Volume 2 PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND THIRTY-SIXTH GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEWFOUNDLAND 2nd Session VERBATIM REPORT Monday, October 29, 1973 SPEAKER: THE HONOURABLE JAMES M. RUSSELL Number 67

October 29, 1973 The House met at 3:00 P.M. 't-fr. Speaker in the Chair. Tape 67 MR. SPEAKER: Before we continue with other business I would like to IB-1 welcome to the galleries today twenty-six students from St. Bonaventure's Grade VII (

G) class with Brother Conti. I trust that your visit here is most interesting and informative and indeed I would like to welcome other visitors who are with us today in the Speaker's Gallery ·at the back and any other. I see Mr. Carter, M.P. down there~ I trust that your visit here is most enjoyable and interesting. PRESENTING PETITIONS: MR. E. ROBERTS: (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I rise, Sir, not to present a petition but to raise a point affecting the privileges of the House.

The point, Sir, is concerned with the conduct of the honourable gentleman from Port au Port and I regr?t that the honourable gentleman is not in his seat. I do not know if he is in St. John's today but in any event, in view of the necessity to raise points of privilege in as timely a fashion as possible, I propose to proceed even in the honourable gentleman's absence. Mr.

Speaker, it is a fundamental principle of parliamentar¥ conduct that the officers whom the House elects to govern itself, you, Sir, as our Speaker, the Deputy Speaker who is also the chairman of committees and the other officals - I speak not of the clerks and the officals of the Table but of the elected members who Ye elect to be our presiding officers that these men, Sir, be absolutely fmpartial and fair. I have no hesitation in saying, Sir, as I have said before, that your conduct in this role we think has been exemplary. Mr.

Speaker, the same cannot be said for the gentleman from Port au Port and that is why I raise a question of privilege today. I was not in St. John's yesterday, Sir, but. I am told and I have here a cutting from a newspaper and a transcript from a radio station and I am prepared to get the tape recordings if they are available, that the gentleman from Port au Port, the Deputy Speaker of the House, made Yhat amounts to a vicious and a brutal personal attack upon the gentleman from Bell Island, 6793

October 29, 1973 Tape 67 IB-2 The attack, Sir, may have been in order if it were made in the House as a matter of opinion but it is my submission that coming from a presiding officer, the Deputy Speaker of the House, it ie not in order. Mr. Speaker, to compound the offense, the statements in question were made uhile the Deputy Speaker was actually in the Chair~ He had stepped out in the hall, I assume for a cigarette or a bit of a breather.

He gave a statement to a radio station reporter and these statements were of such a nature as to cast the most grave doubt upon the gentleman from Port au Port's fitness to continue in hie position as Deputy Speaker~ Mra Speaker, in that light I raise the question of privilege, Sir, and I wish to move, seconded by the gentleman from White Bay South, that in view of the unprecedented action of the Deputy Speaker in making a public pet'Sonal attack outside this House on the member for Bell Island whereby serious doubts have been cast on the abil;ty of the Deputy Speaker to preside in this House in a fair and impartial manner, this House resolves that it no longer has any confidence in the Deputy Speaker~ I have a copy, Sir, for Your Honour if the page would be kind enough~ Mr.

Speaker, let me say that I move this with regret but in view of the conduct of the honourable gentleman, I do think, Sir, tPat serious doubt has been raised as to whether or not he is fit to carry on his duties as Deputy Speaker and as chairman of committees in an impartial manner$ Mr~ Speaker, this is of the utmost importance in any parliamentary house where we have the adversary system of two sides, that the presiding officers be fair and impartial~ Yo~r Honour's conduct, I have no hesitation in saying, has been exemplary throughout 1 with some difficult situations • ...

Unfortunately the gentleman from Port au Port has not seen fit to follow Your Honour's example and has not lived up to the high standard. 1 move. this motion Yith regret, Sir. but I think in the circumstances it is necessary. 11011. ll.ll. HARSHALL:(!1UHSTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO): Mr. Speaker, if I _may speak to the motion~ As the Hon~ Leader of the Opposition has indicated, the alleged statements Yhich were made, which were alleged to be breachs of privilage of the House, were uttered,by the information that 6794

October 29, 1973 Tape 67 IB-3 was given to Your Honour, outside of the House itse1 f. This is not the time to be debating it. It is to be done by notice of motion. HR. SPEAKEP: Order please. I feel that this motion by the Hon~ Leader of the Opposition is not a debatable motion and I feel that maybe the "'.overnment House Leader might he debating this motion as such. !-fR. MARSHALL: Your Honour I I concur that there is no debate. Perhaps the Hon.

Leader of the Opposition did debate it a little bit but I just say on a point or order that the motion in itself is out of order because it refers to statements which are not part of the business of this honourable House. Your Honour, I quote as a quotation, as an authority from that, paragraph 114 in Beauchesne, page l02vand also they are authority for statements made outside this House itself. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, if I may speak to the point of order, to the point of order as to whether or not the motion is debatable. in my understanding that is the point before the House,raised by the gentleman from St.

John 1 s· East. It is a standing order, Sir, of the House of Commons. It is standing order 32. It is fotmd on page 106 of Beauchesne and is the one to "1hich we refer often on this question, "Every motion is debatable including names and number of motions, any and such other motion made upon routine proceedings as may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the appointment or conduct of its officers ..

" It is my submission, Sir, Indeed, may I further point Out citation 72 (1) found on page , 62, Your Honour,i "The Speaker's action cannot be criticized in debate or upon any form of proceeding except a substantive motion." I submit, Sir, that the effect of these taken together is to show conclusively that this motion is in fact a debatable motion and that it should be debated at an appropriate time. MR. MARSHALL: Mr. Speaker, let me clarify: I nm not saying that the motion is not debatable. It obviously is debatable as such time as it ia brought before this !louse in a normal process after notice hns been given.

What I am saying - I think the Hon. Leader of the Opposition prohahly misunderstood me when I was saying that it was not dehatable at ,.7qr;

October 29, 1973 Tape 67 IB-4 this time - what I am saying is that the alleged statementsj as set forth by the Hon~ Leader of the Opposition, do not form part of the business of this House but were statements uttered by the admission of the Hon. Leader, outside of the House itself and thus the motion is out of order$ MR. SPEAKER: I shall take this motion by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition under advisement and rule on it later~ !ION. J.C.

CROSBIE: (MINISTER OF FI!lANCE): Further to that point of order, the Hon. the Leader of the Opposition has expounded for some five or six minutes some grave breach that the member for Port au Port is alleged to have made and we have not before us any of the words alleged to have been used or any other material~ That is another reason why, in my view, in addition to the reasons cited by the House leader, this motion is entirely out of order~ MR. ROBERTS: Mra Speaker, to that point of order:! am quite prepared, Sir, to table. I have a Cutting. I can have in a second a full copy from todays edition of the St.

John's 11Daily News" wherein the gentleman from Port au Port is quoted as saying, 111 think he is an extremely dangerous man", said the gentleman from Port au Port, by name, who commented that the gentleman from Bell Island, by name and that his performance in the House tends to develop an arrogance in government~ I shall gladly lay that before the Chamber. I will lay it on the Table if Your llonour should so wish.

Furthermore I shall obtain the tape recordings of the offending item vhich was broadcast on·radio station CJON. on the one thirty nevs yesterday,should honourable gentlemen wish it~ Here is this mornin,z's 11 Daily News", Sir, if the page would like it. It is fotmd on page 2 4 He had better get me one that has not got it cut out. MR. SPEAX!!R: I feel that there has been enough discussion re this matter nov and, ~s ~ said, I shall rule on it later. 6796

October 29, 1973 Tape NO. 68 NM - l NOTICE OF OUESTIONS AND ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS: MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Finance. MR. CRO.SBIE: The honourable and sensitive member for Bell Island, the honourable and thin-skinned member from Bell Island asked me a question several days ago - MR_. NEARY: Inaudible. MR. CROSBIE: I will leave that to someone else's judgement.

He asked me a question some days ago about a matter of shares in which he is evincing a tremendous interest and because I did not have the information with me I just want to correct any inaccuracies that might have occurred and I also want to drive the honourable gentleman to a fit of deep depression, Mr& Speaker, with regard to certain matters currently pending,and I hope that this will help tq further depress him. In connection with the - MR. NEARY: Is he going to table that? MR. CROSBIE: No, I am not going to table it so the honourable gentleman should write it down or it will be in hansard. MR.

NEARY: Inaudible. MR. CROSBIE: We know the honourable gentleman can only write in baby hand,ia it? In connection with shares of Canadian Javelin Limited that were owned by the Government of Newfoundland, Mr. Speaker, I am just leading up to the essential. The position was that since 1965 the government have held shares of Canadian Javelin Limited.

These shares were turned over to government in consideration for "'Ill the sale of NALCO, the shares of NALCO owned by the government,to Canadian Javelin Limited, a total of 84,872 shares~ 84,872 shares were held by the government, 80,000 received by the government on April 28, 1965, an additional 2,400 received•• a stock dividend on June 10, 1971 and a further 2,472 received as a stock dividend on October 16, 1972,for a grand total of 84 1 872 shares. Nw when the government had decided that after holding these shares (o~ eight years there is no longer any F,reat point in the

October 29, 1973 Tap• No. 68 NM - 2 province holding them and that the shares therefore be sold~ So on July 30, 1970, our fiscal agents, Burns Brothers and Denton Limited, were instructed to sell these shares and to sell them very carefully so that the market be not disturbed. The shares were sold~ The honourable gentleman should note this, their shares were sold between July 30 and August 7, both on the American stock exchange and the Montreal stock exchange. MR, NEARY: tn the name of the Newfoundland Government? MR, CROSBIE: Do not ask irrelevancies, They were •old by our fiscal agents.

Whose name they were sold in is a matter of complete irrelevancy~ A total of 58,572 shares were sold on the American stock exchange and 26,300 on the Montreal stock exchange~ The lowest prlce paid for the shares was twelve dollars and one eighth and the the hi2hest Price p_aid was thirteen dollars and five eighths.

During the period July 30 to August 7, the honourable gentleman might be interested, there were 2,175,000 shares traded on the American stock exchange and 74,325 traded on the Montreal stock ' exchange~ It is therefore obvious that the 84,872 shares of Canadian Javelin owened by the government and sold during that period could not materially have effected the market nor its price.

The total amount realized for the shares now being held in trw,t for the government is $1,089,321.82, I informed the House the other day of subsequent events where Canadian Javelin Limited instructed Canada Permanent Trust Comt,any not to transfer the shares,and ,that matter is now before the court. -e There vas a mistake in one of the papers the other day, where they said the government had taken action against Canada Pennanent Trust Company~ The governmenthave taken action against Canadian Javelin Limited. MR. NEARY: And Canada Permanent True t Company. MR. CROSBIE: And Canada Permanent Trust Company.

MR, NEARY: That is right, u798

October 29, 1973 Tape No. 68 NM - 3 MR. CROSBIE: The action is taken against them both. The full information of course on the whole matter will be given in the various court actions. The honourable gentlemtn opposite will be glad to realize that the market went up during the whole period and not down. We hope that he will be even more familiar with all these facts before the year is finished. ORDERS OF THE DAY: MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Bonavista North. MR~ THOMS: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the honourable Minister of Forestry and Agriculture.

Could the minister inform this House when we can expect more detailed information on the recent exch~nges in cutting rights between Bowaters Newfoundland Limited and the Newfoundland Government? MR. SPEAKER: The honourable Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. MR. E. MAYNARD, Minister of Forestry and Agriculture: Mr. Speaker, if the honourable member would care to enquire at my office, I could give him the details on any particular exchange or the details on all the exchanges that were made. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Bell Island. MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to direct a couple of questions for the honourable the Premier. The first question, Sir, has to do with the fishery advisory committee that was to be set up tmder the Collective Bargaining Act for inshore fishermen in the province. I understand it'was some time ago. I think it was within· two weeks after the chairman of that committee resigned. Could the Premier tell us if there has been another appointment made or when we can expect an announcement on a new appointment of a chairman to the advisory committee on the inshore fishery. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable the Premier. MR. F.D.

MOORES (PREMIER): Yes, Mr. Chairman, the committee was establishedsas the honourable member from Bell Island knows. The 0799

October 29, 1973 Tape No. 68 chairman unfortunat~ly did resign when he realized that it could take a great deal more time than had been anticipated by him. The Minister of Manpower and Industrial Relations who is in charge of this is I know actively pursuing the matter of getting a new chairman for the committee and a new member and a three man commit¢ee with a chairman.

Also, Mr, Chairman, 1f I may say at this time, if it be in order,that that co-ittee vill have, hopefully with legislation introducted by this House, by this government into this House, the right to ,ascertain the facts and figures from any books that may be relevant from fish companies or unions or whoever and that it will be in effect the committee that will have some major imput into the recommended prices of fish as an advisory group to our government~ Also, Sir, it might be pointed out that this committee was set up with the restrictions under the previous administration.

Those restrictions as to the right to go into books, those restrictions as to acti~ities of ~embers of the committee vill be changed so that they will be fully effective, That will be done in the next legislation, within the next Legislative Assembly, MR, !IEARY: Mr, Speaker, will the hOnourable Premier indicate to the House vhat steps his government is taking to try and stop a three or four cent increaSe in gas and furnace oil in this province? MR. MOORES: Mr. Speaker, the only.steps ve have taken is the only ones ve can take..

The Liberal Federal Government announced ,about a .._ month ago_ I guess,rhat there would be a freeze on petroleum products in Canada, particularly Eastern Canada. They in the meantime have changed their minds apparently whereby they are allowing an increase. We have appealed to the Minister of Mines and Energy in Ottawa, Mt'~ McDonald, saying uoequivocably that we are totally opposed to a freeze that led to a thaw before the length of the freeze, that in fact we protest any federal allowance for these 6800

October 29, 1973 Tape No. 68 NM - 5 oil companies to incr~aae their rates and until such time as a satisfactory explanation has come from the Liberal Government in Ottawa, we on this side of the House will not be satisfied. MR. NEARY: Mr~ Speaker, supplementary question: Will the honourable Premier indicate to the -House if his government intend to follow the example set by the Premier of Nova Scotia, Premier Regan, another Liberal Government, in calling all the major oil companies together to try to work out a solution to this problem and offset this proposed increase? MR. MOORES: That will not be the case, Mr.

Speaker, because it is a matter Of federal jurisdiction. We vill make protests to the federal goverrnnent and until such time as they have ma.de their decision, then our actions will be governed accordingly. If it is necessary for us to ask these people to come together, if the federal government do no~ see it in their wisdom to give some protection to Eastern Canada, if the federal government do not see that it is right to do it, then of course we will look after our interests in this provincee MR. NEARY: Mr.

Speaker, I wonder if the honourable Premier would indicate to the House if Lord Taylor's l~xury home up there on top of the hill has yet been transferred from the university to the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation or in the name of the province? MR. MOORES: Mr. Speaker, now we are getting down to what the honourable member for Bell Island is all about. The fact is that that residence is owned by the Department of Public Works. It is under the jurisdiction of the university. The university has been given the authority to rent it to whomever they see fit.

I vill admit here and nov that I have applied to rent the establishment. I think the rent is too high. That being the case,I think it is a personal matter but in the cafle of the member of Bell Island, Sir, if I 6801

October 29, 1973 Tape No, 68 might say so, most things are personal matters~ MR, NEARY: It 1• a public - NM - 6 MR. MOORES: Mr. Speaker, if I may tarry on with that. The public knowing that it is owned by the university snd as far as - MR. NEARY: It is owned by the Department of Public Works, Mi..

MOORES: It is owned by the Department of Public Works under the jurisdiction of the university and if I may reply to this, Mr, Speaker, if I may just reply to this particular accusation, it is a building which I have applied to rent, I have not rented it yet, As far as any building that is owsed by the governmen~ under the jurisdiction of the wiversity or any other group,! assume that whoever is given the jurisdiction over that building have the right to rent to whomever they may see fit. MR. ROBERTS: Mr.

Speaker, supplemantary question, Sir, hes the Premier had any indication from the university as to whether or not they are prepared to rent it to him or to anybody elee1 MR, MOORES: The answer to that, Mr, Speaker, once again I will gladly answer it, is that I have heard from the board of regents that they are prepared to rent it upon the terms to be worked out between the nev president of the univers4.ty, whom we are very proud of, and my.self, if satisfactory terms can be worked out. l!R, ROBERTS: Mr, Speaker, a further supplementary question: Have the university made this offer.

The offer to the Premier is obviously an offer to the Premier and that i• fina - but have the university in effect offered anybody else the opportunity to try to acquire a very choice residence which apparently is now surplus to tha needs of the university? MR. MOORES: I have no idea; Mr. Speaker~ I can only say that as the Leader of the Opposition's father is one of many people and respected people on the board of regents. I assurn.e that that board of regents had the acumen to make a decision on their owno MR~ ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the personal attack on my father - 0802

October 29, 1973 Tape No. 68 NM - 7 MR. MOORES: That iS not a personal attack. MR. ROBERTS: No. No. There is an attack, !'1r. Speaker~ As a matter of fact, not only have I had no communication Yith my father. not only have I had no communication on this matter, it may interest the Premier to know and if the board of regents has gone wrong this may be the reason why, my father has been out of the province for the past month~ He arrived back on Friday. I repeat my question to the Minister of Education who is responsible in this House for the administration of the tmiversity.

Have the university invited any person interested in purchasing or renting this building, the president's house at the university, to apply or is it a sweetheart deal between the Premier of the province on one hand and the university on the other hand? MR. OTIENHEIMER: Mr. Speaker, in reply to a question basically two - there were two questions I think there, number one~ Has the board of regents or has the university invited any applications from other people for the rental of the premises in question? Number two. Ia it a sweetheart deal?

I think the easiest thing to do is dispose of the second part of the question first because obviously that is a loaded question, an answer to which would be to~give credence to the validity and rationality of the questions. So number two I think obviously reveals 1 the opposition would agree I am quite sure what is a loaded question .. MR. ROBERTS: Well it is a question that demands an answer. MR. OITENHEIMER: Oh yes, sure: Ia it a s~eetheart deal between the university and the iovernment? That demands an answer.

That demands a serious, impartial, rational, intellectual answer because it is such an impartial, intellectually honest and rational question. •Well the answer will get the same kind of treatment that the question deserved, but it is probably vulgar and maybe unparliamentary so it is better to go without being answered. The first part of the question. Mr. Speaker, is or was: Has the board of regents of Memorial University made any offers for o8U3

October 29, 1973 Tape !lo. 68 NM - 8 rental to other people? My answer to that, Mr. Speaker, is that this government, some months ago, showed that it believed that the u:niversity should be,within its own legitimate area of jurisdiction, autonomus. We show that by pasaing legislation, by repealing legislation enacted by the last administration whereby pr••ident• were appointed by the cabinet; by giving that authority to the board of regents, which board of regents has exercised that authority.

We therefore, ahoved demonstrably in otatute and by action our belief in the autonomy and the legitimate area of the jurisdiction of the university that it not be subservient to the government and in questions of rental of any of their premises we leave the same autonomy and the question would be more properly directed "to the chairman of the board of regents. MR. P.!lBERTS: As Shakespeare said, ''!le thinks the man doth protest too much$11 The Premier of this province stood just now in this House, Sir, and said that this property - Mlt. Cl!OSll!E: - That is not a question. MR. ROBERTS: Mr.

Speaker, the honourable gentleman does not know a question from - That is unparliamentary tOOe MR. CY!.OSBIE: I know a horse's vhet not. MR.iROBERTS: Yes, you should,you are surrounded by them~ MR. SPEAKER: Order please. MR. ROBERTS! Mr. Speaker, I ask a question then of the Minister of Public Works: Whether he is auare we have a classic conflict of interest, the Premier on one hand renting it from the Public Works Department. Ml!. MARSHALL: Point of order if I may. Perhaps we can be spared from this morose rhetoric that we are now receiving.

The question period requires questions to be asked and not to be embellished by nonsensical speeches before hand nor statements. MR. ROBERTS: Mr; Speaker, so much for that specious and farcical point of order~ AJJ I was saying, 6804

October 29, 1973 Tape no. 69 Page l - MRW MR. ROBERTS: Mr~ Sp~aker .. MR. l'.ARSHALL: I have a question for the Minister of Public Works, On a point of order, Mr~ Speaker~ I would like this point of order ruled upon, if I may, Mr. Speaker. MR. SPEAKER: Order please! I am sure that all honourable members are aware, as the Hon. Government House Leader said, that the question period is such that questions should be very precise and to the point. I do feel perhaps that the Hon. Leader of the Opposition is getting into a debate on this matter. MR. ROBERTS: Mr.

Speaker, I have no intention of debating it at this time but I do at another & • May I ask the Minister of Public Works whether he is aware (the government own this property, although it is being administered by the university so the Premier tells us) that the Board of Regents administering the property (a quasi trustee function, I assume) have invited offers from the public at large for the rental or purchase> rental in this case, of this very choice property? MR. ROUSSE.AU: No, I am not aware. The Premier has not spoken to me> as Minister of Public Works, about that.

We understood it to be and we just heard it from my colleague, the Hon. Minister of Education. We on this side of the House feel that the Board of Regents at the university are quite able to determine whether or not they have a situation in which they should rent a house or not. I have not been consulted as Minister of Public Works. I have no doubt that I will be in the end result. If the Hon. Leader of the Opposition would like to put the question in writinr. Certainly I will undertake to check it ouL MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary question for the honourable gentleman.

Will he undertake to make public the terms and conditions of the rental agreement7 0805

October 29, 1973 Tape no. 69 Page 2 MR. ROUSSEAU: Could I an""7er that by oaying that the Premier did not at any point not undertake - MR. SP!WU!!l.: !!R. !l.O!JSSEAU: that. MR. ROBERTS: Order please! The Premier did not at any point not undertake to do I am not asking - I am asking if the honourable gentleman vill undertake to do it? MR. ROUSSEAU: This government are prepared to undertake to give the condition• of the rental of the house which is situated at Mount Scio Road, publicly, certainly. !IR. 11.0BERTS: Thank you. That is all I wanted to knw~ MR. !!EARY: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to - .lllil IIO!l. l!l!Ml!ER: (Inaudible) • !IR. 11.0l!ERTS: You are bloody well right it wovld have - MR. SPIWl:El!: Order please! MR. !IEAl!Y: !Ir. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the honourable minister - if the honourable Premier would just restrain himself fqr a few moments, Mr,. Speaker,, I know we touched a·nerve there. I would like to direct a question 9 Sir, - Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with the lion. the Premier today, he is so jumyy and edgy? !Ill. MOORES: !!R. ll!W!Y: !Ir. Speaker. MR. MOOill!S: Ask the question~ Come on Bat Face, let us go!

That is certainly becoming of a Premier of this province, That is what I am ~~lking - ;he honourable member Order please! ... I would remind all honourable members that when a member rises to speak, he bas the right to be heard in silence and I trust that the honourable member for Bell Island will proceed with his question. !IR. liEAl!Y: Thank you very much, Mr 9 Speaker~ My question is directed to the !linister of Social Services. In view of the fact that 0806

October 29, 1973 , Tape no. 69 Page 3 the government have found suitable accommodations for one young couple, would the minister now tell un if the government have found accotmnodations for the other one hundred families who live in less-substandard homes than Elizabeth Towers, vho are being evicted during the month of October. if homes have been found - MR. MARSHALL: MR. SPEAKER: MR. MARSHALL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Order please: On a point of order, th,e honourable member for Bell Islandia making a speech again. This is a question period in which questions are asked, not make speeches. MR.

SPEAKER: I feel that the honourable member for Bell Island is proceeding to ask questions in a rather lengthy manner and trust that he will just ask the question and not debate. MR. NEARY: Mr. Speaker, I want to know from the Minister of Social Services if his d~partment has yet found accommodations and shelter for one hundred families vho are being evicted this month mostly from houses and apartments rented from the Newfoundland Rental Agency? MR. MURPHY: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman refers to one hundred families. I had a record of forty.

I pnsed these over to the only agency responsible for housing and that is the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation. We inherited something, Sir, and this will become naturally a part of this answer. The problem we inherited was one of 3,000 people on long-term assistance that we took over from the former administration, if you want t~ call it tha~and paying rent of $2.5 million, I had a survey don'e about four months ago, Sir, and we discovered th.at 900 of these'families are living in homes or designated homes Of the former Liberal Government that are not fit for human habitation.

I think, Sir, the honourable member can see what I have inherited. Now We have forty families, to my knowledge, 0807

October 29, 1973 Tape no. 69 Page 4 that are being evicted or have notice to vacate homes. I think we have found homes for thirty and we are still trying to get the balance~ Housing ia one of the tragic things that we inherited from the great former government - MR~ DOODY: Who was the minister responsible? MR. M!llll'!!Y: Do not talk. They did not have a minister, that was the point. But 900 of these cases, Sir, under this great benevolent gentleman from Bell Island, are living in homes not fit for human habitation. In answer to the question, I am aware of forty, Sir, not on.a hundred.

We have found homes for the greater part and we are otill trying to find homes for the balance. MR, NEARY: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. Has the minister yet started to construct these gas chambers to do ffWSY with these people? l!R. M!JRP!IY: Mr. Speaker, if I bad a gas chamber, l know the first one I would put into it. MR. Sl'!WCER: Order please. IIR. MARTIN: Hr.

Speaker, I have a question which I would like to address to the Minister of Rehabilitation and Recreation. ln view of the fact that this summer's railway strike has had the effect of rendering the C.N.R.'s November 10 deadline for freight to the Labrador Coast um,ork..able, I am wondering if the honourable gentleman could tell the Howse whether his department is aware of this and if eo vhat is being done to make sure that ~e are not going to have a crisis this year similar to the one we had last year? MR~ DOYLE: Yes, Mr.

Speaker, l can assure the honourable gentleman that the officials of the department are quite well aware of the situation and as recently as about an hour a~o. ve are completely on top of it, To the best of my knowledge,information as of now, we anticipate no problems for this vinterQ I assure him and other members of this honourable House, Mr. Speaker, that I will do all in my power to aee 6808

October 29, 1973 Tape no. 69 Page 5 that we are not faced with the same problems which faced us in the past winters. MR. MARTIN: I have another question, Mr. Speaker, which I would like to direct to the Hon. the Premier. We note that many government departments and government agencies have dropped the word nLabrador 11 from the name of the province. I wonder if the honourable gentleman could inform the House if this is ,as a result of official government policy and if not, what he intends to do about it? MR. MOORES: Mr.

Speaker, in regard to that, as the honourable member for Labrador South probably realizes that the official name of the province was never changed from the Province of Newfoundland, it cannot be for apparently constitutional reasons. On letterheads and so on it had been used, "The Province of Newfoundland and Labrador" for whatever reasons by whoever used it. However the case is that without constitutional changes, as I understand it, the name cannot be officially changed to Newfoundland and Labrador, from Newfoundland, without that being done.

Any representation the member from Labrador South would like to make to the government on that behalf, we would gladly listen to ita Also in future years, if a plebiscite be in order, whatever is in order,to correct it permanently and for good. It is something that the government is open to for suggestions on or anything ve can do to bring it about. MR. ROBERTS: Mr~ Speaker, a supplementary question, relating to the one from the honourable gentleman from Labrador South.. Could the Premier tell the House if the government have taken that act to implement a decision~ There is on the Statutes of the Province

an act called the "Coast of Labrador Act." Whether that has the effect of changing the name of the province or not is another point. There is

an act called the 11 Coast of Lab,rador Act, 11 Under '?'hich government stationery and so forth - it says here on this note pad, "House of Assembly, Newfoundland and Labrador." Have the government taken any action to change that? 68U9

October 29, 1973 Tape no, 69 Page 6 They have not changed the statute. Have they taken any action to change that policy? MR. MOORES: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with exactly what the Hon. Leader of the Opposition is talking about. I do not mind saying so. I will gladly take notice of the question and try to get a satisfactory answer as soon as I can. MR. !WBEJI.TS: I thank the Premier, 0810

October 29, 1973 Tape 70 (afternoon) PK - 1 Mr. Speaker, but perhaps it is a fairly simple matter. There is legislation which says that "Insofar as it is the province' e right, the name of the province shall be Newfoundland and Labrador. 11 Now we are leaving aside whether the province can cha~ge its own name. But insofar as it is within the province's right, what I want to know is whether the government have taken any action to change that policy insofar as I am only speaking of actions entirely within the competence of the government of this province. ls there, for example, any decision?

I notice on the letterheads we now have in the House, Your Honour, it says Newfoundland House of Assembly. Is that the result of a government decision or is it the result of some clerk somewhere just deciding to strike the words 0 and Labrador?" MR. 'MOORES: Mr. Speaker, again I will have to take notice of it because I do-not know specifically. My own personal inclination would be to say that it was not a government decision but that may not be the case. But l will gladly on tomorrow give the details on this question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, a further supplementary.

Would the Premier be good enough to look up an order-in-cotmcil passed on May 10, 1973 which was purporteC -to do just what I have said, they have namely changed the name of the province by order-in-council. MR. MOORES: Mr~ Speaker, if I may say ao,that is the reason I took notice of it to make sure that I will get the fact accurate, as opposed to giving an off-the-<:uff ooinion. MR. ROBERTS: Well the off-the-cuff thing is that it ~aa done. MR. MOORES: I do not know. ORDERS OF THE DAY MR. SPEAKER: Order three, second reading of Bill 123.

I think the Honourable Minister of Manpower and Industrial Relations adjourned the debate last day. I am assuming that he wishes to continue at this time. HON. J. G. ROUSSEAU: (MINISTER OF MANl'OIIER AND INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS): Mr. Speaker, I spent some forty minutes on Friday and it is a little difficult of course to speak.in two separate sections on this bill 0811

October 29, 1973 Tape 70 (afternoon) PK - 2 but I would like to spend a couple of minutes to go over a few things I said on Friday, But first of all I would like to correct three small things, if I may.

(1) I noticed in the news media over the week­ end the two terms of choosing f!fY words with caution3 The other media suggesting that I cautiously ·supported the bi"l\.

In my own opinion, and they may have read it differently, and I accept their prerogative for that, I vaa attempting to speak intelligently on the bill and tried to choose my vords certainly with caution but not in an attempt to tmderline the stand that I will be taking, As I suggested at the beginning, I intended to try and provide some conceptual framework here by which I could ""'ke my position on the bill quite clear but I wanted to do it in relation to a total concept which I vae trying to evolve.

I did have a very nice telephone call over the weekend. (I must mention thi,)from a young lady who suggested that I spoke on Friday and said that I mentioned the working man and forgot the 'WOrking women. So I would gladly,on behalf of the womens liberation group in the province, like to change that record for posterity in Hansard and suggest that by using the tem "working m_an" I included the tem "working women" because I know there are many women who provide for the Households in the province,and be it so noted. Ali 1lO?I. Ml!Ml!ER: All womankind.

MR, !IOUSSEAU: All wom,mkind, in such which way, Actually in fact when I spoke about the labour and management, and I talked about the human relations approach in management I was speaking then very academically end very theoretically but actually the gentleman who started the scientific management process whereby the worker in a plant was a thing and not a human being was a gentleman by the name of Frederick Winalov Taylor~ The person who started around the mid-forties the human relations approach in management, tmion relations, vea a lady Mary Barker Follett.

So the vomen can feel .that they certainly had an input into labour- management relations* Also there was one other term that- was used in the 0 Evening Telegram" on Saturday that may have been misread, I did not suggest or if I did then us12

October 29, 1973 Tape 70 (afternoon) I'K - 3 I was either taken in the wrong contect or I made a mistake myself. I do not know which it i• but whatever it i•,it is incorrect. When I said that the labour code when it was passed there would be no need then for the individual act like the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act or the Newfotmdland Teachers Association Act or the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act,that is not accurate.

The Labour Relations Code is not intended to change any of these, the neeQ for any of these individual acts ,1though certainly the new labour Relations Code that l ended rrry talk on, on Friday;would have some affect on the individual articles in each of these acts. If any were changed in a Labour Relations Code, as I suggested,of .course, one vould immediately assume that the changes would then be made appropriate to each of these acts. On Friday I ended up by talking about the context in which we feel that labour is going in this province.

I mantion the Cohen Commission Report and the Labour Code which we are presently in the pipeline. The next one that I would like to speak about for a few minutes, if I may, is the Labour Standard's Code~ Now the Cohen Commission Report suggested and I quote "The various enactments (and that is labour standaids) enactment in totality represent a substantial set of rules governing the conditions that must be observed in the employer/employee relationship.

It would be a convenience to employers and employees to have all these rules consolidated into one statute as a labour standards code for the province,." Now I knov when I became minister labour standards kind of baffled me. I guess probably many people do not understand exactly what is meant by labour standards. l might suggest some of the different types of act to which I refer.

The new Labour Standards Code, for example, would include acts of the following type: 11 The Annual Vacations With Pay Act, n 11Tbe Employment of Childre?l Act, 11 which has not been proclaimed, 11The Effiployment Notice of Termination Act, 0 11 The Hours of Work Act, 11 11 The Minimum Wage Act, " "The Termination of Employment Act, 0 uThe Weekly Day Of Rest Act," 11The Workmens Wages Act," etc, this type of labour standard legislation. 6813

October 29, 1973 Tape 70 (afternoon) PK - 4 So in addition to these acts which I have just mentioned of course the new code would also include "The Wages Protection Act, 11 and 11 The Statutory !lolidayo !11th Pay Act." So at the •mme time as we are looking at the pipeline drafting of a labour code we are al•o looking at the consolidation of all the different pieces of labour standard legislation in the province. This of course will form the Labour Standar~s Act.

In addition 1 of course, as l have suggested,we are also looking at the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act. lie have written each of the operators and each of the fishermen aaying;llhat are your thoughts? Can you live with it? If you cannot, would you like to see it aF~nded or thrown out? Again we are looking at consultation with the people involved and certainly ve have every intention of involving them in any decision wllich may be made in respect to the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act.

As well, of course, we have the NTA Collective Bargaining Act which was passed during the last session of the House. iuat another individual act~ There is another one of course of _great concern to us ,md that is the Trade Union Act. Relatively' speaking within the context of the labour code and the Labour Standards Act and the other things-that we are trying to do, the Trade Union Act right now is not a matter of priority, It is important but not at this point in time a matter of priority. lie intend to bring in some u.endments to this act.

If we have the ti!ll<! and the draftsmen are available we will probably consider of course a new act in the coming session but it is a matter of practica­ bility in the sense, do we have the people who are prepared and ready .... to draft such a major act as the Trade Union Act? The Apprenticeship Board, of course, we undertook that if the reaction from labour and management was to the effect that we should retain this board after snnouncing that it would be done away with. lie bad the reaction and we said that we will retain the board.

Right now ve are looking at a nev concept in the apprenticeehip field,a new concept of

an act wll:!.ch came into effect some twenty years ago which 0814

October 29, 1973 Tape 70 (afternoon) PK - 5 we fe~l is not really relevant to today's needs for trades people, for people in the various trades with training and certification and so on and so forth. So we arc looking at that in a much broader sense. Now I stood up on Friday and suggested that I had no compunction whatsoever of sitting down and talking to labour at anytime nor does government nor do I have any feelings that I could not look them in the face and say nLook we pretty well tried to do as much as ve can to assist labour.

We tried to do the same thing for management. 11 I suggested that labour and management are not always going to get what they would like to have in terms of the legislation in this province. Now when I talk about the Labour Code and the Labour -Standards Act and the other acts and the other things that we are doing in legislation, I suggested that this rather mammoth publication was going to be the basis of a lot of the work we did in labour relations. We liave before us in the Haus~ today

an act ~called "The Public Services Collective Bargaining Act." I would like to quote if I may a f"'1 parts of this act. The first one that I would like to suggest is there have been some question of arbitration. Now I think in labour sense when you are trying to talk objectively, you assume that neither labour or management like the concept of arbitration especially when it is compulsory or binding and final. Now if I msy read from page 504 of the Cohen Commission Rl!port.

It is recommendation I think number seventy-two regarding arbitration~ The Commission recommends and I quote, "The legislation, 11 atid Ye are talking about the public services legielation, "The legislation should provide ... in addition to the requirement of grievance procedure for the establishment of an independent forum for the final step of arbitration." Now the arbitration that they are referring to throughout the book here is at this point in time 11hat ve have suggested in the act to be final and binding arbitration. I would like to go to page 509, if I may. I would like to read (1815

October 29, 1973 Tape 7l IB-1 reconriendation 80,

chapter 17, page 509,with rei~rd to certain employees.

The commission recommend - this is recommendation 80 - the commission recommend and I quote, 'The legislation should provide a procedure for deEignating certain employees or classes of employees whose work is essential to the safety, security or health of the public~ In the event of a strike in the unit to which they belong, they would be required to eont.inue to perform services~ 11 So, the concept of essential employees is contained in this, as •I suggested on Friday - and I am not now calling it a bible but it is the basis on which we are proceeding in new labour legislation in this province~ So, the Cohen Commission Report recommend that we have essential employees designated& Where the employees by work stoppage would have an effect on the safety, security or health of the public of course, they should not be premitted·to strike~ There is a further recomnendation of the Cohen Commission Report that I would like to read if I may,

Chapter 17, page 495. I have it numbered here and we have it m.n:nbered - this is departmental numbering so if I am wrong on that I run not misleading the House. It is just the way we have it numberedo We have it numbered as 78 re­ commendation~ The commission recommends - and I quote, 11 At the outset no right to strike should be provided for and - Ml!. ROBERTS: Could w have a quorum call? !IR. SPEAKER: Would the clerk count the House,please?

There is a quorum present., MR. ll!lUSSEAU: And I quote on page 495, "At the outset no right to otrlke should be provided for and compulsory, final and binding arbitration should be the rule. After two contract periods have elapsed it should then be open to the bargaining agent to exercise an option between strike action mid arbitration as a method of dispute settlement ..

" So, that in effect the Cohen Comission suggests•, not in this one but I am sure that if anybody read it he vill take my vord for it that the Cohen Comission suggests that there be no right to strike for hospital employees as well as for the police and for the members of the fire fighting contingent of our society. - -6816

October 29, 1973 Tape 71 MR. AYLWARD: I wonder would the minister permit a question? Does the chairman designate any particular segment of the hospital or IB-2 say all.~ospital e,nployees7 You know, does he define essential services of safety any better than just a generalization that no one employeed in health or safety - MR. ROUSSEAU: The important word here is at the floutset1'. At the outset what the Cohen Commission Report recommends is that no right to strike be allowed in hosµitals, public s~rvices fire and police. MR. AilWARD: Everybody. MR. ROUSSEAU: Everybody, right.

So that you have situation here where - the point I am trying to make now is that we are using this and the Federation of Labour have come out in support of it. We are happy.that finally we are moving on the Cohen Commission Report. Well, I will tell you this here and now in this instance of the Public Services Collective Bargaining Act we are not moving in the right direction. We are not giving the hospital employees no right to strike. We are not giving civil servants no right to strike. We are attempting to compromise.

So that in a way, I presume you could say that we are inconsistent but nevertheless we feel that we want to take an attitude which because we are going from step zero to step one hundred too quickly, we ha~e a.rather small problem~ AN HONOURAllLE HEMllER: Come over here my son. MR. ROUSSEAU: It will be a long dreary, dreary day before I am over there.

So that in following the concept of -.ch I have been talking about, the Labour Relations Code or the labour code, as you will know it, the Labour Standards Act or any other of the future·legislation of this province, we will attC111pt to follow basically the ideas of the Cohen Commission Report. That does not mean that we are going to accept blindly every suggestion·m~de by the Cohen Commission Report~ If you recall on~ Friday, Mr.

Spea~er, I mentioned that at least it was one man's report or at least a group of people who were consistent in that they worked at it from start to ftnish so that we would have some consistency in the various recommendations that were made. 0817

October 29, 1973 Tape 7l Before that I have another one here somawhere that I would like to read that I think i• vary important to thi• debate. I would like to read this if I may. I am sure all honourable gentlemen here and many interested people around the province have read this but I would like to read it again so as to put it on the record as par~ of IB-3 the suggestion when I have certain things to suggest in a few minutes. I quo~e - Mr.

Cohen is speaking about essential services in the public service - n'rhe fundamental issue i:egarding collective bargaining in so called essential services is that of the status of work stoppages whereby public access to these services is interrupted or curtailed. The concept Of e~aent1W:.;ty for these purposes go beyond ;he notion of convenience for economic. interest to a more urgent set of services vhol!lf interruption involves a threat to the security of the state, the destruction of property or risk to the physical health or safety of members of the public.

If this concept were to be expanded beyond the notion to embody economic interest and inconvenience, the notion of worY stoppage as an instrument of dispute settlement could be displaced~" I go on to page 507 and I quote again, "There are some services in the community whose interruption involves too great a risk of public detriment to justify its value as a dispute settlement device i~ stimulating meaningful collective bargaining$ In these areas greater attention should be paid to methodn of improving bargaining which culminates in arbitration and in providing a meaningful and fair arbitral process so that the employees are not disadvantaged by the abaense of the strike right by virtue of their happening to -work in essential industries. 0 One other one here, essential services~ This one here was in the public service ..

Another point here and' i.·cannot just find it at the moment. It is to the effect that -- I will quote again if I may, "The notion of sanctions of work stoppage or the strike poses some distinct isaoos when applied to the public •~etor. To begin with the atoppa~e of work in many of the functions of government does not impose an economic sanction ac the employer but rather an inconvenience in carrying out the functions of government,in varying degrees of inconvenience to th8 public served by the government~ Some functions of government are essential for 6818

October 29, 1973 Tape 71 IB-4 the sa'fety and security of the citizens while others are important for economic or social activities of the population* While essential services cannot be curtailed without a social cause which has prohibited it, the stoppage of other governmental functions has been shown by experience not to be beyond possible .acceptance. 11 So, in effect. what I am saying is that we have looked at this Royal Comission on Labour Legislation by Cohen. We have followed it to some extentw We have accepted his postulation of arbitration,final and binding in this instance.

We have accepted hie recommendation for the designation of essential employees in the public service. We have not accepted his suggestion that hospital workers as well as·police and fire people_ have no right to strike. We have attempted to compromise in that situation and have, as such, of course, permitted within the juriodiction of this legislation the right to strike in certain instances except for those people who are designated as essential employees. Now, 1 would like to go back for one moment please because I vant to hammer it again.

On Friday I suggested - and in the past six months believe me, the number of work stopp'ages legal and illegal we have. seen in the province - we have had some experience in this matter that at the outset you have your normal collective bargaining process. Under normal conditions, of course, this should bring about a settlement in any possible work stoppage~ The collective bargaining process puts you there with ... t1819

October 29, 1973 Tape No, 72 NM - l management and labour on both sides of th~ table. In the event that this ia not successful in bringinc about a ~ettlement to the dispute,you have the conciliation officer or the conciliation board. Now, this is not ,a process which is going to last two or three days and then bang the government is going to call the' House together and we are going to have a declaration of emergency services.

The emergency pouers aspect of this pact I would respectfully suggest, Mr. ,speaker, is not a sort of thing that would occur as a matter of course~ I think the ~~mbers of this House would debate the question with very much caution, if I may use that term, with knowledge of all the aspects of the situation and if in the feeling of this House that the need be.to proclaim an emergency, then I think that all members of this House would have no hesitation in doing so, l think that to put the emphasis that we placed on this emergency powers is one which distorts the real intent of this bill which in effect is the ability of the public service to collectively bargain with the government and- then to go on strike if they are not able to reach a sati"sfactoey conclusion, but with the ability for the !louse of Assembly here convened to suggest that a state of emergency exists,by proclam.tion,and then to bring about an end to the dispute by final and binding arbitration, I think we have said on this side of the Rouse that arbitration is not something that management i• happy with,.

I would suggest too that it 1• not something which labour likes but it is something that in this instance is going to have to be tried and whether or not in the final analysis we can decide whether we are going to live with it or not i• another thing. ... I attended a meeting with members of the Canadian Union of Pu!>lic Employees, with my colleague the Minister of Finance, in which 6820

October 29, 1973 Tape No. 72 ·mi - 2 we discussed the bills. a little while back,and my colleague told them quite frankly there that this was not now and forever, that this government intended to look at the Public Services Collective Bargaining Act at intervals in the future& If there were some aspects of it that we did not think were wise or workable, certainly I do not think that anybody would not believe that government wereprepared to take a second look at any part of that bill that is not a workable solution to any impending legal dispute or illegal dispute,if you want to bring it that far.

There.are a couple of things I think we should also keep 1n mind here wherewe have a rather complex situation at the moment. We have a bill before the House which we call the Public Services Collective Bargaining Act and that in itself probably would not have caused the comments that it has caused if it were being considered by itself but we also have unfortunately and concurrently the strike of the x-ray and lab technicians. As you know, government met with the x-ray and lab tech;1icians over the weekend and unfortmately,of course the dispute was not settled. The strike still goes on. MR.

NEARY: Just to follow on with the miniSter's statement: Did the government make a new offer or is the government flexible on the position? Just what did happen over the weekend? Would the minister tell us? Was there another round of negotiations? HR. ROUSSEAU: No, there was not another round of negotiations.

Tburs~ay evening when I returned from the House, I had two members of NAPE who wanted to see me and I met with them and they had some thoughts they wanted passed on and I passed them on to the Premier and to the Minister of Finance and we discussed the situation and as a result of our· discussions a meeting was held on Friday. We discussed the situation I think with the negotiating team of the x-ray and lab technicians as well as the .., two members of the executive of NAPE,with my colleague, the Minister of Finance, the head of the negotiating committee for the Hospital 6821

October 29, 1973 Tape No. 72 NM - 3 Association, Major Meinnes and the member of the Treasury Board, negotiating team and myself$ We discussed the situation and there,were no increased offers made to them~ We had a few points that were clarified and of course they went back and held a meeting and it was not satisfactory to the x-ray and lab technicians~ Of course our position is as stated before. The government has made it• final offer. There i• no more money there.

I think this position has been ma.de quite clear and except the final binding arbitration with a letter from government that in the unlikely event that the arbitrators should award less than was the offer now1 which they voted on and accepted by seventy per cent~ if it were less than that, the government would undertake to of course give them that offer.

So the government's position is now that the government is prepared to put this question to final and binding arbitration and if the arbitrator, io the unlikely event the arbitrator awarded leas than of course which is that amount which is presently on the u,01,,. then of course government will undertake to give them the l!R • !!EARY: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would permit another short question~ Did the matter of parity with the nurses, this msunderstmding, did that come up during the round of negotiations? l!R. l!OUSSEAU: Now I have got a call on the old question.

I am sure that the Minister of Finance, m.y colleague, when he stands up at'ld says this,but I am going to aay this: As the member knows, it is oot too often one makes a definitive statement unless one knows what one is talking about. Right? One does not noTI!Uillly do that and I certainly ,lo not. I will stand in this House today and after sitting through a session with the negotiation team from the x-ray and lab technicians snd two officers of NAPE and say to this House that I am satisfied on direct questioning from me that there was never an offer made across that table that the x-ray and lab technicians ii822

October 29, 1973 Tape NO. 72 NM - 4 would ever receive the same ~ay scale or parity with the nurses~ I am not saying that maybe the other aide did not understand that from a question that may not have been answered or something else, it may have been an

interpretation on their part~ I put thi·s question to them at least three times and maybe five times. I kept asking them because I wanted it clear, in my personal mind, having sat across from this negotiating team and the two member of NAPE for an hour-and-a-half or an hour-and-a-quarter, whatever it was, and asking that question on a number of specific occasions, I am satisfied that the management side, if I may put it that way, or the Treasury Board side and the Hospital Association side of that table never said nor inferred that the x-ray and lab technicians would receive parity with the nurses.

I am satisified. MR. NEARY: Well what is the roadblock now? Why will they not go back to vork? MR. ROUSSEAU: That is ·as much as 1 am going to say. The minister will speak about it later on, undoubtedly in hie conversations with the member across the House, but right now I am satisfied in my own mind, so you have to take that on good faith at the moment. MR. NEARY: What is stopping an agreement now? MR. ROUSSEAU: I do not know that. Nov one second, I am just telling you rrry part nov,the Minister of Finance will reply further to that. I am just telling you what happened over the weekend. MR.

NEARY: Well is the minister now the chief negotiator for the government? MR. ROUSSEAU: Not necessarily. The minister now vould like to go on with his speech,if he may. MR. NEARY: In other words, the minister does not want to answer the question. MR~ ROUSSEAU: The question I was discussing there before I was interrupted with the question was that we have a complex 0823

October 29, 1973 Tape No. 72 situation now where we have the bill, we have the x-ray and lab situation and as I ougga•t•d I am oatiafied that the x-ray and lab people were not offered,in my ovn mind anyway, NM - 5 Im satisfied that they were not offered parity with the nurses~ But this of course complicates the present bill before the House- l ,m also concerned with the efforts of an individual union to bring about a public outcry with respect to this bill.

Now we have !M!:t with the people involved on a number of occasions and in my own opinion I do not think it was necessary that an individual or the union itself,I suppose, if one talks on behalf of the imion, it was necessary to personally attack one member on this side of the Nouse. l'think we have sat down with this union and we are prepared to sit down with any tmion to discuss any aspects of any bill~ As I said on Friday, there is no way that management are going to get everything they want in any given bill, there is no way that labour will be able to secure all its want in my given bill.

We are going to have to finrl some middle path in which we can have some sort of a flexibility built in or some sort of s compromise for both labour and management~ These are things that directly effect them.

We certainly feel that they are going to come out and say from botb sides, both management and labour, "Look we do not like this aspect," and the other .side, whether it be labour or management, iiwe do not like it. 11 We are prepared to sit down and listen to the recitations of either aide but in the final analysis government has to make a decision and stand with that decision and certainly this govemment is 0824

October 29, 1973, Tape 73, Page 1 -- apb Afternoon p~epared to make its decision and stand with it. We have an unfortunate situation, of course~ I guess in a way,vhere labour in the past eighteen months has been unshackled, if we may say. They feel now that they have a medium of freedom in which to act and of course they are attempting to secure the benefits they can as fast as they can. That is acceptable. That is their prerogative.

Ho~ever, you know you can only go so far so fast~ We feel that it is importantthereare certain aspects in this bill that are essenti~l to the bill itself, that at this point in time we cannot change. misUilderstood~ I will say one other thing, lest it be Now I am calling on rrry credibility as a member of govermnent and as an individual and I will say this, that we are going to be accused on, this side of the Rouse of the opposition or somebody else forcing us into various positions in respect to the bill before the House.

It is going to be suggested that fo~ce was put on us to change verious aspects of this bill. I say to you that is not the case,. because t have been consulting with my colleague on this. the Minister of Finance and various other ministers. Government as a whole, of course, in cabinet have been consulting on it. I met on Monday or Tuesday of this week with some officials in Corner Brook, during the Federation of Labour meeting, at which they suggested some changes.

These were brought back and discussed so there are many of t~e changes that were and are going to be moved to this bill, and there are quite a few amendments to-be made. Thia government is not inflexible, we are prepared to listen to reasonable,responsible arguments from any individual or any group provided that, of course, the proposed amendments do not change the essence or the principle of the bill. We have been discussin~ for some time now certain changes to the bill and they will be brought before the House when we 0825

October 29, 1973, Tape 73, Page 2 -- opb Afternoon are in committee,by my honourable colleague the Minister of Finance. I say now that I that I accept thet this bill is not what labour wants. I have no doubt as well that in many instances it is not what management wants. I think there has been an attempt to provide some sort of compromise and certain of the articles in certain of the sections of this bill, in order to make it a little more appealing to either or both sides, when in effect it has not changed the principle of the bill. We are prepared to do that.

We are prepared to do that with this bill or any other bill. I say within the context of where we are moving in labour legislation in this province,that any change, any change that is made in the neu labour code, the new Labour Relations Act which is growing out of the Cohen Commission Report and which hopefully will be brought before the next session of the House, any changes in that act vill be reflected in the acts that we have as an individual act~ For example, the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act or the N.T.A.

Collective Bargaining Act or the Fishing Industry Collective Bargaining Act~ vhiehever act has any application to these changes,they will certainly be introduced as amendments into each of the existing acts~ That is a cOfflfflitment ve make~ Certainly we do not want any consistency in our labour legislation. I think that it should be remembered we are attempting to make some strides in respect to labour legislation. It is not goin~ to be done overnight.

It is all not going to be palatable but it has to be accepted in the sense that it is ,not one piece of isolated legislation it is a part of a much larger plan that we have going forward,within the next six to twelve months I guess, rather than six months~ Hopefully within six months but it may be twelve months9 we will have a number of pieces of legislation on our books with respect to labour~ As I say, it is going to be a difficult situation. We would hope that at every turn of one of these new bills when they come u.82G

October 29, 1973, Tape 73, Page.!! -- apb Afternoon into the House, we will not have to have any other situations occurring at that time as we do now with the x-ray and lab technicians and other concurrent instances which are causing a lot more ~ravity for this given situation of a bill which in itself is, as I said, middle of the road legislation. It does not grind the rublic service down into the ground. It permit~ strikes but it does not give the unrestricted right to strike.

In conjunction with the Cohen Cownission Report, if indeed we were to follow their suggestions as we are following to a great extent in much more of our labour, we would not in effect be giving labour in the hospitals, for example, any right to strike under any circumstances~ There are features to the bill that are good~ There are features in the bill, of course, ue are going to find over the next year that may not be "WOrkable~ Government is prepared to sit dovn and look at it again and saY; 11Look this does not 1work in this situation.

What else'!" It is a matter of trying to find the best v1ay to bring about an end to an adversary system,in which labour and management will get together and try to hammer out a bargain. If this is not the answer then we have to tey many other thin,a. This government as a group and,as an unofficial group of individuals amongst ourselves, have sat down many times as l mn sure many people across this province have and" even the members across the House ha_ve sat down on many occasions in the past few months and have said; ''Look what can we do to stop the strife in labour "1e have in the province?

There has to be a va.y to do it. The strike here, are we going to outlaw the strike or are we not'?" I am sure that many a night over a cup of tea in many of the homes in this province that subject was brought up~ We are trying in our best way to cope with the situation. We know what our priorities and objectives are and ve would hope to reach them. We feel that in this instance this bill is one of the steps towards brinr,in~ better labour legislation to this province. We certainly hope that we would in the end result have the support 6827

October 29, 1973, Tape 73, Page 4 -- apb Afternoon of bOth labour and management and the people of this province in respect to this labour legislation. I have no hesitation at all in supporting my collea~ue in his introduction of this bill on the floor of the House. I would also suggest thnt I am pleased, certainly with the amendments that are gain~ to be made to the bill. I think, all in all, while it is not a bill that is totally acceptable to both sides, I think it will be a bill that we will learn to live with.

We will learn to see whether certain things with respect to the direction we are going in labour are good or bad$ We are prepared to sit down and look at these again sometime in the future, Mr~ Speaker, and to change these in respect'to the remaining labour legislation we will be bringing up within the next six to twelve months. HON. DR. A.T.ROWE (l!INISTER OF HEALTH): support this bill presented to the-House by my colleague the President of Treasury Board, the honourable Minister of Finance.

I must at this point congratulate my,colleague the honourable Minister of Finance on the immense runount of work Yhich he has put in in bringing this progressive legislation before the. Rouse~ It will provide, I hope, a remedy t..° some of the province 1n the general labour unrest in our province and I fully support my colleague and the government in this regard$ I am becoming more and more disturbed, Mro Speaker, to see labour unrest making its appe,arance in the health system, where nurses, technologists, nursing assistants and other hsopital workers ... have all been involved in recent months.

I am ~reatly concerned about the attitude exhibited by labour leaders and the technologists. k'hen an agreement freely entered into and concluded except for a technicality can be thrown aside, it doe& not to my mind display that sense of honour and responsibility and concern for the public !nterest which society can reasonably expect of all its health m>rkers~ Indeed, I am very disappointed that the ~overmnent offer of compulsory arbitration was so quickly dismissed. l 6828

October 29, 1973, Tape 73, Page 5 - apb Afternoon I am supporting this bill, Mr. Speaker, because I believe that there is an irreducible fflinimum amount of service which a hospital must be capable of providing at all times, strikes or no strikes~ This minimum will have to be precisely defined but we may take as an approximate figure twenty-five percent of staff needed. !IR, NEARY: (Inaudible) DR, A.T.ROIIE: A member has the right to be heard in silence, Mr. Speaker? MR. SPEAKER (DUNPHY): Order please! The honourable member has the right to be heard in silence.

DR, A.T,ROIIE: This minimum of twenty-five percent will have to be precisely defined but it would not necessarily have to be the same people all the time. They could be rotated and other circumstances could affect the situation. But, Mr. Speaker, just as 6829

October 29, 1973 Tape 74 IB-1 a civilized society requires the services of a fire department and a constabulary and so also must we have our sick people cared for. The structure of a civilized society will crumble if we are left without some essential hospital services. There must therefore be this basic minimum service which is to be maintained at all times~ The principles incorporate in this bill are, in my opinion, good principles. They represent some of the most advanced thinking in collective bargaining between public service employers and employees in this country.

This legislation equals and indeed improves upon the legislation of its kind which is operative in other provinces~ It should be remembered that in five provlqcea of Canada hospital workers have no right to strike. With the exception of Prince Edward Island binding arbitration is used in all of these for settling labour disputes. I am not suggesting, Sir, that this bill i• perfect. Neither am I ouggesting that the pessege of this bill will immediately create an atmosphere of management s.nd labour peace~ This government ia not naive enough to think that management~ labour peace can be legislated.

The bill vill,however, in my opiUion provide ~undamental rules of procedure for _the conduct of negotiations betveen public service employees and employers which if properly and reasonable adhered to can result in good management and labour relations in the Public sector. I thank my colleague, the member for St. John's SouthJ for his lucid and his wise exposition of the bill and his suggested amendments. The bill, Sir, is unlike the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act of 1970 which proposes rule by regulation.

The bill is also unlike the recently repealed Hospital Employees Employment Act which categoristally denied every hospital employee the right to strike~ This bill, Sir, attempts to establish a realistic balance with regard to the right to strike among persons employed in the public serviceo The strike weapon in the hands of an essential employee is a much bigger weapon than when it is wielded by an unessential employee.

Quite evidently the strike weapon in the hands of a crossing sweeper does not threaten the health, safety or security of the public as x-ray and lab,technologists~ 6830 does this weapon in the hands of the

October 29, 1973 Tape 74

Section 10 of this bill, Mr~ Speaker, provides for the categorization of certain employeea as essential employees. In fact the performance of their duties mav at any time be necessary for IB-2 the health, safety or Recurity of the public or may be otherwise in the public interest. Now, while the principle of this

section is quite common in public service, collective bargaining legislation, included in the Federal Government and in the Province of New Brunswick has been the subject of considerahle objection both from unions and from members of this honourable House. The objections of certain tm.ions are to a degree understandable as their prime concern is the economic and the social well-being of their constituent members.

The right to strike has always been considered a sacred right by organized labour but, Mr~ Speaker, there ate instances in the public service where the curtailment of this right is nece~sary for the health, the saf~ty and the security of the public. This administration has no intention of eliminating the right to strike. What we do propose is to place the right to strike in prospective insofar as strikes among public service employees are concerned but only in cases where a strike could be injurious to the health and safety of the public.

As the elected representatives of the people Ye have an inherent obligation to provide eSsential health services for every man, woman and child in the province. It does not mean, Mr. , Speaker, that this legislation or bill will forbid strikes among hospital workers. The concept of essential services envisaged by this administration with regard to certain employees goes beyond that of public convenience to far more vital issues in this curtailment which would have threatened health and the safety of the people.

If this concept of essential services were to be expanded beyond this then the strike as an inStrument of dispute settlement in collective bargaining would be completely displaced. This administration, 1 repeat, has no intention of eliminating or displacin~ the right to strike among puhlic service employees. This administration, Mr. Speaker, is most concerned about the social economic well-being of employees paid from 6831 I

October 29, 1973. Tape 74 LB-3 the oublic treasury, dispite the claims of honourahle members opposite that we have negotiated in bad faith. For thet r benefit~ not present, that we have not done. Honourahle members opposite are in no nosition to accuse anybody on this side of bargaining in bad faith. Those honourable members or gentlemen were part of an administration which wrote one of the most repressive and regressive chapters in the history of labour in this province. Let us say, Yr.

Speake7, never did they accomplish a meaningful system of collective bargaining within the province~ In 1970 they brought in enabling legislation which provided for rule by regulation. In other words, the cabinet were going to determine the ground rules. Now they sit in great judgement on behalf of the labour movement, champions of the labour movement~ They have very short memories? Sir, when they talk of the ineptness of this administration in dealini vith representatives of labour.

I cannot agree, Mr~ Speaker, with the charges that have been 1Wi.de in this House that the Department of Health has not been sufficiently involved in the conduct of negotiations in the public service~ It is normal practice in most juriadictions for the treasury board to play the leading role in public service collective bargaining. It was undoubtedly based on this principle that the fomer administration established a collective bargaining division of treasury board staff.

All summer I have been in day to day contact with events pretaining to collective bargaining with all ser'Vice employees£ As I Said on Thursday, I have deliberately avoided public statements on these negotiations because it is our conviction that the negotiations cannot be conducted publicly~ I have also made all the expertise that I can obtain, available within the departmen½ to our .negotiating team and in fact hospitals, l am told, were a1ways represented in these negotiations.

Nou, in.spite of our concern and involvement in such matters, some of the honourable members, of the opposite side particularly, have seen fit to try eo~.e mischief and to shatter 1n the public eye the Governwent's concern and sincerity in these matters. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition 0832

October 29, 1973 Tape 74 IB-4 called my opening statement of October 26 despicable and provocative. I have no ~ish to bandy words with this honourable gentleman but I would like to remind him of what he said when as ~inister of Health he was faced with a similar situation. On May 7, 197q in the Holiday Inn,a.t the meeting of health and hospital workers in the middle of a wage dispute, he said to them and I quote, "There is no magic solution~ The hospital services are ~rinding to a halt. My main concern is for the health of the people of the province. n That is exactly -what I said the other day.

My concern is for the health of the people of the province, that we can sit dmm and bargain and get people back to work, inflaming - MR. DOODY: Mr~_Speaker, is this man allowed to speak? DR. ROWE: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I urge the honourable members in the House on both sides - }fR. SPEAKER: Order please. I would.like to remind honourable members that any honourable member does have the right to be heard in silence. DR. ROWE: In conclusion, Mr.

Speaker, I urge honourable members in the name of humanity to refrain from the practite of partisan politics in this honourable House when we are dealing with such a very serio~s situation. This administration or any administration for that matter would be derelict in ita responsibilities to the people of this province if ~e permitted public service employees to use the sick and suffering as an instrument to accomplish their ends~ This does not mean, Mr. S~eaker, that we want to preclude all hospital employees from striking.

We do want to establish however .... a realistic balance in the exercise of that right among employees of essential services. After all that is one of the things that we were elected to do and to do anything less would be to pass the governing of this province over to certain union leaders~ Mr. Speaker, we do not intend to do that. We, not they, were elected to govern this province. We are answerable to the people of Newfoundland, the union leaders are answerable only to their members~ Thia, Mr. Speaker, is the vital difference. 0833

October 29, 1973 Tape 74 Mr. Speaker, I support this bill now presently before the House with the indicated amendments. Thank you: MR. SPEAKEP: The honourahle member for Bonavista South: IB-5 !"fR. vof?GAN: r-'r. Speaker, I have a few words on this piece of legislation. I feel it ie the obli~ation of all members on this side of the House of Assembly to soeak their views accordin~ly ... 6834

October 29, 1973 Tape no. 75 Page l - MW because this is not a bill of the Hon~ Minister of Finance. It is a govepnnent bill. On this side of the House, we are all supporting it with the necessary amendments, especially the one proposed by the honourable member for St. John 1 s South~ This legislation is giving the rights to workers in the public service, the right to strike which they do not have now. It is also going to give the government of this province the authority it will need at the time if it is going to maintain the safety, the security and the health of this province.

If this government are going to shaw leadership, (this is what this province deserves, leadership) if we are going to show leadership as members of the legislature, as members of the government, if we are going to show, leadership, we must be able to maintain the safety and security of the public of this province. There is one thing over the past number of months that has been bothering me.

Being an outspoken politician, [ am going to say here again today; it has been bothering me as a representative of the people in this House of Assembly that we have seen so much labour problems during the past number of months. What has been bothering me is the fact that most of the labour problems have been caused by irresponsible labour union leaders. It has to be said whether it comes from a cabinet minister or a backbencher, it has to be said and I am saying it here today.

What I am going to say today, I will have no bones about saying it outside this House~ October 23, 11 It takes away from the public employees completely the right to strike." (The next quote): ''lie will say to hell with essential services." That quote came from Mr. MacMillan, National Director of CUPE. Yet that same organization had this piece of legislation in their hands in April, back in April of this year. Why wait until the eleventh hour to condemn the legislation? Why could not \ constructive proposals be brought foiward. constructive recommendations on this piece of legislation?

Why wait until the eleventh hour and 0835

October 29, 1973 Tape no. 75 Page 2 coodemn it as being totally unacceptablef "Completely and totally WU1cceptable to CUPE,n said the national director on October 26, !Ir. !!acllillan. He goes on to say that it is a possibility that all CUPE locals in the province will walk out, if the bill is passed, He goes on to say that if he - !!R. W. N,ROWE: Point of order, Mro Speaker~ A ruling was handed dmm here a day or two ago that nobody was allowed to quote anyone outside the House either to undermine or to support argument in the Would Your Honour uke the same ruling now on Wat the honourable member is doing?

One 1s permitted to read telegraphs. Point of order, Mr~ Speaker. I believe the ruling 1a·that one 1s not entitled to read in detail but l do not think there is any ruling against•summarizing comments which have been 1!1Ulde outside the House* !!R. SPEAKER: The ruling

section that the honourable member for lihite Bay South just referred' to, which I quoted a couple of days ago,wu Beauchesne, page 133, Standing Order 157, subsection (5), which says: 0 It ia: not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the House and referring to or commenting on or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on the proceedings within the House. 11 I ask all honourable members to take note of that ruling. !!R. !!ORGAN: Thank you, Mr.

Speaker~ In summa'.rizing the national director's statements,·his quote was: "The Rone Minister of Finance should be having a psychiatric examination. lie should be: thrown out by the present administration." These are the kind of statements that the labour unions are making. This is not, something we will need to resolve the labour situations we have in t~e province today, these kind of statements. This is not the Hon. Minister of Finance's bill, it is a government bill. We are backing it accordingly. It is not because it is a governm~nt bill we are backing it, 6836

October 29, 1973 • Tape no. 75 Page 3 we are individuals over here as well. -We are backing it because we all believe in it. If this government do not have the authority to take action in a time when we have an emergency, how are we going to show this province the leadership it deserves at any time to maintain the safety and security of all the public of this province? Are we a government of the few individuals in labour or are weia government of all the public of this province? Who are we governing for? To maintain the whims and wishes of the labour union movement?

Are we here to maintain security of this province, for all the province, and all the public? Mr. Speaker, the most annoying part of all - I can realize getting criticisms from the labour union movement. It is what you would expect to get when there is labour legislation before the House but to receive the same kind of criticism from honourable members ori the opposition_side of the House is unbelievable. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition did not just stand and disagree with members on parts of the bill but he disagreed with the principle of the bill. "The bill is a fraud.

It would touch of an air of bad will in labour relations in this province." That is a quote made in this Houae of Assembly, by the Leader of the Opposition. It us unbelievable. You would expect that coming from the labour union movement but not from the Leader of the Opposition~ Is he maintaining that we will forget the se~urity of this province, forget the health needs of this province, do what the labour union -movement vants us to do at their whims and wishes? Is that what the Hon.

Leader of the Opposition is talking about? '~tis a step backvard. 11 He stands in this honourable House and condemns the legislation, condemns it. Yet in 1969 a piece of legislation was passed by a government, the Liberal Government, which gave only the cabinet the right to decide who were' the essential employees. Yet now we have legislation whid, says the labour relations board will decide~ We are not giving cabinet the right even to decide on when 0837

October 29, 1973 T;"pe no. 75 Page 4 to declare an emergency., The amendment now proposed will let this Legislature decide and rightly so. Let the House of Assembly decide when to declare a state of emergency~ Mr~ Speakery playing a game of politics with the public's security and safety and health needs is a very serious thing. I think that each and every member of the opposition should stop and think: "What are they standing for? 11 "The rights of Newfoundlanders or the rights of a few?1 1 What are. we standing for?

Are we standing to ,see the rights of the people who have health needs in this provinc8j I forgotten and wiped aside, to give the few individuals the right• they are demanding? Are the opposition wanting a situation where the other nonessential employees in the public service will not have the right to strike? Do they want that? What do they want? They vant only one thing, Mr~ Speaker, that is to play a game of politics, whether it is important to Newfoundland or not to play Mr. Speaker, across the country of Canada, who are the provinces that have a right to strike in the public service?

Nova Scotia, no; Prince Edward Island, no; Alberta, no; Manitoba, no; British Columbia, at present, no; Quebec, they have a right to strike with an eighty day limitq These are the provinces that do not give the public employees the right to strike. Here in this province we are being repressive according to the opposition, when we are taking a step fovard, a step forward in giving the Public service of this province the right to strike. If we cannot have 0838

October 29, 1873, Tape 76, Pagel -- apb some kind of a weapon, if we cannot have some kind of authority, where we can show leadership in this province as leaders, if we cannof do that, if we cannot maintain the public security and safety of this province we might as well forget and hand everything over to the labour movement in this province. We are not going to do that. We are not going to do that because we are all individuals over here who stand individually on what we believe in. We believe in this bill. I am sure that it is not a repressive step it is a forward step.

It gives the right to the individual.sin the public service to strike which they do not have now. It also gives the right to this government to protect the rights of all Newfoundlanders~ Thank you very much. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Bonavista North. MR. P.THOMS: Mr~ Speaker, I listened to the words of moat of the honourable members who have spoken on this bill and to me the words that they have uttered are very surprising indeed. The people who conjured up the words of this bill I am sure must have done so after a long weekend of continuous hangover.

The hangover ·did not come from blueberry wine. !'r. Speaker, in clause (4) of this bill - it is a very good clause but we leave it to the honourable members on the other side of this House and see if I can open their eyes to a few of the facts that are contained within this bill. Number (4) says that every body have the right to be a member of an employee organization and to participate in the lawful activities thereof.

That means, as far as I am concernedt that every employee who is employed by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador is entitled to become a member of hie or her union and also that he or she is allowed, is permitted under this act to participate in any lawful activities thereof. Lawful activities thereof! Of course a strike is a lawful activity. A strike is the only and final weapon of all employees, not only govern~ent employees but employees no mntter who their employer is. t•r. Speaker, I aizree 6839

October 29, 1973, Tape 76, Page 2 -- apb vith thia. Thi• is perfectly correct. Thi• ~lvem tho employee his God ~iven ri~ht. Mr. Speaker, over in clause (10) of this bill the wordin~ is such that it nullifies section (4). If this bill is passed you may iust as well forget about

section {4), it should never have been written~ We are saying in section (4) that those people who are classified as essential employees have not the ri~ht to strikeb We do not exactly say it ,in section (10), 1,1e say it down in section (25), where an employee who ia classified as an essential employee cannot take

part in these strikes. Mr. Speaker. I do not kno~ who discovered the word essential or whoever thought of putting the word essential into section (10) but the word essential to me as it relates to an employee and we are speaking most specifically and thinking most specifically at the present time about people who are employed in our medical institutions across our province, to me an essential employee in a hospital is every employee from the janitor to the doctor,bar none.

How can any member of the Department of Labour or the Department of Health or a hospital commfttee sit down and classify a technician, an ambulance driver as essential people and not classify the rest of the people who are employed by that establishment? What are ve going to do,create two classes of employees one upper and one lower? Are we ~oin~ to take the right to strike away {ram the higher class? No I am afraid not. I a~ree wtth the honourable member for St~ Johnfs South when he says that every person in a medical institution is essential. Not only is he essential he is a must.

The institution cannot funCtion properly without these personnel. ~-:..1!.AKP-Y!* Would the honourable member pe~it a question? MP.. TH~_S_:_ Why ,of course! !fR._B_AjlJ~'(: Does not the honourable member see a difference between oS.40

October 29, 1973, Tape 76, Page 3 -- apb an institution not being able to function proµerly and an institution not being able to function at all? In other words, is the honourable member sayini that all essential services should be withdrawn? Is the honourable member sayin~ there should be a right for hospital employees, for example, to withdraw all services from the public in the event of a strike? MR. THO!'S: nr. Speaker, it has been a known fact by me all my life, since I had any sense at all, to know that every person who is employed has the ri~ht to strike, even the honourable member for Placentia West.

He can go on strike today if he should want to. I defy any m~n to try to take that right away from him. Mr._ Speaker, to say that a hospital will only function partially is like saying that you can go in a hospital they will cut you open but because someone is on strike they will not close you up again. That is really what the honourabie minister is saying. Mr. Speaker, if we are to pass this bill and if we leave it and we undoubtedly will leave it to the various labour boards, departments or organizations who control these institutions, these essential employees will be classified. Now, Mr.

Speaker, when this is done it gives the government certain powers, certain rights over various employees who are in their employ~ I believe we are missing something very serious here also. Not only should we classify certain people in our medical institutions as essential personnel but there is nothing to say that the government cannot take a step further. They can. classify the poliCe as essential 11 personnel, they have classified the firemen, they can classify people working the Highways Department who I consider just as essential as the lab technicians.

Mr~ Speaker. if the government, in this case the employer. has the right to impose this legislation upon essential employees, what is to stop industry from demandin~ from the ROVernment that they be ~iven the same right? Because within private industry there are 6841

October 29, 1973, Tape 76, Page 4 -- apb people who could be classified as essential personnel under this bill. Not under this bill but under a bill similar to it. Then where do you draw the line? A doctor in the hospital I assure you is more essential, if you ~ant to use the word, more essential than any other person in the hospital. Does he have the right to strike? Are Ye, going to take away his right to strike? We have had strikes in other provinces by doctors. So, Hr~ Speaker, it ~s like my friend from Labrador South said, the bill is alr~ady passed.

It was passed in cabinet and any words that we utter during this debate are useless. No matter what we day, not matter what public oppositon there is to this bill we have a dictatorial regime today in Newfoundla~d that will not bend to rhyme nor reason. Mr. Speaker, the office of the opposition is flooded with messa~es from various locals of CUPE§ I have on my desk here, which I was reading a few minutes ago, fourteen messages from various CUPE locals. Everyone of them ask that this bill be vithdrawn. Mr. Speaker, I do not pussyfoot around.

I want to give notice now that I will vote against this bill and I fail to see why any man in this House of assembly who has any democratic principles about him at all can vote for this bill. I fail to see how the ~inister of Finance can bring such a piece of legislation into this House of Assembly. I cannot see how he brought it in when it should have been brought in by the Minister of Manpower and Industrial Relations. The minister in this field means the ~inister of ~anpm,er and Industrial Relations.

Ia this an indication that this minister is incompetent and that he could not pilot this bill through this House and that he had to get the heavyweir,ht, the Minister of Finance to help him out? AN HON. 1-'El'fJlER:., That is right. MR. THQ;IS: Surely! What a shame! JAR • NF.ARY : ______ ,. He had to get the old var horse himself. 6842

October 29, 1g7J, Tape 77, Pagel -- apb l'R, THOMS: Mr. Speaker, any man who stands up in this House and supports this bill should be ashamed of himself because it is• bad piece of legislation. MR. SPEAKER: The honourable member for Grand Falls. ·------ l"Jl. SENIOR: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be appropriate for me at this time to have just a few words to say concerning this bill as a great many of oy constituents would be affected by it. About a year nnd a-half ago I had the opportunity to be a member of a le~islative committee.

At that time I had the opportunity to meet with many of the labour leaders or some of the labour leaders in this province, particularly the people in the Federation of Labour. At that time I had an opportunity to listen to them and discuss with them much of the leRislation which exists in this province and affects the labour movement. I made notes on many·of the suggestions which these people put forward.

These suggestions were subsequently brought before our govermnent and I am happy to say many changes which the labour movement requested were madee Legislation, some of which was considered repressive, such as le~islation which forbade certain emplqyees to strike, was repealed.

Without going into great detail, Sir, I cannot see for the life of me how this government has.not been sensitive to the vi.shes and the needs of labour in this province~ Although there are many constituents in my district who would be affected by this bill, there are also many constituents who would not be affected by it, maybe not directly. As an elected representative, Sir, I feel we have an obligation to consider the welfare of all the people that we represent. This legislation which we are discussing today, I cannot see, Sir, how it is 1n principle detrimental to the labour movement in Newfoundland.

If this bill be passed it is not the end, it can be chahged. I think we have proven this already since this bill has come up for debnte in this House 9 vhere members of this honournble 6843

October 29, 1973, Tape 77, Page 2 -- apb House have made suggestions and our government or caucus have been sensitive enough to sur,iest amendments to the legislation already. If this bill be passed and if in practice it should present problems I see no reason why further amendments cannot be made. I feel we have an obligation to consider not only workers who are directly involved in labour unions or those who may be involved in a particular dispute but rather the welfare of all our people. I think this is.particularly true where we have employees who can be classified as essential to the welfare of the public.

I feel, Sir, that in certain professions, when people enter these professions they enter it with the realization that they do have a responsibility to the public~ Of course we should not overlook the fact that an employee in any ~rofession has a right to a fair wage and has a right to negotiate for a fair wageG I do not think there is anybody who would object to that. In certain professions it has to be borne in mind that they are more essential than others and absolutely necessary to protect the public good.

Sir, I accept this bill and see no reason why it cannot be acceptable to all members of this honourable House~ MR. SPEAKER: The honourable the Minister of Education. l'R.~EI!'ER: Hr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly on the bill before the House~ A great d7al has been said on it both by government members and honourable members of the opposition. I doubt if there is much new or original to be said. I think it is worthwhile howevP.r to review what in my opinion at least are some of the most coient points to be decided by this House when the time comes to vote upon the principle of the bill.

What does this particular bill purport to do? What is the essential purpose of this le~islation? In other words, irrespective of who ia or is not on strike now, irrespective of who hna or who has resigned now, irrespective of events of the past one, two, five 6814

October 29, 1973, Tape 77, Paie J -- apb or ten days, b_ecause this bill is not being passed for a period of onet two, five or ten days, what is the essential purpose of the bill? The bill for the first time in the history of Newfoundland affirms the right to strike in the public service.

For the first tlll'le in the history of Newfoundland there is- an affirmation of a legal right to strike of the public service* After twenty-three years of rule by colleagues of the honourable gentlemen opposite, some of them included, there was no affirmation of the right to strike of the public service* Now, this bill, the essential purpose of it is to affirm the right to strike of the public service.- No such right was introduced by the previous administration in twenty-three years~ That right with respect ~o hospital employees was categorically, unequivocally denied in the legislation of 1967, the Hospital Employees Amendment Act, when four of the honourable members who are now sitting in the opposition were sitting as supporters of the government.

When four of the honourable gentlemen opposite were sitting here that act was passed which made illegal. the right to strike of those public servants employed in hospitals.

After that act was repealed by the present administration a few months ago, when that act was repealed then these employees came under the Newfoundland Labour Relations Act which in itself gives no right to strike to public. employees~ So, for the first tll!le in the history of Newfoundland as a province or indeed before ... confederation, for the first time in our entire history there is a bill, the essential purpose of which is to affirm the right to strike of the public service. Does it ~ive ah unreserved," a total,absolute, unmodified right to strike? It gives the right to strike under two qualifications.

What are. the qualifications? That in the essential service this right vill be abrorated. Then who decides whether the service be eAsential or not7 It is not the Minister of Finance, it is not the 0845

October 29, 1973, Tape 77, Page 4 -- apb Minister of Manpower and Industrial Relations, it is not the totality of ministers in the Lieutenant Governor in Council, it is the Newfoundland Labour RelatiJ;ms Board. The Newfoundland Labour Relations Board which is neither government nor opposition nor union nor employer but representative of all interests, of the interests of labour and management, it is this body,the Newfoundland Labour Relations Board,which by statute will have the exclusive right to determine whether the service is essential or not. The government do not have that. right.

This government voluntarily abrogate• that right by this legislation and the provision that it i• the Newfoundland Labour Relations Board which represents both labour and management which will determine whether the service is essential or not~ This bill has as an essential principle the affirmation for the first time in Newfoundland's history of the right to strike of the public service but not a totally unqualified right. A right with two qualifications. The first I have mentioned.

The qualification of essential service which is to be determined not by the government but by the Newfoundland Labour Relations Board. The second qualification is that of an emergency situation and who will determine an emergency situationa According to an amendment which the Minister of Finance has assurred the House on behalf of the government will be introduced, that determination will be not by the cabinet, not by the government but by this legislature. We have therefore the affirmation of the right to strike with two qualifications.

Let us compare the principle of this bill now before the House with what preceded it and what is in operation unless and until ••• I know the honourable member is not trying to deliberately deceive the House but the amendment says that all the House ~ill do ia ratify the decision that is made by the Lieutenant 0846

October 29, 1973, Tape 78, P•~• l -- npb r.overnor in Council. !:'.fl• HICl(!'AN_: Or reject. ~ll\. NEARY:_ That is what the minister said. :MR. O'ITENREI~f£R• To ratify or to not ratify. If one ratifies there is the option to ratify or not ratify. It is the same thing. It is a question of words. One ratifies or one does not ratify. One agrees or one disagrees~ One votes yes or votes no. !:;R.,_NEARY: The original decision will be taken by the cabinet. MR. OTTENHEI!!ER: ----- But the final decision is made by the House of Assembly.

Every decision I suppose in a sense, except for private members' resolutions, is made by the government. Because because everything except private members' bills and private members' resolutions are government orders. The business in general of the House is determined by the governfflent house leader.

Except for private members' bills and private i:nembera1 resolutions the order of proceedings in general, except for emergency debate and questions etc.,the order of proceedin~s 1 and ~hat is to be debated are as a general rule determined by the government~ Haw things are actually disposed of, whether they are voted yes or no depends, obviously, upon how members vote. MR. NEARY: But the minister will remember hie attitude on the borrowing powers e Does he remember? MR. OTTENHEIMER: Right. ~-=--N-~,!;_ Well this is the same principle,is it not? MR. HICK!-!All:_ No. No it is not. MR.

OTTENHEIMER: No. it is uuite different. It is quite different--. plus the borrowing powers situation baa been considerably chan~ed since the present administration has taken over~ But here the final on whether the emer~ency situati~n exists or not rests with the leiz:islature. Y6u have a hill which (

l) affirms for the first time in Newfoundland's history the right to strike of the public service

October 29, 1973, Tape 78, Page 2 -- apb but number (2) does it with two qualification• and these are with respect to essential services which is to be determined by the Newfoundland Labour Relations Board and with respect to emergency situations which in the final analysis is ratified or not ratified, confirmed or denied by this legislature. }1L~EJ\RY;_ Mr~ Speaker, I wonder if the minister would permit a question? Has the minister seen the amendment? If he has would he tell us what it is? We have not seen it. We do not know what it is all about. MR.

OTI'ENHEIYER: ~r~ Speaker, everybody will see the amendment when it is actually introduced into the legislature. My colleague has already inidcated the general purpose and tenor of the amendment. The Minister of Ftnance has already done that. Let us compare what this bill sets out to accomplish, the e••ential purpose of this bill with two things; (1) what preceded it until,it was repealed~ and (2) what was in operation in the interim and is indeed still in operation unless and until this bill is passed. Until the repeal of the Hospital Employees Act,strikes in hospitals were unequivocally outlawed.

There was to be no strike in hospitals. There wa no question of whether the service was essential or not~ There was no question Of whether the Newfoundland Labour Relations Board deemed that certain employees were essential and certain were not. There was no option to the legislature to agree or disagree that an emergency situation existed. There wae a total abolition of any strike in a hospital. That legislation was repealed by the present administration some months apo in one of the rnost progressive acts that this government has made in labour relations.

Unless and until this bill is enacted,what exists in the interim? The Newfoundland Labour Relations Act which does not give a right to strike. With qualifications or no qualiflcations,it just does not ~ive the right to strike to public employees. I'll. NEARY: 1/hy not amend that? 0848

uctooer J.'J, 1';1/.), 1ape ,u, r1:1r,~ "" --- ""t'"" ~-=- OTI'E}Ifl!_I!i£R: Now obviously what exists now after the repeal of the Hospital Fmployees Act is unsatisfactory. There in no affirmation of the right to strike of the public service. MR* W.N.ROWE: But is there a right to strike affirmation or not? 1-'R. OTTENHEI}IER: Presumably, within provincial jurisdiction what exists depends upon the law of the province as long as it is valid within the jurisdiction. MR. W.N.Rg_WE..:. Will not the minister agree that the legal opinion is that the lab technologists are on a legal strike at the moment?

MR~OTTENHE_!MER: 1 would not feel qualified to give an opinion. I was admitted to the bar a short while ago but I have had no invitation to ,Join the judiciary as of yet. I would hesitate to answer th.at question.

What we have then is a comparison between the present legislation without any affirmation of the right to strike, a comparison Yi.th what was repealed by this administration, the enactment of 1967, which outlawed totally all strikes in hospitals with a threat of decertification, probably the most potent threat that any government can wield over the neck of the labour union movement and of course, the recourse to fines. Now let us compare the labour relations attitude of this administration and the previous administration. MR.

NEARY: They are thrown out now~ You do not need to go over that, they are gone. ~TTENHEl)'ER: ~r. Speaker, one can only compare with what went before. There have only been two sets of administrations in this province, twenty-three years and nineteen months. Let us compare the attitude of this administration in terms of labour matters to the previous administration. 1 ~an recallt it is not that long ago, seven years a~o, 1967, when that Hospital Employees Act was brought in. There were three on the othe~ aide, the honourable member for St. John's Centre, the honourable member for St.

John 1 s East Extern and myself. There were three in opposition and the government 6849

October 29, 1973, Tape 78, Page 4 - apb with the·remaining seats. That was before the days of independence and of course, one gentleman in the Speaker's Chair. MR. NEARY: Including the three on thnt side~ no not for~et the three on that side~ 1'R • O!TEN!IE P-!ER: No. How could I forget them? ~!R. Nl'.APY: That is right. MR. OTTE!lllEIPER: I certainly would not do them the injustic.e of forgetting them.

This administration has been accused by the opposition in various speeches during the last few days of arrogance, of negotiating in bad faith, of not being willing to listen to suggestions, of going ahead blindly, stubbornly, obstinately, not willing nor able to invite or accept suggestions for improvement from other quarters, !<IL W.N.ROIIE: Right •. Right again. MR~ OTTENHEIMER: Essentially we have been accused, as honourable members confirm, of arrogance, blindness and obstinacy. l'll. W.N.ROI-/E: That is true.

HR • OTTEN!!EIMER: Let us just compare t~is arrogance of the Progressive Conservative Administration with the Situation which preceded it. In 1967, when the legislation~waa brought in to unequivocally outlaw strikes in hospitals with the threat of decertification, how many suggestions for improvement or change or amendments vere listened to by the then administration? With the four honourable gentlemen who are.now in the present eight-man opposition, fifty percent of the present opposition, fifty percent of them, Mr. Speaker, ••• SOME HON. 1-'E!IBERS: (Inaudible) 1:f!t~ SPEAKF~(sTAGr.)~ Order please!

Honourable members, as usual, may conduct their friendly banter but it cannot become a tirade against the speaker vho obviously (the speaker with a small ''a'') does have the right to be heard in silence. ... l'R. 0TIE~1!EH'EP : I missed the interruptions because a few years a,.o 0850

October 29. 1973, Tpae 78, Page 5 -- apb when it was just the opposite, these thin~s were if not encouraged, at least it gave a certain amount of enjoyment and excitement. I am not wishin1; to dispute Your Honour's ruling. Obviously every member does have that right and if the Chair enforces it, then obviously one goes along with it. Let us ask ourselves how many amendments or suggestions were changed for improvement, were listened to _1ust in 1967 ~ when half of the present opposition were sitting on this side? How many? Not one, ~r. Speaker, not one.

There was not the slip,htest inclination on the part of the Liberal Administration to listen to a suggestion. from the opposition, fr~m the labour unions, from anybody whatsoever, because they had all the answers, not in their heads but in their head ; because there was only one head in that administration - not one suggestion from the unions, not one from the opposition, not one from any backbenchers, not one from anybody~ One suggestion that I can recall in 1967 was one I made myself.

It may not have been the answer, I certa~nly claimed no infalibility then I do not claim it now. ft was a suggestion but it was disgarded as if it were the most absurd suggestion ever made. That was a suggestion that the government speak with the union, I think it was the Grand Falls Hospital strik~, either Grand Falls or Corner Brook, I believe it was Grand Falls which precipitated itt to ask for a thirty day cooling-off period and to see if negotiations could be re-entered. AN HON. l-'El-'llER: (Inaudible) ~. OTTENHEI?-fEJl~. I do not think the Minister of Finance spoke on -e it at all.

I think it was only the then Premier who spoke. If my memory serves me correctly, I made that su~~estion with at least some knowled~e that if not totally acceptable there was a fair area wherein this would be acceptable. Certain members of CUPE in Grand Falls were in touch with me as no doubt they were in touch with honourable gentlemen opposite at the same time. u851

October 29, 1973, Tape 78, Page 6 -- apb They wanted some assurance that if such a course of action were sugiested that it could receive sympathetic consideration and at least there would be this coolin~-off period. That was totally dismissed without anybody even bothe,ring to look into its possibility or lack thereof~ What dove have this time? Nobody claims, I certainly do not, I do not think any member does,that this piece of legislation is necessarily the last word in public service legislation.

In this whole area of labour relations especially with respect to the public service, especially with respect to those areas of the public service where the total public good is intrinsically involved, nobody claims that anybody has the final answers there; This government do not have the final answers, the opposition do not have the final answers, I am sure the labour unions do not have the final answers and management does nots These are areas where there is growth and development and change and obviously a year from nO'W' or two years or three years from now ve should all be in a better position with respect to this, What do we have?

We have had a number of suggestions made for improvements to this bill by backbebchers on this side, by members of the opposition, indeed by the labour union itself. A number, not all, but a number of these suggestions for improvem.ent are going to be introduced by the Minister of Finance before this bill is finalized in committee stage. I bring this up just to make a contrast of attitude between an administration of which the present opposition Yere supporters (that is fair enough, that was their privilege, obviously) and this administration.

Here we have listened to suggestions for if'ltprovement from backbenchers, from members of the opposition, from members of the labour movement and a number of these amendments are in fact going to be incorporated into the bill. uss2 ...

October 29, 1973, Tape 78, Pa~e 1 -- apb Mr~ Speaker, the opposition have made it clear that they do not support this bill. That they have made clear but they have left this House and I think they have left this province in doubt as to precisely what their position is. I suggest, ~r. Speaker, that that is not the kind of luxury that they should indulge in. They have made it clear that they are opposed to this bill. They have made it clear that they are going to vote against this bill.

They have not made it clear what their position is and I think they owe it to the legislature. to the province and to their oYn supporters to make it precisely clear what their position is. ~r. Speaker, I do not go on the premise that it is the aole and exclusive duty of an opposition to oppose. There are those who feel that the opposition'• only responsibility is to oppose the government. Whatever they bring in,vote against it. Whatever they are for,be against. AN BON. 1-!E:t!BER: (Inaudible) MR. OTTENTIEil'ER: Exactly. Exactly. Offer them the preferable alternative.

From the mouth of the honourable member for Bonavista North has come the answer. Suggest the preferable alternative. Give the preferable alternative. Now, my friend, now., now is the• time when the obligation comes to suggest wRat is the preferable alternative. You cannot say; ''Well, when the people of Newfoundland put us in we will tell them what out labour policy is. If that is in three of four years we will tell them. If it is in ten or twenty years -we will tell them. 11 ·The people of Newfoundland are not going to si~n any more blank_ cheques. Their hands have gotten tired .,. from it.

There are not going to be any more blank cheques, Mr. Speaker. ,Now is the time when the opposition owe it to this legislature and I would suggest to thf!mseives and to the province to state what exactly their solution is to the problem of labour relations and strikes in the public service. I am glad that the honourable member from White Bay South agrees with that and I have 0853

October 29, 1973, Tape 78, PaFe B -- apb no doubt that he will make known what the opposition's actual position is. I think he will agree that up to now it has not been stated with any explicitness or any clarification of what has been stated not only in bill form but in form of actual principle. So far, what the opposition have conveyed to the legislature and to the province is that they are opposed to this bill. Obviously, that in their privilege that is their right.

I would su~gest that unless one• accepts the preniee that it is the exclusive and only obligation of the opposition to oppose then that is not enough. I ~now that the honourable member for White Bay South agrees because he is nodding and we look forward to his contribution in the debate to learn exactly what the opposition 1 s position is on this matter. MR. W.M~RSHA~L: It is to bring back