown and Butlerville, take strong objection to the decision

by Canada Post Corporation to close our local post office. We request that

Canada Post Corporation reverse the decision, even though you have stated a

traditional post office is no longer an option. By signing this petition, we are

against the closing of our post office and ask that our present postal service

be maintained.'

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is asking for leave to

present the petition. Does the hon. member have leave?

The hon. the President of Treasury Board.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I was busy at something else when

he started. I assume that what the people have asked him to do is to present

this here and ask this House to support it. If that is the context, then, Mr.

Speaker, I have no problem.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I do take great

pleasure in presenting this to the hon. House of Assembly and asking all members

to unanimously support the people of my riding in the communities of Shearstown

and Butlerville. There are twelve hundred names on this petition. About a

month-and-a-half ago they received a letter from the Canada Post Corporation

administration, telling them that their post office in that community, which had

been there for some thirty-five years, was going to be closed. They were not

left with the option of, in some way, keeping their post office open. It was

just simply: We are going to close the post office. You may choose between the

outdoor mailboxes and/or the services being put into a convenience store.

There is no question about it that all the residents of these

two communities are totally against the closing of the post office, for a number

of reasons. First of all, we have absolutely no connection with the federal

government whatsoever except for the one small post office in that community. It

has been a way of life for those people for the last thirty-five years to be

able go to the post office and for their mail and the service they need. And

very seriously, it is not just a matter of asking to have the post office kept

open. There are numerous people, especially senior citizens, who cannot, in a

lot of cases, read or write, and when they have an application or an old age

assistance form or a Canada Pension form or some form that they want filled out,

they can go to the postmistress or postmaster in that community, Mr. Speaker,

and have that form filled out. They can have it done in confidence, and that is

the key word here.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair just wants to remind the Member for Burin -

Placentia West, who just crossed the floor of the House, that when he does that

he is supposed to bow to the Chair. He didn't, going both ways, so the Chair

reminds the hon. Member for Burin - Placentia West.

The hon. the Member for Port de Grave.

MR. EFFORD: I was speaking about the importance of the

post office to the people of that community, and to all people in rural

Newfoundland. I am thinking, when I present this petition, about all people in

rural Newfoundland, the importance of the post office in their communities. As

an individual, as a resident of that district, and as the MHA representing that

billion, that closing one small post office in a community is going to have any

significant impact on that debt. I still can't understand in my business

background - and I was fairly successful in business - how they are going save

money by closing the post office. Right now, the building is there, so the only

cost to them is heat, light and paint at the end of the year. They have one

postmistress working there, one salary. They are saying now that they are going

to put the boxes either on the side of the road or in a convenience store. And,

for every sale that is made in that convenience store, they are going to pay a

commission to the owner and operator of that store. If they do $100,000 worth of

business in a year they are going to pay in $20,000. On top of that, they have

agreed to maintain the old post office there -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. EFFORD: By leave, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. member have leave?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I didn't realize the

time had gone so quickly.

I want to conclude by saying that the rationale for closing

the post office in these communities is not sensible in a business sense. There

is no way they are saving money; however, somebody in the political arena, in

the bureaucracy of the federal government, decided it was something they were

going to do.

We ask all members, Mr. Speaker, in this House of Assembly,

to voice their opinion, unanimously support this petition, and keep not only the

post office open in my district of Shearstown and Butlerville, but all rural

post offices in all communities in Newfoundland and Labrador. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

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

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

It is a pleasure for me to rise and support my colleague from

Port de Grave. I have had some experience over the years in dealing with Canada

Post, and I certainly would like to rise and support this petition. I don't

know, sometimes, if we pay enough attention to what takes place in smaller rural

areas throughout the Province and the almost inhumane way in which decisions are

made in Ottawa.

It was interesting to listen yesterday to people talking

about the demise of rural Newfoundland. I don't think the focus is pointed in

the right direction. I know it isn't pointed in the right direction, because my

hon. colleague explains only too well how important, in the small communities,

the post office is. I know hon. members opposite who have seen the diminishing

and the demise of small post offices and what the post offices meant, Mr.

Speaker, in rural Newfoundland and in small communities. They have even stopped

people now, from placing little ads and what have you. I mean, it was nothing

new to go into a rural post office and see posted on the wall all the things

that were for sale in that little community. Your Honour, it was a place where

people congregated and discussed. I don't think that those decision-makers in

Ottawa, who have nothing on their mind only a balance sheet, at the expense of

the people in rural Newfoundland - the mandate in Ottawa now is for Canada Post,

a Crown corporation, to make a profit. Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not against

profit, but let me say this: The degree of the mandate and the size of the

profit at the expense of those in rural Newfoundland is shameful and

disgraceful.

I suggest to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, it is his

colleagues and friends who are slowly but surely eroding and destroying rural

Newfoundland.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WOODFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to speak in support of the petition presented by

the hon. the Member for Port de Grave, but I am going to make a few

qualifications.

The hon. the Member for St. John's South just said that

Ottawa is trying to balance the books on the backs of rural Newfoundland and so

on, and the same thing goes for the Crown corporation. Now, I don't think we

should get into that, Mr. Speaker. I didn't intend to, but there is no

difference in what we are doing at Newfoundland Hydro today and a few other

things right here on the rock.

In any case, I will support the petition, with the

qualifications I am about to mention. Some years ago when we lost the post

office in the community I live in, the community of Cormack, serving some 768

people, they put in the rural route delivery, the little mailbox with the flag.

AN HON. MEMBER: Super boxes.

MR. WOODFORD: No, they weren't even super boxes, but

eventually they did. A couple of years ago they put one box to serve ten or

twelve people in one particular area, anywhere that there was a concentrated

population.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WOODFORD: What do you do now? I will give you one

example. They serve that particular area five days a week, from Monday to

Friday. Saturday you don't get any mail, don't get anything. Now, you don't get

any Sunday, anyway, in the Deer Lake area, but you don't get any Saturday. So

that is a service that is gone. You have one day's delivery gone. So, the mail

you get on Friday at dinner time, is all you get until Monday. That, as far as I

am concerned, is wrong and Canada Post was told about it in no uncertain terms.

It is wrong.

I will give you an example. What happens if you want to get a

stamp? If you want to get a stamp, you have to leave a note in the mailbox. So

he will pick it up when he brings the mail that day and the next day you will

get your stamp. If you want to get a money order, Mr. Speaker, you leave it in

the mailbox in an envelope and the next day he will bring back your money order.

Crazy and ludicrous, as far as I am concerned.

I experienced it this year with the results from the

University in March. All the people in Deer Lake had their results on Friday

evening. The rest of the students in St. Jude's, Howley and Cormack had to wait

until Monday. And I don't have to tell you what goes through a student's mind,

whereas they should get their results on a Saturday, go into the post office

like they did in Deer Lake and pick up their mail like everybody else.

So there is no question, you are right. They are crucifying

rural Newfoundland when it comes to the mail service. If they are going to cut

the service, cut it everywhere and have it five days a week everywhere. But

don't cut it in rural Newfoundland and in my particular area or the hon.

member's area or anybody else's. There are a lot of other hon. members in the

House who feel the same way. Do it everywhere or else reinstate it so we will

get the same level of service and be afforded the same rights as every other

Canadian.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Motion 6, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Motion 6.

Motion, the hon. the Minister of Employment and Labour

Relations to introduce a bill, "An Act To Amend The Human Rights Code, 1988."

(Bill No. 25)

Motion, Bill No. 25 read a first time, ordered read a second

time on tomorrow.

MR. BAKER: Order 2, Mr. Speaker.

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The last time the committee met, the hon. Member for St.

John's South adjourned the debate.

MR. MURPHY: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It is sad when you get everything going and you are in full

flight and all of a sudden the clock just attacks you. The clock attacks you.

Today, through no fault of my own but from some silly little bug, I am little

bit under the weather, but here - dedication. I just took a couple of aspirin

and I hope that this pounding goes away, but that is enough about my problems.

Let's talk about the problems of the hon. Member for St. John's East. When he

rose in his place the other day - it is almost unbelievable how narrow-minded

some of us can be when it is politically convenient.

The Member for St. John's East thrashes this government for

Bill 17. Now if he had put his cause in the right direction you could almost

understand it. After all, he does represent the party in the country and in the

Province that is supposed to speak for social conscience. He stood up and

condemned this government, knowing full well the monetary position that this

government is in. Obviously, a have-not province gets into more trouble quickly

when there is a recession.

I picked up the paper the other day, after listening to the

hon. gentleman, the very next day, and one of the headlines in the Globe and

Mail was: 'The NDP Poised to Force Ottawa Area Teachers Back to School'. Now

these are teachers in the Province of Ontario who are out now because of what

they feel is an injustice to their collective agreement, and they are taking

advantage of their right to strike. The hon. member stands up and criticizes

this government, knowing only full well the monetary problems that we face right

now.

As I said before, there is not one hon. member in this House

with any grain of political stripe in him at all, more especially on

government's side, who would not like to see the situation completely reversed,

180 degrees. There is nobody over here who likes Bill 17 - nobody. You would

almost have to be representing the district of Green Bay to take that kind of

attitude. You would almost have to be.

You know, the sad part about the hon. Member for St. John's

East and his direction is that he does it all with a personal mandate. I suppose

if you are trying to struggle and hang on to a party that is almost demised, and

I notice this morning that his party, federally, has gone nowhere. I noticed the

opposition, and I congratulate them. I do not know how this happened, but they

rose two points. They went from sixteen to eighteen. However, our colleagues in

Ottawa went from thirty-eight to forty-four, a full six points. So, slowly but

surely, we can see what is transpiring. The Reform Party went down. But the NDP

Party went nowhere, and it is very easy to see why. Absolutely nowhere. As a

matter of fact, I would predict to the hon. the President of Treasury Board that

by the fall the NDP Party from now will be down a minimum of six to eight

points. I will predict that now.

The reason, Mr. Chairman, is simple. Those people who

advocate in tough times doing for the workers - and we have seen what has taken

place in Saskatchewan - that particular province, under an NDP government at

this particular time, is struggling, as this Province is, to handle a horrendous

debt that was put in place by the Tory party, Mr. Devine and company, who tried

to run Saskatchewan for eight or nine years - I say tried, because it is quite

obvious that the unpaid bills they left behind them give Mr. Romanow nothing but

problems.

But those are real problems, and I do not envy the job that

Mr. Romanow, the NDP premier, has to do. I do not envy him. Because what he has

to do is what he has already done. He has to pull the belt and he has to look at

those people that he has to go to to borrow money, the astronomical cost of

borrowing that money, and the debt load that particular province has. You could

not stand in that House and criticise the man for the budget that he brought

down. It was a budget of necessity.

The same thing exists with Bill 17. It is not a palatable

bill, it is a bill of necessity. The hon. members opposite will obviously get up

and rant and rave and shout and roar. But deep down they know that this

government is paying the price in this recession and/or depression - take your

pick - for the lack of attention that our friends opposite got this Province

into for seventeen consecutive years. But you can be sure, as is taking place in

Ottawa, that the people of this Province are quite aware of this government's

performance in this recession. I think tomorrow if we saw a poll we would even

see a larger number of support for this administration then we see nationally

for the Liberal Party.

So, I suppose we will hear a lot of innuendo, gobbledegook,

and ballyragging. That is what they are over there for, I suppose. As each

member opposite stands up and criticises, then let me suggest to them that they

do it constructively. When they criticise, give us an alternative. Tell us

something, how we are going to handle it, how we are going to do it, how Bill 17

is not necessary, how we need to freeze wages, and tell us how. Because the real

problem is they did not know how for seventeen years. That particular government

put an interest load of nearly half a billion dollars a year on the backs of

this government.

The first thing that this government has to pay every year is

nearly half a billion dollars of interest. When you look at the Province of

Newfoundland with its tax base, with its potential as such for the number of

people we have - and the Premier said it the other day. If we had three or four

more million people we would be a lot better off. Spread out over such a large

land mass. I am waiting for someone to tell me how we can do all the things that

need to be done. It is just impossible, and the hon. members opposite know it is

impossible. But they hoodwinked the people, hauled the blindfolds down over

their eyes, and did not tell them the truth, did not come clean, and borrowed

beyond our capability for political reasons. Throwing money all around the

Province for whatever.

The day of reckoning is now here. The people recognise that

this administration has accepted the responsibility, as tough as it is, to put

financial sense to government in this Province and to carry on, Mr. Chairman,

with what needs to be done.

Mr. Chairman, I could go on, obviously as you, and hon.

members are quite aware, for a lot longer and talk about our friends opposite,

Her Majesty's loyal opposition, or I could talk about the Member for St. John's

East and his policies, but nothing, nothing that I have heard in three years,

tells me that these people deserve any right to look after the finances of this

Province. And, Mr. Speaker, I think we all know as they know, we know on this

side and I think they are beginning to know on the other side, that the thing to

do is just get up and pound their desks and make meaningless statements and when

the time comes to the people in this Province, they will return this government

because of, if for no other reason, how we have managed the finances of this

Province during this horrendous period. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson.

This government has now been in office for more than three

years. May 5th, was the third anniversary of their coming to power so they are

now in their fourth year, and I remember early in their term of office saying

publicly with respect to the Premier, he was a new Premier at the time: what you

see is not what you get. Now many of the people I represent, many residents of

Corner Brook who had had a fairly long association with the Premier knew what I

meant, but the majority in the Province, who knew little or nothing about this

new Premier, probably did not appreciate what I was saying, but by now, by now,

they are realizing that with this Premier: what you see is not what you get.

What you see, is a man who presents himself to the TV camera

as sincere, honest, concerned, who looks earnestly into the camera and says

sanctimoniously that he is doing what is right and what is proper, what is

correct, that he is a man of principle. He talks about morals and propriety and

uses phrases such as, what is right and proper, what is fitting, what is

reasonable, fairness and balance. He uses all these words of morality and, Mr.

Chairman, the Premier takes elaborate care to do the little things correctly,

but it is the big things that you have to watch and Bill 17, Bill 16 last year,

are big things. Big violations of trust; the big lie. Now, Chairperson, I have

to withdraw the word lie because it is unparliamentary.

The first major betrayal perpetrated by this Premier was his

refusal to allow the members of the House of Assembly to vote on the Meech Lake

Accord, after he had made a promise and signed a document at the First

Ministers' conference in Ottawa some days prior, after he had persuaded the

Leader of the Opposition to suspend the normal rules of the House of Assembly

for a special debate on the Meech Lake Accord. At the eleventh hour, the Premier

halted the debate and refused to allow it to conclude as everyone had been led

to believe with a vote. He would not even let his own caucus vote.

Now we have the spectacle of this Premier keeping in his

Cabinet an unelected minister, and not just any minister, the Minister of

Justice. It has been six months since the Premier announced he didn't have

sufficient confidence in any of the members of his caucus to do a good job as

Minister of Justice and, therefore, he would have to go outside the elected

caucus for a suitable minister, that he was going to be appointing Ed Roberts as

Minister of Justice. Six months ago the Premier made that announcement. Three

months ago Ed Roberts took up the position. The Premier still hasn't made any

provision for Mr. Roberts to get a seat in this Legislature.

Mr. Chairman, constitutional convention is very clear. A

nonelected minister has to get a Legislature seat very quickly, within weeks. It

has now been months in the case of Ed Roberts. Newfoundland and Labrador, in the

year 1992, has had a nonelected Minister of Justice for three months. The

Premier announced his intention to appoint Mr. Roberts six months ago. When I

asked him about it yesterday, when I challenged his constitutional authority for

keeping a nonelected minister for months on end, he resorted to saying: It isn't

written down anywhere. This is Clyde Wells, the constitutional legal authority.

The Premier knows full well that the Constitution of Canada

is not all committed to paper. The Constitution of Canada includes more than The

Constitution Act, 1982 or the predecessor, BNA Act. The Constitution of Canada

has always included convention, practice, unwritten guidelines and rules. There

are many aspects of our parliamentary democracy which are part of the

Constitution of Canada which are not committed to paper. One of them is the

requirement that ministers have a seat in the Legislature.

Mr. Chairman, Premier Smallwood, who ignored rules of

democracy, who increasingly, as the years wore on, behaved like a dictator,

giving credence to the old maximum that power corrupts and absolute power

corrupts absolutely, Premier Smallwood stooped to appointing nonelected people

to his Cabinet. But at least Premier Smallwood waited until shortly before he

called an election and that was back in the 1960s, that was another era.

Chairperson, most of us thought that we had gone beyond the Smallwood era in

this Province. Most of us thought, with the reforms of the 1970s and 1980s, with

the passage of The Public Tendering Act, with the establishment of the merit

principle for hiring for the public service, with the constitution of the public

service commission, with the institution of parliamentary reform including

Question Period, that we had made progress, that our democracy had expanded. But

in the last few years, in the last three years to be precise, we have seen major

reversals, reversals which I never would have believed if somebody had forecast

them three or four years ago.

So another big departure from the sanctimonious image

presented by the Premier, a major departure from constitutional convention with

a nonelected Minister of Justice. Six months after the Premier's announcement,

still no seat in sight. Now, either the Premier failed to plan when he asked Mr.

Roberts to be Minister of Justice or whatever the Premier presumed, hasn't

materialized. Now, the Premier is arrogant. Many people have seen that by now.

Perhaps he arrogantly assumed that any one of his members was going to step

aside and make way for the anointed, for Mr. Roberts. But we still have the

Member for Mount Scio - Bell Island here, we still have the Member for Bellevue

now sitting in our Chair. We still have the Member for Baie Verte, even though,

apparently, he is not the Premier's first choice to represent that district. We

still have the Member for St. George's, even though, apparently, he is not the

Premier's first choice. We still have all the members opposite. None of them

have yielded for Ed Roberts. So what is the Premier to do? Well, the Premier is

simply saying that he needs more time, that he is going to wait for Mr. Roberts

to come back from the important constitutional meetings at which he is

representing the Province and assisting the Premier, before dealing with the

matter.

A little matter like the constitution won't get in his way.

This is a Premier who has concentrated on speaking from coast to coast about

constitutional principle.

MR. BAKER: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought earlier

today that the hon. the member for Humber East was going to be really nice

today, but I think she changed her mind halfway through her speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is nice.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I wonder, as a point of order, if

the hon. member could explain her reluctance or her refusal to even discuss the

present bill we are on and spend all her time talking about the Minister of

Justice and the constitution? How come she has no more interest in Bill 17 than

she is displaying in this House? I wonder if she could explain that to this hon.

House?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Humber East, on the

point of order?

MS. VERGE: No, Chairperson, I will wait for your ruling

and then resume my few minutes' remarks.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Humber East is

participating, I know, in a very wide-ranging debate. We are discussing a money

bill, and normally we are permitted.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, it is a general type bill.

I would ask the hon. member to get back to the bill, but the

hon. member's time is up, anyway.

MR. BAKER: By leave.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson. I appreciate the leave

being given by the smiling Government House Leader.

Actually, the Government House Leader -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

I haven't recognized the hon. Member for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Oh, I am sorry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Humber East, by

leave of the House.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Chairperson. The Government House

Leader was outside the precincts when I began my talk.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. member have leave of the

House?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay.

MS. VERGE: I began by saying that this Premier, when it

comes to the big things, the things that really matter, acts in a very different

way from the image that he presents to the public. I said, what you see is not

what you get.

I used three examples of major deviations from the honesty

and fairness and balance which this Premier constantly preaches. The three

examples are: the failure to allow the House of Assembly to vote on the Meech

Lake Accord after the Premier had made a commitment in writing to the whole

nation at the end of the marathon First Minister's Conference in Ottawa. The

second deviation is this legislation on top of the predecessor, Bill 16, last

year. The third is the ignoring and violation of constitutional convention by

continuing to have an unelected Minister of Justice month after month after

month.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier takes care to do what is proper -

to use one of his favourite words. On many small things, many of the niceties of

life, he is very correct and proper. And he successfully creates the illusion

that he consistently acts in a morally upright way on every issue, but it is the

big issues where you have to watch him. On big matters such as collective

agreements, such as agreements with First Ministers, such as his Cabinet

appointments, there have been major deviations and betrayals. What we, in the

Opposition, have emphasized in our opposition to Bill 17, is the violation

inherent in this legislation.

The Premier and his Liberal colleagues campaigned three years

ago - three short years ago - on a promise of spending more - spending more on

health care, I say to the Minister of Health; spending more on education, I say

to the Minister of Finance; building new university campuses in several

locations, Central Newfoundland, I say to the President of Treasury Board,

Southern Newfoundland, Northern Newfoundland, Labrador, expanding Grenfell

College in Corner Brook, on a platform of expanding the economy so that mothers'

sons could come home from the mainland. He used to say in his campaign speeches

that a woman on the St. Barbe Coast said she would kiss his feet if he could

bring home her children.

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible) sexism (inaudible).

MS. VERGE: Chairperson, I am glad the President of

Treasury Board is pointing out the sexism involved in the Premier's campaign

rhetoric, but the Premier couldn't help himself. He is a product of an earlier

generation, and unlike the President of Treasury Board, he has not had much

contact with people who are poor and disadvantaged and therefore, his social

conscience has not been developed. Now, it is too bad that the President of

Treasury Board doesn't have more influence with this Premier, because I think

the President of Treasury Board is a fairly enlightened and compassionate

individual but, unfortunately, the Premier really doesn't take very much into

account the attempts at advice and recommendations from other members of his

Cabinet.

I was just handed a Kevin Tobin cartoon depicting a woman

sitting in a rocking chair, knitting a sock, saying, 'Mr. Wells, with all these

layoffs in the fish plants and paper mill, will you still be bringing home my

sons?' Of course, that was the cartoon that is a reminder of one of the best

known of the Premier's campaign promises.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) The Evening Telegram.

MS. VERGE: I am told it comes from The Evening Telegram,

although it is not indicated on the cartoon. Perhaps the President of Treasury

Board would like to have a look for himself. If so, I will ask one of the Pages

to bring it over to him.

Much has been said about the detail in Bill 17. I will be

able to get into that later in the debate, but the main objection, which is an

objection in principle, is that it amounts to an extension of the rollback. It

amounts to an extension of the violation of signed contracts with public sector

workers.

When the Liberals campaigned for election, they could have

taken into account the information in the Province's financial statements for

that year and the previous several years. They could have looked at the

published documents about the financial position of the federal government. They

could have therefore heeded the warning signals. They could have refrained from

making such lavish and extravagant campaign promises. They could have said as

much as they wanted to build new university campuses all around the Province,

that the Province simply couldn't afford it. They could have refrained from

building expectations in Gander and in other central Newfoundland communities.

Now, the Premier gives the impression that he only discovered

the true financial position of Newfoundland and Labrador after he became

Premier. He seems to expect people to believe that he didn't have access to the

books before he took office three years ago. Well, everyone here knows that the

Premier had available to him, the same as everyone else in the Province, the

published Budget documents, the Budget Speeches, the Estimates, the analysis

done by Executive Council and the Newfoundland Statistics Agency, the quarterly

reports on the Newfoundland and Labrador economy. The Premier had all that

information, but he wanted to get elected. He did not want to tell people the

truth back when he was campaigning. He chose another approach, the sadly, all

too familiar route of politicians. He ignored the warning signals, he

disregarded the published data, the financial statements and he told people what

people wished to hear. He said he would create more jobs, he would provide jobs

for the people living here, he would expand the economy so that mother's sons

could come home from the Mainland, he would improve spending on health care, he

would open more hospital beds, he would improve education, he would build new

university campuses, he would improve the labour relation climate, he would

bring in fair and enlightened labour legislation. Chairperson, the Premier

succeeded in fooling people. He did not fool the majority, he only fooled 47 per

cent, 48 per cent voted PC, but because of the distribution of votes he did

succeed in getting the majority of seats and becoming Premier. Now, when he took

office, say in the case of the promise of new university campuses, for the first

year or so he kept up the pretence. He even asked communities in Central

Newfoundland to make bids and different communities spent considerable time and

energy preparing proposals. A year later though, the Premier called off the

whole charade and said what was obvious to him and everyone else in the first

place, the Province could not afford to build a new university campus in Central

Newfoundland.

In the case of opening more hospital beds, after a year or

so, the Premier started closing whole hospitals, whole sections of hospitals,

downgrading services in rural Newfoundland and started implementing the 1990s

resettlement program, the creation of five or six growth centres, the

acceleration of urbanization. Now, the Premier was born in a small community and

grew up in Stephenville Crossing, but long ago, the Premier turned his back on

his origins, on his roots. The Premier turned his back on rural Newfoundland.

The Premier has adopted the values and the attitudes of the wealthy, the upper

class in St. John's. These are the people he identifies with and socializes

with. This is the station in life to which he has always aspired. He has not

kept in touch with the people he grew up with, people who live in rural areas,

people who are disadvantaged. The Member for St. John's East asked the Premier

yesterday about the social assistance rate for single ablebodied adults and the

Premier demonstrated to everyone that he had no idea about social assistance. At

the Women's Lobby in Gander on Monday, the Premier was asked about the

inadequacy of counselling service in the Province and he said, 'Well, what do

the social services workers do?' Evidently, the Premier doesn't realize what

social services workers do. He has no notion of the overload on social workers

with the Department of Social Services. Mr. Speaker, this Bill 17 is one of the

most flagrant examples of the Premier's hypocrisy, basically. While he holds

himself out to be so morally upright and such a man of principle on a big matter

such as honouring a collective agreement which the government signed following

negotiations or following arbitration, the Premier is not prepared to keep the

commitment. The Premier is saying we have no choice, we cannot afford to keep

the commitment. Well, maybe the Premier should have thought about that before he

had the government sign on the dotted line. Maybe the Premier should have heeded

the warning signals, should have absorbed the messages in the published

financial statements of both the Province and the federal government; maybe the

Premier should have shown courage much earlier, maybe the Premier should have

dealt with the problems from the very beginning of his term in office. Maybe the

Premier should not have knocked the previous administration for their efforts at

restraining spending; maybe the Premier should not have promised multimillion

dollar public expenditures when he was campaigning for election.

Now Bill 17, Ed. Roberts, Meech Lake, these are the marks of

the true Premier, and while the Premier may appear to be correct in doing any

number of little things, it is the big things that you have to watch; it is the

big things that are the true measure of the man and the true measure of the

government. Mr. Chairman, we in the opposition, will continue to speak out

against these immoral departures from contract law, from constitutional law. We

will point out to people that the sincere-sounding and slick promises of

fairness and balance are worthless. They are merely the kind of suave rhetoric

that people heard from the TV evangelists such as Jimmy Swaggart and Jimmy

Bakker. Thank you, Chairperson.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 1.

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

MR. HARRIS: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The legislation that we

are dealing with here, Bill 17, contains the seeds of the destruction of this

government because I think, Mr. Chairman, they finally unearth their true

colours when they not only imposed Bill 16 last year, this year they have gone

further and they have given every indication that they have no intention of

following through on that. Everybody has been told by Bill 17 that there is room

in the last twelve months of the thirty-six month wage restraint period, for a 3

per cent increase. But even when introducing the bill, the government has said:

well, we are not really sure about that, we put it in there, we are hoping that

we will be able to allow collective bargaining to go on in the third year only

to a maximum of 3 per cent on wages, but what we are doing, Mr. Chairman, is

saying that there is not going to be collective bargaining anymore in this

Province, unless it suits the government of the day. If the government of the

day wants to have collective bargaining, there will be collective bargaining, if

the government of the day does not want to have collective bargaining, they will

take it away.

Not only will they take it away, Mr. Chairman, not just the

right to bargain, they have not only taken that away, they have taken away the

ability to bargain by imposing restrictions on what you can bargain about. When

I say they have taken away collective bargaining, they will go on, and the

Minister of Labour will get up and tell us once again, which he is doing ad

nauseam, that they provide an opportunity through this legislation to allow for

a negotiation of certain items in the collective agreements if the total cost to

the government does not increase. What the minister is saying is that the

workers can decide how to spend the money that government has allocated to

(inaudible) cost, that is all he is saying, Mr. Chairman, that is not collective

bargaining, Mr. Chairman, that is rearrangement of existing monies that the

workers have won through collective bargaining, through strikes, through using

of their economic muscle or through the process of the legislating by the

government of this Province of binding arbitration when it has been used by

government to put an end to strikes, whether legal or illegal or whether they

are undefined.

So the government has gone so far as to insist on parties

going through an arbitration process and having agreements imposed on both

parties, and then to turn around after the fact and legislate them out of

existence because the government sees fit to do so. Saying it no longer can

afford to meet its legal obligations. That is what the government is saying, Mr.

Chairman. They are saying the Government of Newfoundland can no longer afford to

be trusted, no longer afford to keep its word, no longer afford to act with

integrity, no longer afford - you can't afford to be trusted.

AN HON. MEMBER: I wouldn't trust you!

MR. HARRIS: That is what the government is saying, Mr.

Chairman: don't trust us because we can't afford to be trusted. That is the

message that they are sending around to all the people in this Province. Don't

trust us because we can't afford to be trusted.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Now I know the Member for Harbour Grace likes

that analogy, because it is a kind of analogy that his constituents will

immediately latch onto. I know the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay knows that

this is the kind of language that decent, honest, working people in this

Province can understand. What the government is really saying - and go tell your

constituents that, because they will understand, when you say: don't trust our

government because we can't afford to be trusted. Because we are liable to do

anything and use the excuse that we can't afford to do it.

Now, that is what the government has done. It is unfortunate

that decent, honest men like the Member for Baie Verte - White Bay is forced to

support the kind of legislation that does that. I know the hon. member is

considering the wisdom of his decision to sit with that caucus, and I do not

blame him. I would not only be wondering what I am doing here listening to all

the rhetoric that gets passed back and forth, I would be wondering: what am I

doing sitting with a caucus that supports the kind of measures that are

contained in Bill 17? I don't blame him.

In addition to ripping up collective agreements that they

signed one of the things that the government did - and this is why they cannot

be trusted in this legislation any more than they could be in Bill 16 - is that

Section 6 of Bill 16 they promised the people and workers of this Province

that if they wanted to extend their collective agreements and maintain the

bargains that they had made we would impose a freeze period in the middle of a

collective agreement. But if you have a three year collective agreement, we will

have a one year wage freeze and you can extend your agreement for another year,

and get those increases that you bargained for, but get them in another year.

Have a look at

Section 6 of Bill 16 of last year and you will see what I am

talking about.

It says: any bargaining agent, can, merely by writing to the

President of Treasury Board, ask to have their collective agreement extended and

it shall be done. That preserved a certain element of what had been negotiated

or what had been imposed on the bargaining partners by arbitration. But that was

not good enough. They gave it last year and they used it to convince people that

they were not being so draconian. They used it to convince people of that, and

then in Bill 17 of course they took it all away. We can't afford to keep our

word on that. They can't afford to keep their word on that, they can't afford to

keep their word on collective agreements, they can't afford to be trusted. That

is what they said.

When in debate in this House an hon. member over there said,

in response to a statement by an hon. member on this side of the House that Bill

17 is being shoved down the workers' throats, someone over there said: We will

shove the billy-knockers down their throats. That is the kind of attitude that

is underneath the surface of that caucus over there on that side. When an hon.

member can stand in this House and say, we will shove billy-knockers down their

throats - this is the public servants of this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible)

MR. HARRIS: I do not know who said it. Was it you?

Somebody over there said it. It is in Hansard. An hon. member said: We will

shove billy-knockers down their throats. That is what an hon. member said. That

is the attitude under the surface. They will not say it out loud. They do not

want themselves to be identified with it, but that is the attitude - the

jackboots and the billy-knockers. Below the surface of all the rhetoric that the

Member for Eagle River gets on with are the jackboots and the billy-knockers. We

know where that comes from. That comes from the fascists of World War II, and

the jackboots and the billy-knockers that the government is prepared to use on

its own workers.

AN HON. MEMBER: In what context (inaudible)?

MR. HARRIS: The hon. Member for Placentia, the Minister

of Municipal Affairs and Housing, has a great interest in this issue. I will

tell him when it was used. It was used in the context when the Member for

Kilbride was up speaking in the House about Bill 17, and he said that Bill 17

was being shoved down the throats of the workers of this Province - the public

servant workers. An hon. member on that side said: We will shove billy-knockers

down their throats. That is what he said.

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. HARRIS: Well we will get Hansard and see. The Member

for St. John's South seems to know an awful lot about what was said, exactly.

Read it out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. MURPHY: A point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for St. John's South on

a point of order.

MR. MURPHY: What is really sad about the Member for St.

John's East is that he functions and operates on innuendo, hearsay and

make-believe. He continues to do it. He will not stop, and he will keep on going

until he digs a deeper hole. The hole he is in now, he cannot even see daylight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! There is no point of order.

The hon. member's time is up.

AN HON. MEMBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On motion, clauses 1 through 4 carried.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As usual, the Member for St. John's South rises in this House

to make personal attacks on other hon. members.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: I have a pretty thick skin.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. Member for St. John's East.

Clause 5.

MR. HARRIS: I will speak to clause 5, sure.

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

Order, please! Can the Chair have order please!

Before we proceed I want to inform hon. members of the

questions that are here for the Late Show. We only have two.

Question 1: I was not satisfied with the answer given by the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations in response to my question on the

latest UI statistics for the Province - the hon. the Member for Fogo.

Question 2: I am dissatisfied with the answer of the Minister

of Health on the toxic emissions at Long Harbour - the hon. Member for Harbour

Main.

Clause 5. The hon. Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Clause 5 is the guts of this draconian

legislation. It is a legislation that does the dirty work. It does the dirty

work of this government, the dirty work of this caucus over here. All of clause

5 deals with the details of the restraint being imposed on existing collective

agreements, Mr. Speaker.

Clause 5.3 of the bill says, "Where there is a provision in a

collective agreement or other contractual arrangement respecting employment

which provides that pay scales applicable during the restraint period are higher

than those pay scales in effect at the beginning of the restraint period, that

provision is void," Mr. Chairman. That provision is void. What is the restraint

period? Thirty-six months. Void any increases written into collective agreements

or contracts for thirty-six months. Void! Wiped out! Three years wiped out. Any

increases that were negotiated -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: There we go. Wiped out in less time than

that. Well, Mr. Chairman, this is the kind of comment the Member for St. John's

South makes all the time. Personal comments, personal attacks. Let the member

stand up and talk about the bill and talk about why -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Talk about the bill and the reasons how

collective bargaining can go on in this Province without interference by this

government, the undermining of collective bargaining, the undermining of

contractual relationships, the undermining not only in the public sector but in

the private sector of respect for collective agreements, of respect for workers

rights, of respect for negotiated agreements. That is the kind of thing that we

hear, Mr. Chairman, all the time. Personal attack: don't be such a hypocrite.

That is a personal attack. That is the least of the personal attacks. As I said,

Mr. Speaker, I have a pretty thick skin. I stand here in this House and I talk

and what the government is not doing, and what I hear every time I stand from

the yahoos on that side of the House, Mr. Chairman, are personal attacks on me,

personal innuendos. All of it lies, Mr. Chairman. All of it lies.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: All of it lies, made up and tolerated by the

Government House Leader, the yahoos in the back rows making personal attacks of

a vindictive personal nature. That is the kind of stuff that is tolerated over

on that side of the House, Mr. Chairman.

I am prepared to debate the issues, Mr. Speaker, and I will

continue to do so. If the approach of the hon. Member for St. John's South is to

make personal attacks on me, then sobeit. Let him do it.

Mr. Chairman, Clause 5 of this bill is probably the worst

clause. It is hard to say which one is the worst because they are all pretty

bad, Mr. Chairman, except for some of the exceptions, but every single one of

them is bad. But Clause 5 is the one that says: regardless of any terms and

conditions of employment or any other contractual arrangement respecting

employment or otherwise - I want to cover all the bases here, Mr. Chairman. I

want to make sure if it is not possible for any increase to be applied to the

pay scales of public sector employees during the first twenty-four months of the

restraint period. No increase in the first period, twenty-four months, and any

contractual provision that provides for any increase during the whole three

years is void, wiped out. That is what this legislation does. And then, Mr.

Chairman, it said that we will wipe out that collective agreement, we will just

wipe out any increases that we have already negotiated, that we have already

agreed to, that we have already had imposed on people by virtue of arbitrations,

and then we will allow collective bargaining.

Well, Mr. Speaker, that is like saying to someone: we will

put you in prison - this is an analogy now - we will put you in prison but we

will allow you the freedom to walk around inside your cell and you can decide

which part of the cell you are going to stay in, whether it is going to be in

the front or the back. We might even let you out to walk around the yard one

time, but we will put you inside the cell and give you your freedom. We will put

you in the jail and give you your freedom. Take away your freedom to move

around. We will put you in the jail. We will give you your freedom to go for

meals. We will give you your freedom to walk around for exercise once every

twenty-four hours and we will argue that we are setting you free. That, Mr.

Chairman, is what the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is trying to

convince people of on this legislation. He is saying, no, we are not interfering

with collective bargaining. We are happy to see collective bargaining. We want

collective bargaining to take place. You can give up something and get an

increase in take-home pay. We have the whole provisions there. You can go in,

look at Clause 10, and you can make any kind of a deal you want as long as it

does not cost us any money. That, Mr. Chairman, is like the kind of freedom that

a person in prison has. He has the freedom to walk around in his or her cell

when they are locked up and the freedom to walk around the yard when they are

given exercise but that is not freedom, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Employment

and Labour Relations will get up and tell us that is freedom just like he is

telling us that the kind of negotiation that can go on under Clause 5 is

collective bargaining. That is why, Mr. Chairman, this legislation, this bill,

this clause, the whole works of it, has to be defeated by any member of this

House who believes that government should act with integrity and honour in

following through on legally binding agreements that it signs.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On motion clauses 5 through 8, carried.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I was standing during Clause 9

and I am going to address that because it talks about pay equity. That, Mr.

Chairman, is a very important clause because it deals once again with matters of

conscience, matters of justice, and matters of human rights, and hon. members on

the other side do not appear to have any concern about that. They laugh. The

member for Eagle River laughs, justice, human rights. It is a joke, it is only a

joke, Mr. Chairman. Despite the restraints that exist in all provinces of this

recognized that pay equity must be an exception.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. HARRIS: Perhaps I will take a moment, with the

indulgence of the House, to deal with the suggestion that the Member for St.

John's South makes, about ordering teachers back to work. Now, I am not familiar

with what the Globe and Mail had to say about that today but let us just talk

about it in theory. Ordering people back to work is not necessarily a horrible,

terrible thing. The free collective bargaining that takes place is obviously

subject to certain limits, at some point in time if a strike goes on and on an

on, and the other side lets it go on. We have all recognized that, we recognized

it in the first collective bargaining legislation, imposed the first agreement,

it was a provision in our labour relations act that this government supports and

I am sure the Member for St. John's South supports, that there should be the

imposition by the Labour Relations Board of a first collective agreement in

areas where collective bargaining does not work, where collective bargaining is

ineffective in bringing about a proper bargaining between the parties because of

an inequality of bargaining power, for example. There are situations, Mr.

Chairman, where there is a total deadlock, where there cannot be a continuation

of a situation forever and ever. What happens? There may be a back-to-work order

that in addition to it imposes a fair way of determining a proper resolution to

the contract dispute. That is all within the realm of free collective

bargaining. That is not taking a contract that two parties have negotiated and

tearing it up. If the hon. Member for St. John's South cannot see that, and

wants to just make rhetorical stabs and jabs across the House, well and good.

But I think anybody who takes the time to think about it will

realise that there is a very big difference between finding a situation where

the collective bargaining process has not worked, has failed, and appears to be

forever about to fail to result in a resolution of a dispute. That is one

situation. Where other innocent people are suffering and may suffer for a long

period of time as a result of the inability of two parties to make an agreement,

that is one thing. But what we have here is a piece of legislation that says pay

equity, a principle that is recognised in our human rights code, a principle

that is recognised by the government of the day in sitting down with the unions

of the Province, and saying: we acknowledge that we are discriminating against

women. We acknowledge that. We are prepared to do something about it, and we

make an agreement about it.

This government is not satisfied to recognise that it

discriminates against women systemically in relation to pay and benefits in its

own public service. It recognises that, recognises that the agreements have been

put in place to look after that, and says: no, we are taking that away. We are

going to continue to discriminate for a period of four years, five years, maybe

more, against people whom we have already acknowledged that we discriminate

against.

That is another provision that cannot be supported. I do not

think that would be there - I know hon. members had an opportunity earlier this

year to support a resolution which would ultimately see 50 per cent women in

this House. They turned down that opportunity to even consider it. Did not even

want to have a committee to look into it. The Opposition House Leader was

convinced by the arguments that had been made that this was worthy of

consideration. He did not say he was going to have it imposed tomorrow. He said

he was prepared to consider it. He wanted to have a committee go around the

Province to discuss it. He did not see any problem with that. A very progressive

man, a man who is prepared to listen and to change his mind and be persuaded by

argument.

But hon. members opposite were not. No, no, we do not want to

have a committee to do that. Not only that, the President of Treasury Board gets

up and says: oh no, we do not amend resolutions. We take the principled position

that if the resolution, we like it, we vote in favour of it; if we do not like

it, we will vote against it. We do not amend resolutions. We have taken a firm

position on this. Therefore we will not amend it to make it more palatable. What

do they do, Mr. Chairman, when they want to send the Member for Eagle River

around the Province on some - at the waste of taxpayers' money? They amend the

resolution brought in by the Member for Torngat Mountains, amend it to set up a

committee to go around the Province and spend money on something that everybody

agrees on!

AN HON. MEMBER: Point of order, Mr. Chairman!

MR. WOODFORD: Get in your seat! Get in your seat!

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

MR. BAKER: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. HARRIS: He's not in his seat.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the President of Treasury Board on

a point of order.

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, my understanding is that we are

totally off now the general topic of the Bill and we are talking about one

particular clause, which is Clause 9, which has to do with pay equity. If the

member has nothing better to contribute about pay equity than what he is saying

now, Mr. Chairman, he should sit down and be quiet.

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

the point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to that point

of order. That is not a point of order. If the hon. member wants to make

editorial comments about my speech he is free to do so. He can get up after I am

finished.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the point of order. Of course, we are

dealing with Clause 9 of the Bill. It deals specifically with a specific matter.

So I ask the hon. member to keep his remarks confined to that.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for Eagle River on a

point of order.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Mr. Chairman, I cannot let it go

unnoticed that that hon. member got up there just a minute ago and said that the

name of the Province does not need to be changed, that it does not matter to the

people of Labrador, or does not care about what happens to the people of

Labrador. That it is a waste of money to be sending out a positive signal to

Labrador. That will not go unnoticed, I can guarantee you. If they are going to

take those kinds of shots at parts of this Province for partisan political

reasons, Mr. Chairman, it is just unbelievable.

MR. HARRIS: To that point of order, Mr. Chairman.

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

the point of order.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, if the hon., member has a point

of order he should raise it, instead of getting up and putting untruths on the

record. Which is what he just did. He put untruths on the records. He totally

misrepresented what I said, and he is abusing, once again, the privileges of the

House to raise points of order when all he wants to do is make innuendo and put

untruths on the record, misrepresenting what I said. Anybody who he wants to

show Hansard to, him saying that, can also read the words that I said before,

criticising the government for wasting money, instead of passing the legislation

to change the name of the Province.

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

There is no point of order.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The hon. members

opposite do not necessarily see the connection between pay equity for women and

the representation of women in this House; then perhaps they need some lessons

from the public on what is relevant and what is not. That is what has got to be

looked at. Not only pay equity in the public sector, pay equity in the private

sector. The government is not even prepared to legislate pay equity in the

public sector, let alone the private sector. I would like to see this government

engaged in a (Inaudible) -

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On motion, Clause 9, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall Clause 10 carry?

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

MR. HARRIS: Clause 10, Mr. Chairman, talks about

bargaining in the restraint period. You cannot bargain in the restraint period

at all. You cannot bargain about pay equity, because they said no. No bargaining

in the restraint period about pay equity. Any provision that has pay equity in

it is void. Wiped out!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

MR. HARRIS: The marginal notes on

Section 10 talk about

bargaining in a restraint period. The bargaining that will go on in a restraint

period, Mr. Chairman -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible)!

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

MR. HARRIS: The bargaining that would go on in a

restraint period is not bargaining at all. It allows the Minister of Labour to

stand up in this House and talk about what goes on under

Section 10 as if it

were bargaining. This is a hypocritical section, Mr. Chairman. Any hon. member

who supports this is institutionalizing hypocrisy by suggesting that what would

go on under

Section 10 can be considered to be collective bargaining. Because

anybody who knows anything about collective bargaining knows that this is not

free collective bargaining or anything like it.

Clause 10 (4) allows certain types of variations in the

components of this pay scale or other items contained in this agreement as long

as the variation in any component of the pay scales is subject to the provisions

of subsection (3). That is the one that makes sure that nothing can result

directly or indirectly in a total cost to the government of any more of zero in

the first twenty-four months, or in the last year of the three years, 3 per cent

of the total cost of the expired agreement or arrangement.

Now, Mr. Chairman, this has been presented as a 3 per cent

wage increase being permitted in the third year. Well, it is not, Mr. Chairman.

It is not, because any other item that may be contained in the collective

agreement in terms of improving the working conditions of the public servants of

this Province is going to be costed by the minions and the accountants of

Treasury Board and say that is going to cost .023 per cent and this is going to

cost us 5 per cent and 4.4 per cent. That is going to be (inaudible) no, we

can't give you a wage increase of 3 per cent because we have already changed

this clause in your collective agreement and that is going to cost a certain

amount of money, Mr. Chairman. Therefore, we are not going to allow that to take

place.

So there is no bargaining over pay equity, Mr. Chairman. The

pay equity that was in the collective agreements that were signed by this

government or by the previous government that were binding on the government of

this Province are not allowed to be bargained for. That is not permitted. It is

not permitted to get back the bargainings they had, Mr. Chairman, because they

are all void.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs, I know we roared past

clauses 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 before anyone got a chance to say anything, but if he

had looked at clause 5.3 it says: "Where there is a provision in a collective

agreement or other contractual arrangement respecting employment which provides

that pay scales applicable during the restraint period are higher than those pay

scales in effect at the beginning of the restraint period that provision is

void." So any increase -

AN HON. MEMBER: It doesn't void the collective bargaining

rights (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Oh. It doesn't void collective bargaining, it

voids the provisions that you have agreed to, so you might as well say, Well,

okay, you can keep your collective agreement as long as all the provisions are

ripped out of it. That is what it says. It says you are still entitled to your

collective agreement. You can still have your collective agreement, but any

provision that provides any guts, any provision that provides any increase, any

provision that is worth anything to you is void, gone, finished, caput, void.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you sure that's not an honourary

degree you have?

MR. HARRIS: It is a very honourable degree that I have.

Let me assure you, it is a very honourable degree, and I would put my honourable

degree against the Member for Carbonear's honourable degrees and match them up

any day of the week.

AN HON. MEMBER: I tell you one thing you can't match

(inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, any agreement or provision is

void, and the bargaining and the restraint period provided for

section two says

we will take it all back. We will void anything that you have, and then we will

let you bargain for what is left. We will let you fight over what is left. We

will take away any increases and you can fight over what you already had. You

can keep what you already had two or three years ago. Not only can you keep it,

we will let you play around with it. We locked you inside this particular

arrangement and will let you play around in it as long as it doesn't cost us any

more money. We will pretend in our speeches that collective bargaining is going

on, Mr. Chairman. But what is going on, Mr. Chairman, is legislated hypocrisy,

and legislated deceit. That is what is going on, Mr. Chairman, and any hon.

member who supports that has to face the facts that that hon. member has

legislated hypocrisy, legislated deceit, and legislated a fraud upon the people

of this Province.

On motion, clauses 10 and 11, carried.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 11 was carried, I believe.

Order, please!

I remind the hon. Member for St. John's East -

MR. HARRIS: Yes, clause 11, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: - that clause 11 has been carried.

MR. HARRIS: I will speak to clause 12, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 12.

MR. HARRIS: Clause 12 refers to the Public Sector

Restraint Act which is more commonly known as Bill 16. One of the trilogy of

acts that this government will be implementing before they go back to the polls

- Bill 16, Bill 17 and Bill 18.

The Public Sector Act is repealed because what we want to do

- we have stronger measures. We got rid of Bill 16. We have stronger medicine

for the people of this Province, and that is going to be Bill 17, and watch out,

because Bill 18 is coming, stronger medicine still, and we will see it in a

similar provision ne