May 5,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No.

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have questions for the Premier. Practically every day there

is at least one news story about a case of child assault, mostly child sexual

assault. This media coverage reflects the reality which has been too long

covered up or ignored, that child abuse is a chronic problem in our society. Mr.

Speaker, the number of disclosures and convictions of child abuse is continuing

to rise, yet, despite all of this, government's response is far short of what is

required to assist victims to become survivors. I ask the Premier, What is his

strategy to deal with the chronic and pervasive problems of child abuse?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the chronic and pervasive

problem of child abuse didn't arise in the last six months, the last three

years, or the last six years. I don't know that there is any greater level now

than there has been in the past but that doesn't diminish the responsibility to

deal with child abuse wherever we encounter it, and to make sure we put in place

effective means of dealing with it. A better means of dealing with child sexual

abuse, in particular, in recent years, is the kind of disclosure that came about

as a result of the Mount Cashel cover-up that took place in 1975. As a result of

that disclosure, the inquiry that came out of it and the variety of trials that

came out of it, there has been a greater awareness and that, itself, has had a

positive impact in reducing the incidence of it to some degree. Government will

be announcing shortly its response to the Hughes Commission recommendations. It

will be done fairly quickly, in fact. Some of the recommendations are already in

effect, and the government will be announcing positions it will be taking on the

others very shortly.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What would the Premier

say to the community worker in Stephenville who stated to me this morning that

the child sexual abuse problem in the Bay St. George region is simply out of

control? What would the Premier say to the school teacher in Stephenville

Crossing, the town where he grew up, who stated to me this morning that once the

court process is over there is nothing for the victims?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I would say to both the worker in

Stephenville and the worker in Stephenville Crossing to whom the hon. member

referred that if they wanted to draw the matter specifically to the attention of

the minister concerned or another minister, I am sure they would get a more

immediate and effective reaction than by raising it through the member of the

Opposition. However, if they want to raise it through a member of the Opposition

they get more public attention about it. That is what I would say.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The people in

Stephenville and Stephenville Crossing are saying that there is a major need for

counselling to assist the large and growing number of child abuse victims,

children, adolescents, adults who are just now coming to terms with childhood

abuse that happened many years ago. What is the Premier going to do to provide

for that counselling?

In the town of Stephenville Crossing, in one school, alone,

approximately sixty victims of two offenders are known about. What is the

Premier going to do to provide the intensive counselling required to assist all

those victims become survivors?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, I am quite sure that the

Minister of Social Services, the Minister of Justice, and other ministers

responsible will fully discharge their responsibilities to make sure that the

maximum level of effort is made to provide for counselling and guidance and

assistance to the victims of child sexual abuse. I, personally, in my capacity

as Premier, have no capability to provide for such counselling, but the

government, in its normal operations, will do everything it possibly can to

provide for counselling. That is what will be done. But I, personally, Mr.

Speaker, have no capability and no expertise in the field, so I, personally,

will not be providing that counselling.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Premier, as the

head of the government, is in charge of budgeting and allocating resources. I

ask the Premier, Will he reconsider his decision to terminate completely the

Province's Criminal Injuries Compensation program which provided the only means

for many child abuse victims, particularly children in rural areas, to have

counselling? In cutting the program, the government said that the Victim Service

program would be substituted. Is the Premier aware that the Victim Service

program only operates in a few urban areas? It does not serve De Grau, Lourdes,

Cape St. George, Stephenville Crossing -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member has asked the question.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Just to set the record straight, Mr.

Speaker, I, as head of the government, am not responsible for government funding

and government budgeting. That is normally done through Treasury Board, the

Ministry of Finance, and the Cabinet as a whole. I have a responsibility as

Premier to make sure the government performs properly and fully and I have

complete confidence in the ministers that I have named to do that. Contrary to

the image the hon. members opposite frequently want to portray, this is not a

one-man show. This is a competent team of people making sound decisions.

Now, with respect to the Criminal Injuries Compensation

Board, we were quite willing to participate in this when the federal government

was a participant, but it was the federal government that cancelled. So maybe

what the hon. member should do is ask her political colleagues in Ottawa why

they cut out this program. They were the ones that cut out the program, not the

provincial government, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: A final supplementary, the hon. the Member

for Humber East.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What efforts has the

Premier made to pressure the federal government to resume participation in the

Crimes Compensation program? Will the Premier consider following the lead of

Nova Scotia, which did not eliminate the program? It scaled it down, but

continues to provide compensation to cover counselling costs and to reimburse

victims for out-of-pocket-expenses.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, when the federal government

cut out its special funding for this, the provincial government merged the two

programs. I believe there is a substantial sum in the budget this year -

MR. BAKER: About $1 million.

PREMIER WELLS: About $1 million to provide for Victim

Services. Now that is there, and the funding is there to provide for the

counselling, aid and guidance. If that is not is not enough, I can assure hon.

members that the government, through the officials of the Department of Social

Services, and through other officials, will provide the maximum level of

counselling and guidance that the government can, and to meet the legitimate

needs of the people who have been abused in this way. Mr. Speaker, the

government will respond properly on this issue and the hon. member has no reason

to suggest that the government is not adequately responding to this issue.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister responsible for Mines and

Energy.

Last night at the Budget Estimates he confirmed that talks

with Quebec on development of the Lower Churchill had broken down or they have

not met over the last two months -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Not true. Not true.

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, last night at the Budget

Estimates, the minister confirmed that they have not met with Hydro Quebec over

the past two months -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Rompu.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, that is a significant departure

from the series of meetings that this government has had with Hydro Quebec over

the past three years. Now, have the negotiators agreed on a

schedule for future

meetings, and when will these negotiations resume?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, correct for one thing, it is

not the government's meetings and it is not government to government meetings

and in the past there was never a

schedule of meetings except that, at a

particular meeting, they would set a tentative date or two and then they would

confirm when they would be ready to meet. Now this time it has been a couple of

months since the last meeting of the two negotiating teams on March 3, and as I

have said earlier, our negotiating team received a proposal from the Hydro

Quebec team on November 24, and it took almost four months before our team was

ready to have another meeting on March 3. It was a substantial document that was

tabled in November, it took time for our negotiating team to assess it. Our team

tabled a significant document on March 3 and I have no problem with the time it

is taking the Hydro Quebec negotiating team to do its assessment and prepare for

its next meeting, and in due course there will be a next meeting.

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

MR. A. SNOW: The minister said that Hydro Quebec is

considering a new proposal. Is this new proposal more favourable to Hydro Quebec

and what is the government prepared to give up to Hydro Quebec to make a deal?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I did not say that the

negotiating team was considering a new proposal. The process for the last two

and a half years has been proposal and counterproposal, continuing for thirty

meetings and the last meeting on March 3 was the thirtieth meeting and that

process -

AN HON. MEMBER: How many?

DR. GIBBONS: Thirty. And that process will continue and I

am not going to get into the details of what is being negotiated; we have agreed

not to discuss details, that is a process for the negotiating teams. In due

course, if we do reach an agreement, what is reached will be made public and

will be discussed and debated publicly.

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

MR. A. SNOW: The people of this Province are wondering

why the government will not tell them what is happening - what is occurring at

these so-called negotiations. Is this Province considering, or the negotiating

team considering, giving in to the hard-nosed bargaining of Quebec? Are we once

again going to trade off long-term economic gain for short-term construction

jobs in the Lower Churchill development? Is that what you are considering?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Mines and Energy.

DR. GIBBONS: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that both teams are

negotiating in good faith, and are trying to work out the best agreement they

can from each side's perspective. Nobody is in a hurry to do this in such a way

that we are going to have something with which we are not satisfied. When we are

satisfied and when the other side is satisfied, there may be an agreement. There

is no urgency.

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

MR. HEWLETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

As my colleague from Menihek mentioned, last night we had the

Estimates Committee on Mines and Energy, and the minister was relatively upbeat

and positive with regard to the prospects for the Hibernia project. However, the

Royal Bank says in a recent report a couple of days ago, and I quote: Weak world

oil markets may mean the end, or at least the indefinite postponement of the

Hibernia project.

Would the Premier agree with the bank's assessment of the

situation?

PREMIER WELLS: I was not really listening. I thought he

was asking the question to the minister.

MR. HEWLETT: I will repeat the question, if I may.

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

his question.

MR. HEWLETT: Weak world oil prices may mean the end, or

at least the indefinite postponement of the Hibernia project says the Royal

Bank. What does the Premier have to say about that assessment?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: To the best of my knowledge the Royal Bank

is expressing its armchair expertise on the issue. It is not the banker

involved. As far as I know it is not in any manner involved in it. It is sitting

back on the sidelines, like the hon. member viewing it, and expressing an

opinion, and I do not give it any more credibility than that, really.

I suppose you could speculate that it will not be successful.

You could speculate that it will be wildly successful, and you could go anywhere

in between. It has no substantial basis that I know of.

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

MR. HEWLETT: A supplementary to the Premier, Mr. Speaker.

The bank, in its predictions, indicates that they believe

that oil prices will be weak through the decade. Would this be the reason that

Gulf Oil has withdrawn and why Petro Canada seems to want to get out as well?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: Mr. Speaker, the oil companies who invest

in these kinds of projects don't invest for the next five to ten years. They

know that a project of this magnitude takes five to seven years to bring into

operation. They know that for the balance of the next decade there might be low

oil prices but, after that they speculate on what the oil prices will be. So

they don't make their decisions on that basis. I have just been advised that the

representative of the Royal Bank who made that statement admitted in an

interview that he was just going on rumours that he had been hearing around, he

had no real knowledge. So, that is the value of the statement.

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

MR. HEWLETT: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Further to the rumours, Mr. Speaker: In that same report the

bank is quoted as saying that the declining consumption and more attractive

projects "make it more difficult, if not impossible, to find new partners for

Hibernia." Is that the message that the government is getting from the Hibernia

partners in their search around the world?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: No, Mr. Speaker. Those are the rumours

that this man from the Royal Bank is relying on. That is not the message we are

getting from the Hibernia partners, no.

MR. HEWLETT: One final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

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

supplementary.

MR. HEWLETT: Does the government agree with the bank's

assessment that "prudent business planning in the Province should assume that

Hibernia will be shelved?"

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: If you were the Royal Bank, sitting back

and sitting on your millions and you didn't have these kinds of dedicated

objectives of building on Hibernia and making sure that Hibernia came into

operation and you didn't really care about it, you may act cautiously and say:

Well, let's do our planning on the basis that it won't be realized. But, no, the

government does not agree with that. That man is operating on the rumours that

he admitted he was operating on, and his judgement has the soundness of that. So

I don't give it much credibility.

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

Capes.

MR. HEARN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is to the Minister of Environment and Lands, but

in her absence I will ask the Premier.

Government has received an application for permission to

start a caribou ranch in the Peter's River - St. Stephen's area. I wonder if the

Premier will advise the House the status of that application?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I don't know the details, but I know in

general where matters lie on it. There is a substantial difference of opinion.

There are a variety of opinions that would say: This is a good, sound idea.

Let's gather together a stock of native caribou and let's ranch or farm the

caribou in a confined area and produce caribou meat. Some wildlife experts,

wildlife biologists, take an entirely different view. They say when you take

animals like that into a confined area you develop disease which they are not

capable of warding off. They do not have the natural or biological ability to

cope with the diseases that are more common to farm animals, and if they then

escape into the wild they can infect the wild herd totally and you could have

the effect of destroying the whole herd. Now, that is an argument that is made.

Exactly how sound that is I do not know but those are the kinds of arguments and

counterarguments that are being raised in relation to this particular

application so the government has to act fairly prudently in any decision it

makes. We would like to see the development take place. He is an enterprising

young man who has an idea he wants to put into effect to create economic

opportunity and employment and create a business and I can only be very

encouraging of his effort from that point of view, but government must also take

into account the other considerations as well.

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

Capes on a supplementary.

MR. HEARN: Mr. Speaker, the Premier has basically

answered the second question I was going to ask about why it has taken so long,

because I presume they are pursuing both sides of it. However, I say to the

Premier that the people of the area are generally unaware of all the

implications of this situation. As undoubtedly government is trying to gather

the information, will the Premier then guarantee that before any final decision

is made provision will be made for open public discussion and involvement,

because as I said, nobody in the area has had the facts from either side. There

has been absolutely no public involvement so I wonder if government will

guarantee that there will be public hearings or discussion in the area before

any final decision is made.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: I do not know that it is the kind of

decision that will require a public hearing approach. I think we should make

clear - and we can do it through debate in this assembly or a variety of

statements in this assembly - of what is at stake or what is at issue. I have

given you some indication today of the kinds of concerns that government are

taking into account and no doubt there are others about which I have little or

no familiarity, but government is taking a cautious approach and making sure

that if it makes a decision to permit this that we are not likely to put the

whole caribou herd in the Province at risk, or we are not likely to cause an

adverse environmental impact in some other direction. So, to the extend that

there may be a need for a public discussion I can assure the hon. member that

government will provide for it, but not if there is no substantial need.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My question is for the Minister of Health. The minister will

be aware of the results of blood tests conducted on some residents of the

Placentia area undertaken recently by a Dr. Bertell of the International

Institute of Concern for Public Health in Toronto. Mr. Speaker, Dr. Bertell said

that the results showed a low lymphocyte count for the ten cases, which is an

abnormally high percentage of 40 per cent, and among the possible causes that

were cited were airborne toxic substances. Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell

the House whether he will be instruction officials of his department to conduct

a further series of tests in the Placentia area as recommended by Dr. Bertell.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, it is a little premature for us

to embark on a full investigation at this time but I have instructed officials

in my department to try to get more information on the matter. The only thing we

have at the moment is a media report which tells about a very small sample of

ten people who were tested. We cannot exactly suggest how this test was carried

out or what was done there but I have instructed officials from my department,

and I can tell the hon. member that we intend to also involve some of the

expertise we have at the university to assist us as we first analyze just what

this is all about and see if there is any reason which would warrant further

investigation. I am not going to go straight in and do an investigation until I

get more facts as to what this study was actually about.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

My supplementary concerns the recent reports as well, Mr.

Speaker, of abnormally high instances of certain types of cancers in the

Placentia area, and is the minister in a position at this time to clarify the

position with respect to these, these whether or not he is aware of these

reports, and can he offer any opinion as to whether or not there may be any

connection between these particular illnesses and Dr. Bertell's findings?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, there is all kinds of room in

this matter for speculation, assumption and this sort of thing. If I were to run

the department in that manner I would be practically every day calling in

consultants and investigators and that sort of thing. That is not the way we run

the department. I have heard the reports that the hon. member talks about.

Again they were carried in the media and in general terms we

try to collect preliminary information and see if it is worth pursuing with a

further study or is it just some news reporter who tries to make a front page

for his daily paper. We are trying to see if there is any real basis there for

some concern. When and if that is found to be the case we will leave no stone

unturned to deal with the matter, but we can't deal in speculation or

assumption.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To move on from

possible speculation as the minister says to the environmental impact statement

by Albright and Wilson on the decommissioning of the phosphorous plant at Long

Harbour. Has the minister reviewed the findings of this statement, and is he

aware of the statements of the findings of certain levels of contaminant in the

sealed containers on the site, and of the nature and levels of radiation from

the slag heap left over? Is he concerned, Mr. Speaker, as a minister about the

potential connection between the radiation contaminant and the possibility that

connects it between that and the initial blood test results conducted by Dr.

Bertell?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, I listen to the news as the hon.

Member for St. John's East does. Now if there is any environmental concern here,

which I am sure is being dealt with by the Department of Health, but I am not

sure this kind of questioning is really serving any great purpose other than to

try to get people all excited and concerned about some potential danger. We

cannot deal in speculations. I told the hon. member the report which came out of

Toronto from Dr. Bertell, we are trying to get some background to see exactly

what is being said, and we want to find out the qualifications of the person who

is making the reports and just what is going on there. If there is any basis

whatsoever which would warrant a further investigation then we will go ahead

with it, but if there is not any need of it, we are not going to try to scare

people unless there is some basis to warn people of a potential hazard.

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

MR. HARRIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This is my final

supplementary. Three areas of concern, one identified by the EIS, the potential

problem with respect to abnormally high levels of certain cancers, and the

findings of Dr. Bertell would give rise to a certain level of concern of people

in the Placentia area, not prompted by me, Mr. Speaker, but by these reports.

What guarantee can the minister give that the people of the

Placentia area will not fall victim to the contamination that may result from

the decommissioning of Long Harbour. Is the minister prepared to give the kind

of guarantee that might be required to satisfy people that this government is

taking the issue seriously?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, we can guarantee the people of

Placentia as we can guarantee the people of Newfoundland and Labrador that we

will continue to deal in facts. If there is a problem there this government will

leave no stone unturned to deal with it, as we have proven on other matters

since we have been in government, Mr. Speaker. We will deal in facts, and when

we get the truth of the matter we will leave no stone unturned to advise the

people of the area and to take whatever action is necessary, Mr. Speaker, but we

are not going to fly off the handle with the silly nonsense the hon. member is

getting on with in an attempt to try to make a few political points on hearsay

and speculation.

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

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

the Premier. Yesterday in Question Period the Premier showed his ignorance of

the Province's public libraries. That lack of knowledge might have been

understandable if the Premier had not resorted to accusing the Public Libraries

Board of mismanagement and insinuating that they are trying to somehow blackmail

the government.

One of the Premier's statements was, quote: "On a per capita

basis I suspect we are pretty high by comparison with the rest of Canada. I am

having it checked and I will report to the House of Assembly, hopefully by

tomorrow, exactly what the situation is." My question, Mr. Speaker, is has the

Premier checked, and if so will he confirm that this Province is certainly not

on a par with the rest of Canada in providing public funding to public

libraries? In fact we are the worst of all the provinces. We are far below half

the national average. We are more than -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: - 15 per cent below -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: - the next lowest province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member has asked the question. The hon. member is

not supposed to answer it. It is the Premier who is to answer it.

The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: There are two parts to the question, or

two issues raised with respect to the question, Mr. Speaker. The first was with

respect to her comment about an insult to the Public Libraries Board. I told the

House yesterday that the comment was based on newspaper reports, which, I may

say, I cannot verify at this stage. But they specifically quote Mr. Penney as

making this statement: we can close down at a time of least importance, or when

libraries are most important to the public, to make a greater statement.

I can say to Mr. Penney, the government is not going to

respond to that kind of blackmail or mismanagement by the Public Libraries

Board. Now if they were to close down at a time when the libraries are busiest

for the purpose of trying to bring pressure on the government, I consider that

mismanagement. That is the basis on which I make the statement. So I make it

very clear that that is the position that I take.

Now, I have to say that I am having a thorough assessment of

the full situation with the Libraries Board being done. It is not yet complete,

but as soon as it is, I will advise the House of the full state of affairs.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does the Premier

realise that the Public Libraries Board has decided not simply to close for two

weeks on top of the three or four weeks they were faced with closing anyway, but

taking all their employees - Mr. Penney on down - off the payroll for two weeks?

Does the Premier realise that? Why won't the Premier talk directly to Mr. Penney

instead of wondering if he was quoted correctly or misquoted by The Evening

Telegram?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Premier.

PREMIER WELLS: If Mr. Penney wants to talk to me I am

sure he will place a call. I would be quite happy to talk to him. I talk to all

kinds of people - members of the Opposition, members of the general public, all

kinds of people I talk to. So I have no hesitation speaking with Mr. Penney. As

a matter of fact, I might like to speak with Mr. Penney, because I would like

him to answer that statement and explain the basis on which he made such a

statement. But the minister responsible is speaking with Mr. Penney and will

deal directly with Mr. Penney. It is not necessary for me to contact him.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has expired.

Order, please!

I want to bring to the attention of hon. members the presence

in the Speaker's Gallery today of His Excellency, Jacques Lecomte, Ambassador

and head of the Delegation of Commission of European Communities. His Excellency

is accompanied by Dr. Lanita Carter, Associate Dean, External Affairs, Faculty

of Business Administration, Memorial University of Newfoundland.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Eagle River.

MR. DUMARESQUE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

It is my pleasure to submit the report on the Elections Act.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, some months ago this House asked the committee to go

over Bill 1,

An Act Respecting Elections, Controverted Elections And Elections

Financing.

I will just take a couple of minutes, Mr. Speaker, to briefly

say that the committee worked hard, having thirteen meetings with sixteen

witnesses representing thousands of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. We have

concluded that there are some thirty-two recommendations, which we have put

forward. The vast majority of these, Mr. Speaker, are technical, but we have

made a couple of substantial recommendations.

Two in particular, Mr. Speaker: To see that the proxy vote

not be used but be replaced by a special write-in ballot that would cure a lot

of the problems that were brought before the committee; and, also, Mr. Speaker,

we have made an extra effort to make sure that this legislation and the election

process is more accessible to the disabled community, and we have made a number

of recommendations along these lines.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by thanking the

committee: The hon. the Member for Port au Port, who is the Vice-Chair, the

Member for Pleasantville, the Member for Carbonear and the Member for Kilbride.

Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Clerk of the Committee for doing an

excellent job and seeing that this very important piece of legislation is

brought to the House for approval.

Thank you.

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

MR. R. AYLWARD: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure of the

procedure but I believe it is acceptable that the Vice-Chair would have a few

comments on this.

MR. SPEAKER: No, no.

MR. R. AYLWARD: By leave? Just one minute?

MR. SPEAKER: By leave?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: By leave. I want to make it straight that

there is no provision for this and that it is done by leave.

The hon. the Member for Kilbride.

MR. R. AYLWARD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank all

hon. members opposite for this.

Mr. Speaker, the Vice-Chair of the committee is not here but

I just want to say, on his behalf, that it was a pleasure working with the

committee. It was a hard act to review. It certainly is revolutionary, I

suppose, for this Province. The committee generally supports the act that was

presented.

I would just implore that the government take a serious look

at our recommendations. I think if most of these recommendations are followed,

it probably would be reasonable to assume, I don't know about unanimous

acceptance of this act, but certainly I think we could give full support to the

act from this side of the House, as well as I am sure will happen over there. I

do implore that the government take a very serious look at the recommendations

that we did make because we had a lot of very good, top-rate presentations on

this act from the people who showed up. Not nearly enough, not nearly as many as

I thought would show up, but the ones who did come made very good presentations.

Once again I want to say that it was a pleasure working with

the committee members on this committee.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

DR. WARREN: Mr. Speaker, the Member for Kilbride placed a

question on the Order Paper of April 30 asking for information concerning the

number of trips taken by the Minister of Education for the period September 17,

1991 to October 4, 1991, the dates and the duration, all charges, and if he was

accompanied on these trips.

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Education took four trips in

that period:

On the seventeenth, a one-day trip to Arnold's Cove

accompanied by the Executive Assistant to have meetings concerning the training

of people in the Hibernia area. The cost was $55.91.

The minister went to Calgary for five days beginning

September 21, accompanied by his Deputy Minister. The cost of that five-day trip

to Calgary to the voters, the public of this Province, $98.00. All other

expenses were paid by the Council of Ministers, and we contribute to that

council. They paid all the other expenses.

The third trip was a one-day trip to Gander. The minister

travelled alone on that, and the cost was $348.10 for air fare and $23 for other

expenses, taxis and parking.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

DR. WARREN: Yes, it would have been cheaper - and I

wondered why the question was asked in the deadlines. Then the minister went to

Baie Verte for a one-day trip on November 7. The minister was unaccompanied on

that trip, and the total cost to the government was zero.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

DR. WARREN: Zero. No charge to government, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the Day

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think we will call, today, Order No. 10.

MR. SPEAKER: Order No. 10.

Is this the resumption of the adjourned debate on Bill 17?

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

This is a debate now on an amendment to Bill 17 asking that a

six-month hoist go into effect in which a committee of the House would conduct

public hearings to the effects and ramifications of Bill 17 on the public sector

unions in this Province.

When I concluded debate yesterday, the Minister of Labour had

indicated that what was happening in this one was not contract stripping. The

minister rose on a point of order to address the concerns that I raised. It was

ruled there was no point of order.

The minister, when he spoke in debate on April 28, said that

the total cost of compensation ranges anywhere between 15 per cent and 30 per

cent of the total cost as tied up in benefits other than salary. Each one of

these groups knows it is totally in their own hands, totally of their own

volition. Only if they want to they can enter into negotiated agreements and

change them.

Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister the other day what was it

that it was referring to? Where is the 15 to 30 per cent that he could save? The

minister did not indicate where. A range such as that, 15 to 30 per cent, must

take substantially from other areas of a contract. Significant changes - I asked

the minister if he was referring to changes in substitute teacher pay in the

case of the NTA, or sick leave benefits for the public service unions. The

minister didn't indicate what, and I am really curious as to what the minister

could find to give such a high range, 15 to 30 per cent, other than straight

salary. What else is there in a contract that you could take away, as he says

later on, that might be able to give a 1 per cent, or 2 per cent, or 3 per cent

raise? There are ways in Bill 17 for them to explore that.

Mr. Speaker, I am kind of at a loss as to what labour unions

could do in this Province to negotiate with government to find that kind of

raise that the minister refers to, if it is not to take away previously

negotiated benefits. That seems a substantial amount of money.

The minister also said that we understand and recognize that

the cost of living is increasing, and people didn't get a raise last year

because we introduced a freeze. He did not say that we have introduced one this

year, as well, and that next year is set to a total maximum of 3 per cent.

What this bill is about - it has been said on many occasions,

and I will not belabour it. This bill is not about wage restraint, it is about

the inability of a government to deal fairly with its public sector unions.

This government entered into contracts knowing that what they

signed with a felt pen was going to be destroyed in the Legislature in a day or

two, or three or four days shortly after. The President of Treasury Board has,

on a couple of occasions, confirmed that this, indeed, was the case, that

government had no intention of living up to the agreements they had entered

into.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to that, what we see here is that

contracts that have been written in law no longer have any validity in this

Province. If the government, through the Legislature, decides that it is going

to destroy all collective bargaining, then it will do so, as it has done with

Bill 16 and now Bill 17, Mr. Speaker.

What is really interesting about this, is, the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations has told us that if this occurred in the private

sector, if some private sector union had attempted to do this, the government

would use the powers of the Labour Relations Act to deal with that union.

Now, Mr. Speaker, it hasn't happened with government and I

hope the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations will respond to the

questions I have asked him: How are unions to come to government with proposals

that can save anywhere from 15 per cent to 30 per cent, so that there can be a

compensation package for them. I hope the President of Treasury Board, when he

gets up to conclude the debate some time next week or next month, whenever it

is, will explain where, in their collective agreements now, are there benefits

that can give 15 per cent to 30 per cent? What do unions have to give up so that

they can have those benefits accrue to them? What would it amount to in a salary

increase? - and spill it out, Mr. Speaker. Let's not go around talking in

circles saying that there is something there for them if the total compensation

package is zero.

If the Premier or the President of Treasury Board and the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations know how unions can arrive at this,

tell us how it is going to be done and what has to happen. Does it mean the end

of substitute teacher pay in the Province? Is that one of the areas he is

talking about, Mr. Speaker, or are the the President of Treasury Board and the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations talking about stripping contracts,

existing contracts, through negotiations or perhaps through legislation?

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the answers to these

questions.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity of speaking

on the amendment proposed to Bill 17, this piece of legislation that attempts to

balance the books of this Province on the backs of its employees, and by doing

so, I believe, sends signals out to the larger private corporations of this

Province, that they should be attempting to do the same thing, take advantage of

employees. And that, to me, Mr. Speaker, is a bad piece of legislation.

It is bad because it singles out public employees as those

who are at fault for the mismanagement of this government. Because really, Mr.

Speaker, this government is at fault. When they took over the reins of

administration of power in 1989, they had presented a first Budget with a

surplus and because of their mismanagement we have seen Budgets brought down

since then which signifies the inefficiency, mismanagement and bungling that has

never been seen before in this Province, Mr. Speaker, because of things they

have done and also because of things they have not done. I am talking about the

increased taxes, one of the things they have done.

I heard the hon. the Member for Pleasantville talking the

other day about how the federal administration has increased federal government

taxes by 10 per cent since 1984. My goodness, Mr. Speaker, this regime has seen

fit to do that since 1989 in this Province and already we were the most taxed in

this whole country. Not only that, they have downloaded services on

municipalities and forced them to drastically increase the municipal taxes in

this Province. That is one of the things they have done.

They brought in the previous Bill 16, that was just as

distasteful as this one, but, Mr. Speaker, what they have not done is, they

haven't proposed any new ideas to stimulate the economy. They have been

completely void of any new ideas, other than appointing somebody from Memorial

University to go out and say: 'Well, you study it now for three or four years

and see what you can come up with.' The infamous Economic Recovery Commission,

Mr. Speaker, now, what have they done? - absolutely nothing that people can see

to stimulate the economy. We have seen nothing but pieces of legislation come

before this House that attempt to either download on municipalities -

MR. BAKER: (Inaudible) 3,000 jobs.

MR. A. SNOW: The President of Treasury Board, the hon.

the Member for Gander says: Well, one thing we have done is lay off 3,000

people. Now, he calls that stimulating the economy. Last year the minister laid

off 3,000 people and he is proud of that. He thought that was going to stimulate

the economy. Now, that is how much they know about what occurs in the economy

when you lay off 3,000 people. They thought they were going to balance the books

last year on freezing wages and laying off 3,000 people, Mr. Speaker.

The President of Treasury Board thought that was going to

work last year. It didn't work. They got themselves into a bigger mess than they

were in the year previous. Now, he feels they are going to be able to do it

again by freezing wages. No, I want to tell him right up front that it is not

going to work. You can't balance your books with this piggy bank mentality of

bookkeeping. It won't work. They have to be more creative and imaginative.

We all know it is hard times out there, Mr. Speaker, but we

can't just pull our head back into the shell and say: What we are going to do

now is just lay off a few more public employees, freeze their wages, and things

will get better, because they are only going to get worse if you keep doing

that. All they ever do is talk about cutting. The three options they always talk

about are that either they tax more, they cut, or they say: 'We can borrow.'

They fail to see that there is a fourth option. That fourth

option is to be a little more creative. They should be more creative in

attempting to stimulate the economy.

MR. NOEL: You have to stimulate your own members

(Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, they are probably in

researching some of the comments that the hon. the Member for Pleasantville made

last week. In his speech, when he talked about Bill 17, he blamed it all on the

federal government. He thought they should be able to do it by having a Triple E

Senate. That was going to solve everything in this Province. Now, here is a

member who is supposed to be the - he speaks as if he were the right-wing zealot

over there, he is the economist from Water Street. Success has never been seen

before on Water Street. He articulates it so well, doing away with marketing

boards, shutting down breweries. He is the spokesman for, I guess you would have

to call them the industrialists or the merchants of Water Street.

He says that the Triple E Senate is going to cure all the

economic ills. Now can you imagine? He says that with one voice, and then with

another voice he says: Of course, it is the private sector that drives the

economy, it is not the government. The private sector is going to be the engine

of recovery. We have to let the private sector be able to perform more. We have

to do away with the marketing boards and all that. We shouldn't be protecting

them. We have to do away with all that.

Then, on the other side of his voice, he says the Triple E

Senate will solve it all. That level, that new federal institution that we will

get, will solve the economic woes of this Province. By electing two people or

twenty or fifty, maybe it would, if we enlarged the Senate to include the 20 per

cent of the people of this Province who are unemployed. The Senate could be

Triple E and we would elect all those. Maybe that would help. I am not sure. Now

maybe that is why he feels that is going to solve all the economic problems of

this Province. But I don't think it will, Mr. Speaker.

MR. NOEL: You know the best solution? Persuade your

friend Mulroney to quit and call an election. That would be the best way to

solve all of Canada's problems!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker -

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

I want to bring to hon. members attention that they are not

to speak from other members' seats. As undesirable as it might be, it should be

from their own.

The hon. the Member for Menihek.

MR. A. SNOW: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We know that the

Member for Pleasantville wouldn't want to be recorded as making such remarks as

that, because he knows what is going to happen when there is a federal election

called and he decides to run for the Reform Party, because the crowd he is with

now are not far enough right for him. So he can only find the philosophy over on

the extreme right with Preston Manning to run with, to jump in bed with, and

that is where he will be. So he knows he has to do it quietly and in the

underground. He doesn't want it recorded in Hansard so that people will be aware

of it, Mr. Speaker, because he knows that the people down in Pleasantville are

not really that right wing yet. He has to subject them to a lot of propaganda

first. So he is going to do it quietly, use the tactic of speaking about it in

the underground, getting it out that way.

Now, Mr. Speaker, in this Bill 17, what really disappoints me

is that being a supporter of the labour movement, being a member of the labour

movement as a steelworker - I must say, I am proud to speak as a steelworker. It

really disappoints me to see that this government, this regime, has attacked the

labour movement, Mr. Speaker. They have sent out signals that really are a

violation of trust.

Mr. Speaker, in the public sector, it is very, very

important, when a union sits down and, nose to nose across the table, negotiates

a deal, and then the government says, `We will sign here. It is tough but we

will sign. You are hard negotiators, we will sign, though, because you have

talked us into it, you have convinced us.' That is what they say at the

bargaining table and they sign a deal. Then they go out, walk through the door

and into the Cabinet room, close the doors, laugh up their sleeves and say,

`Tear it up.' That is what they are doing, Mr. Speaker.

Now, can you imagine what that says to the ordinary working

person in the hospitals, Mr. Speaker, or the nurse down at the Janeway or the

teacher up in Labrador City Collegiate? Can you imagine how they feel? Can you

imagine how the people working in the forestry feel, after their elected

representatives that they campaigned for, Mr. Speaker, got them elected in the

union - and they also went out and campaigned for some of these people who are

now in the Cabinet. Mr. Speaker, they were proud when they voted in April of

1989 and said, `We have a Liberal Government now and they are going to treat us

fairly.' What did they do, Mr. Speaker? They put the screws to them, Mr.

Speaker, that is what they did. That is what they did, Mr. Speaker. They tore up

the agreement. They bargained in good faith and, then, what did they do?

I suppose the ultimate insult, Mr. Speaker, was having a

former labour leader going around sporting a button with Bill 17. I mean, people

said to me, `I can't believe it, that a former labour leader in this Province

would be doing that.' People came in and they would sneak a look in through the

gallery, Mr. Speaker, and they saw him up speaking and he had the button on.

They couldn't believe it. He was up supporting Bill 17, wearing a button saying

he was in favour of Bill 17, after telling them that Bill 17, this terrible

piece of legislation, was unprecedented in this country.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No, it wasn't.

MR. A. SNOW: Well, not really, because they set the

precedent in previous legislation, did they not? So he corrected himself there.

But he said, `Having established a precedent, we thought we would do it again.'

Mr. Speaker, what they have really done is they have

established a precedent for a violation of public trust. After sitting down

negotiating a hard-nosed agreement, sitting down nose to nose with old Penny

Pincher himself, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the President of Treasury Board, who they

thought would be fair to them, Mr. Speaker, because such as myself he has some

leanings towards the public sector employees, being a bit of a socialist

himself, having his roots in the NDP party such as myself. They thought he would

remember his roots, but no, he didn't remember the roots. He only remembered

being part of the board. He is now in the board room, Mr. Speaker. He moved up

to the board room. So having been part of the board room for, I guess he was

probably only there a couple of months and he could put the shaft to the

brothers down in the streets, that hit the bricks with them, Mr. Speaker. I

certainly hope that when people on this side of the House get over there, Mr.

Speaker, and get the opportunity to sit in the Cabinet room that they won't be

doing it, and I don't think that they will.

Mr. Speaker, I suppose if I were to be political about this I

could say that it is probably good for our side, for the Progressive

Conservative Party to see what the government is doing, because it really

undermines their credibility and the fact that you can't trust them when they

get in there because of what they do. They signed an agreement knowing full well

what they were going to have to do down the road. That is what they did with the

NTA, knowing full well what they were going to do.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: The hon. Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture shakes his head, Mr. Speaker, and suggests yes, that I am correct

because he knows that the teachers have told him that. He says yes, and he is

nodding in the affirmative again now, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister of

Forestry and Agriculture. He is saying that the Premier made them do it, Mr.

Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: But, Mr. Speaker, it is also a reflection of

how people perceive this House of Assembly. There is no doubt that people having

the opportunity of participating in public forums for our party over the last

couple of months, Mr. Speaker, felt that there is a feeling out there that there

is not a lot of faith in the public process, if you will, not a lot of faith in

politicians in general in any elected forums, Mr. Speaker. That is largely due

to some of the things that have occurred nationally, and also some of the things

that have been occurring provincially, Mr. Speaker, things such as passing

legislation like this Bill 17. The elected representatives representing

employees sit down with other elected representatives. The same people voted in

different forums, Mr. Speaker, different ballot boxes. They elected two people

to go in. One to represent them in government, another one to represent them in

a union. They worked out a good deal through a process called collective

bargaining. Then they see that the one they voted for in the political forum,

Mr. Speaker, shafted them. You can't trust them.

The minister agrees. He shakes his head and he is

disappointed in himself. I know, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Gander says

that he is disappointed in himself. So he should be disappointed in himself. Mr.

Speaker, the public employees of this Province are going to remember it too,

that this government can't be trusted because of making deals and breaking them,

Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Now they are going to say that they saved

jobs, Mr. Speaker, after laying off 3,000 people last year the hon. Minister

responsible for Forestry and Agriculture said that should be 10,000. Now, Mr.

Speaker, that is wrong. You know, I mean for a minister of the Crown to be

suggesting that there should be 10,000 people laid off, it is terrible, but that

is the mentality we have in this Province. That is the mentality of the people

who are supposed to be running this Province, and that is why we are in the

shape we are in. They have never exercised any sense of responsibility of what

we are going to do to stimulate the economy, Mr. Speaker. All they have ever

said is the only thing we can do is either tax, cut or borrow. That is all we

can do. You never hear them out talking about what they can do to stimulate the

economy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) job security.

MR. A. SNOW: Job security, Mr. Speaker, there are ten or

twelve teachers in western Labrador who do not have job security this year

because of what this government is doing. I believe there are ten or twelve

getting laid off.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. A. SNOW: I may indeed not have much job security in

this particular position I have now but I am sure that as long as this

government continues treating the people in western Labrador in this fashion it

will either be a Progressive Conservative member elected down there, an NDP

member, a Rhinoceros party member, or a reform party member, but there is one

thing for sure it will not be a Liberal Party member elected for Menihek. That

is for sure, Mr. Speaker, because they feel they are being taken advantage of,

not by just this piece of legislation but they have been taken advantage of when

the cuts were made to the Captain William Jackman Memorial Hospital. After

contributing so much to the economy of this Province they now feel they are

being taken advantage of even more because of cuts made to the Captain William

Jackman Memorial Hospital and the fact that they cannot deliver an adequate

health care service to the people of Labrador City, Wabush and Fermont, Mr.

Speaker, because they have an added responsibility there.

Having suffered through those cuts the workers in that

hospital - I am not talking about the bricks and mortar, Mr. Speaker, I am

talking about the people working in that hospital. The members know I am talking

about people because that is the type of person I am. I am concerned about the

people. They are concerned down there because of the fact that they are being

taken advantage of by this regime, by this regime who only increases taxes and

cuts services in western Labrador. Last year they cut over $800,000 out of that

hospital's budget, a 14 per cent cut, and having to endure that, this year they

were again threatened with further cuts, the highest cuts of any hospital

delivering the level of services of any hospital in this Province. Why? One

should ask why, Mr. Speaker, they were singled out to be attacked. We lost a

provincial court judge and this government says the only reason why they did it

was to save jobs, save money. Imagine, coming out and saying that our policy is

to save money. We are not elected to govern. We are only elected to save money.

That is all you ever hear out of them, we are elected to save money. We cannot

go spending money, we cannot create any. That is what they think, Mr. Speaker,

that they cannot create any wealth. They do not understand how an economy works,

they just cannot understand it, Mr. Speaker.

It was only last night I listened to the Minister responsible

for Mines and Energy talking about how it does not matter if a company in the

United States goes bankrupt, that they own 1400 or 1500 service stations. It

does not matter if they go bankrupt, he said, they only consume 94 per cent of

the production of Come by Chance. That is all they do, they only consume. They

will still be able to go on in Come by Chance, there is no problem there. Come

by Chance could still go on producing. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, he corrected me,

it is only 96 per cent. That is the understanding they have of an economy. They

hide their heads in the sand and say: give me my $130,000 a year and I will

travel around and do the cocktail circuits here in St. John's, go out to the

banquets in rural Newfoundland, smile and look pretty, and every now and then we

will send the boss over to Europe to see how he looks up on a soap box in the

different forums over there. We know they are not doing anything. Whenever times

get rough at home off he goes again to Ottawa or Vancouver, or they send him

back to Europe, but they sure as heck will not do anything here, Mr. Speaker, to

stimulate the economy. They will not do a thing. We have seen that in western

Labrador. What do they do up there? Come in and take more money by taxes, or

they will use a Crown corporation and take more money out of them that way. That

is all they think of - tax, tax, tax, or cut, cut, cut. That is all they think

of. They never think of doing anything in a positive manner, to do something to

stimulate the economy. They are completely devoid of any ideas - any ideas. They

are completely devoid of any ideas to stimulate the economy.

They talk about the number of things that they have done in

western Labrador that are positive. I heard somebody muttering over there, but

how about when we shut down the motor vehicle registration office, the Minister

responsible for Public Works and Services said. How about that for positive?

Now, Mr. Speaker, wasn't that something? What a terrific reform that was. They

shut down an office in Clarenville, and one in western Labrador, and they

thought it was reform. They laid off two or three people in Labrador City and

Wabush, and said, well that is great reform, the minister said. And look at the

service. Sure we have improved service. We have improved service. Anybody who

lives up there knows that it is not improved service. It is terrible. People are

waiting as long as six to eight weeks now to get a licence.

But because this government is completely devoid of any ideas

to stimulate the economy, and you would feel that they are supposed to be the

free marketers that they espouse to be on one hand, like the Triple E shoe

salesman from Water Street - that Triple E Economist from Water Street, the

right wing zealot over there - you would feel that they are the free marketers

like you would not believe. You would figure they would be up holding Brian's

hand, running around, but that is not true. All they do is they have that one

mentality of tax more on the businesses. That is what they do. They do not

create a better environment out there to allow investors to invest more money.

They drive them out of the Province. I recognized it in western Labrador. The

people up there recognize it too, and it is occurring here within the Island

portion of the Province - completely void of any ideas to stimulate the economy.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: The resignation of a Member for

Pleasantville, now that would help.

AN HON. MEMBER: What?

MR. A. SNOW: The resignation of a Member for

Pleasantville, and three of four more St. John's seats, that would help. Get

them down then so you could not have such a huge majority and be able to ram

bills like this through the House. So that then you would not be so arrogant.

You would not be so arrogant then with the workers, the employees of this

Province, of this government. You would not be running them into the ground

because you would be a little nervous. That is what would happen to you.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Yes, I am looking forward to the next

election, Mr. Speaker - looking forward to it, because I feel that there are

going to be some changes, a lot of changes in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: And the hon. Member for Pleasantville

suggested that he is going to run, because he wants to qualify for a pension.

Now I think that he should have a pension now. He should have a pension now.

AN HON. MEMBER: With the contribution that he made to

this Legislature.

MR. A. SNOW: He deserves - he has earned a pension. He

has. He has. He should have a pension. Most states in the civilized world agree

with pensions for disabled people and people of that mentality. It would be

cheaper for the state to pension off somebody like that, who offers his

contribution to the people of this Province. They would do less damage by being

pensioned off, Mr. Speaker. - the whole lot of them over there, I would say. No,

not all of them, but they would do a lot less damage to the Province, to the

country as a whole, if we could get them qualified for a pension early. They

would do less damage.

MR. NOEL: Is this the most substantial criticism you can

make to this bill?

MR. A. SNOW: No. I have to admit I did digress just a

little in speaking on this bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: The member forced you to.

MR. A. SNOW: Having been forced to respond by the goads

and comments made by the hon. Member for Pleasantville.

I have to say that I am disappointed that this regime has

seen fit to propose again for the second time to bring legislation into this

House of Assembly to attempt to balance the books simply by freezing the wages

of its public employees. It shows a piggy bank mentality that this government

has exercised since they were elected in 1989, and which is a disappointment to

me and thousands of other Newfoundlanders and Labradorians.

It shows that this government cannot be trusted to negotiate

within the collective bargaining process and it shows that this government has

no consideration for the people of this Province. It disappoints me as a member

of the Legislature, as a member of a labour movement, as a citizen of Labrador

City, and a citizen of this Province. Mr. Speaker, this Province should think of

ways to develop the economy of this Province, not attack it's people and it's

employees. Thank you.

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

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to take a few

minutes to speak on this Bill. I am going to say from the outset, quite

honestly, that I have not read the complete Bill, because I don't think it is

necessary to read it and understand all the clauses. I think it is the principle

of the Bill we have to deal with and, regardless of its politics, a decision

that a government must make.

Listening to my hon. friend over there from Labrador making

some remarks as to what should be done and what should not be done regarding the

teachers and the nurses and the other public service sector, and where they

should get a commitment on the monies that they should receive. My only concern,

from the very outset, is that in order to pay monies out you must be taking

monies in. My question to all the people who are looking for an increase in

wages and an increase in remuneration, whether it be pension plans or whatever:

where can you get the monies to pay out if you are not receiving those monies?

The former speaker has been a successful businessman all of

his life, as he was saying to my friend for Pleasantville about his success in

business, he too was a successful businessman, probably still is.

AN HON. MEMBER: More successful than you?

MR. EFFORD: I wouldn't say more successful than I, no,

but certainly very successful. I don't know, with my number of years in

business, where I could have gotten the money to pay out had I not taken the

revenues in. So it is basic economics and I am sure he well understands that but

he has to make his point as an Opposition member.

But I tell you very seriously, and very honestly -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

AN HON. MEMBER: That was the major lesson he gave to the

other hon. member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: I will tell you very seriously and very

honestly, Mr. Speaker, I am not up here to make cracks at the Opposition or to

make cracks at anybody. I am up here speaking as a member of the House of

Assembly for the district of Port de Grave, and I am speaking in a very

frightened manner. I am very serious about what I am going to say. A very

frightened manner.

Because what I am experiencing in my district now is enough

to frighten the soul out of any person in this Province, whether you are in

politics or whether you are not. We have eight fish plants in the small district

of Port de Grave, with a population of about 14,000 people, total, men, women

and children, and eight fish plants closed, with no prospects of one fish plant

opening this year. No prospects at all. If that is not enough to frighten any

person out of their wits I do not know what is.

Here I turn on the news in the evening, and you sit down and

watch it and you hear the president of the NTA making threats against the

government as they are not satisfied because they are not going to get an

increase in salary this year. I understand him, everybody would like to have

more money. That is human nature, that is human greed and that is a human trait,

we all would like to have more money. I would like to be making ten times the

salary I am making and I would like to be making ten times that, I mean it is

only natural, but realistically it is not possible in the economy that we are

facing today. Realistically, anybody using any degree of common sense, knows it

is not possible for a government to be able to pay out the wage increases that

people need today.

Where are they going to get the money? If all these union

leaders and all the people involved in this union organization would like to

take on the government of today and try to get more money in a forceful and

militant manner, fine. Why do they not put those same energies and directions

towards getting the economy of the Province back into a stable and viable

condition, where, when government receives the amount of taxes every year from

people who are working, they then can give the increases that people need. It is

a very simple process. You do not have to be a mathematician, you do not have to

be a genius in economics to understand this. The reality is that you must take

money in, and in order to take money in the economy must be such that people are

working on a regular basis, and as we know in Newfoundland and Labrador it is a

regular seasonal basis. Not 365 days a year, we accept the reality that we

depend on the resource around our shores around our oceans to give us that

employment on a seasonal basis.

Mr. Speaker, we are losing that resource drastically and my

scare is not the fact that the rest of the world does not realize that, that the

rest of Canada does not realize that, my fear and my scare and my worry, as my

experience in the last year as Chairperson of the United Fishermen, is that 90

per cent of the population of Newfoundland and Labrador still do not accept the

realization of how serious the fisheries crisis is in this Province and that is

the biggest problem we are facing today. We do not understand the seriousness of

what is about to take place. Let me tell you one thing, Lundrigan's Limited

going bankrupt, 2,500 people out of work is only going to be the tip of the

iceberg, that is what we are not realizing, that is what the people in this

Province are not realizing; that is what the business community, that is what

the trade unions, the public service sector and everybody else is not realizing.

What happens if the fishery goes into a total collapse? Where is the business

going to come from to employ people, and let me give you a couple of numbers,

Mr. Speaker, of what I am talking about.

Simple mathematics, a simple multiplication, 30,000 people

employed in the fishing industry, earning on an average of $300 a week, total

income earned in the fishery and supplemented by UI, works out to approximately

$468 million. The spin-off factor, another 4,500 averaging $200 a week, Mr.

Speaker, works out to a yearly average of another $468 million. In other words

we are talking about in excess of $1 billion earned income lost if the fishing

industry totally collapses. $1 billion and nobody is concerned about it. Now, if

the government of the day loses the tax revenues on $1 billion, you talk about

wage restraints, you talk about cutbacks and hospital beds closed and school

teachers laid off and nurses and everybody else, where, in the name of God is

the money going to come from?

You take the forestry out of British Columbia, Mr. Speaker,

what do you have left? A total collapse of the economy. You take the

manufacturing industry out of Ontario and you have a total collapse of the

economy. You take the fishing industry out of Newfoundland and you have a total

collapse of the economy. We are afraid to admit the reality of what is going to

happen and it is not a political statement that somebody is getting up and

beating off his mouth and trying to frighten people, it is a reality.

I can tell you that in the last four weeks there have been

twelve to fifteen boats sail out from my community, 200 miles on the Grand Banks

for six days; listen to what I am going to tell you and if you do not believe

me, check it out. Six days on the Grand Banks and came back without one fish!

They have the electronics, they have all the technology, they have the

expertise, they have the strength, and they have the equipment to catch fish.

There is just no fish there, Mr. Speaker! There is no fish in the water to catch

in those areas. If there is no fish, there is nobody working. Still nobody cares

about it. Still nobody is willing to say: Enough is enough. We have to do

something drastic to motivate Ottawa or to move Ottawa into taking control

before the fishery is completely gone.

I got a copy of a press statement sent over this morning from

Iceland by fax. Let me tell you what Portugal did this week over in Iceland.

They were over there trying to sell 540 tons of fish caught out on the Grand

Banks. Do you know why they were over there trying to sell them? They were too

small to process. Five hundred and forty tons of fish taken out here this last

month. I have it up in my office quoted by the Icelandic people. They sent it

over to me in their press. They would not buy them because they were too small.

They called them junk fish. Nobody cares enough to say: Ottawa, if you don't do

it, we will do it!

There is an example, Mr. Speaker, a prime example right

there. A prime example of what is happening in Newfoundland.

AN HON. MEMBER: That is right.

MR. EFFORD: You speak anywhere in this Province and it is

the same thing. You go out and you talk to the business community, you talk to

the Chamber of Commerce. I have done it a number of times this year. They pat

you on the back and then say: Efford, boy you made a great speech. The minute

you leave and they go back to their little offices or their own personal

businesses it is all forgotten about. What do you need to do to wake up the

Province of Newfoundland and Labrador that we are close to complete economic

collapse? You can't put a gun to people's heads.

Patience. Dear God, how much patience do you need? I don't

know, Mr. Speaker. I really don't know.

AN HON. MEMBER: One scenario after another.

MR. EFFORD: I would really just as soon sit down in my

seat and say the devil take it, and give up, because who cares? You know, there

is a prime example of what is going on.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: We have a seal population, Mr. Speaker, that

we haven't got the guts to deal with, that we, as a Province, don't have the

guts to deal with. We have a seal population of 6 million seals. In March 10 of

this year there was approximately -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) because there is none left.

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I will sit down in my seat, and

when the hon. gentleman who is going to carry on a conversation is finished I

will rise and take my place and finish my twenty minutes.

Mr. Speaker, we have a population - I will repeat again - of

6 million seals in the water. On March 10 of every year, that is when the seals,

what we call in the fishing industry, pup. This year there were 700,000 new pup

seals born. From what I have been told in listening to the news media last night

there is going to be approximately 50,000 seals harvested this year. In other

words we have another increase this year of 650,000 new seals born. Now if they

only eat one pound of fish a day, Mr. Speaker, one pound of fish per day is not

very much is it?... that is 650,000 pounds of fish will be eaten each day this

year by the new population just pupped this year.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's no matter what kind of fish they

eat.

MR. EFFORD: That is absolutely right. No matter what kind

of fish they eat, Mr. Speaker. Six hundred and fifty thousand pounds.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, if that 650,000 pounds of fish

were allowed to grow and mature and be harvested in the fish plants every day,

can you imagine how many jobs could be created in the Provinces of Newfoundland

and Labrador with the harvesting of those fish? And we are afraid of Greenpeace.

We are afraid of the animal rights groups. We are afraid that we might upset the

political groups across the world, and they might come down here and turn on us.

Well I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, we don't have much choice in this matter. We

don't have much choice in allowing that to happen, because what we are going to

have in the next year or two is instead of the greenpeace down here we are going

to be having 95 per cent of the population of this Province who depend now on

the fishing industry out of work on social services.

Where is the money going to come from in the Department of

Social Services if there is no money being taken in? So you are going to have,

instead of half the population as it is quoted now of the school children now

going hungry, you are going to have the greater majority of the population of

school kids going hungry because there are going to be no jobs for people. I

don't know where the jobs are going to come from. You can have all the ideas you

like to start businesses but if there is no basis for the economy what can you

do?

I do not know why we cannot have a seal harvest in this

Province. I cannot believe that we cannot have a successful seal harvest in this

Province where we can harvest a million seals, sell the meat, give it to the

hungry people, and do something with the by-products. At least we would be

protecting the future of the industry in both ways. The realization of doing it

makes all the common sense in the world, and still we cannot convince our

federal government in Ottawa; we cannot convince the people who make the

decisions to do what is necessary to be done in order to protect the future of

this Province.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. EFFORD: Mr. Speaker, I do not care what anybody is

saying. I do not care what anybody is saying. We have no other choice. We have

no other choice but to have a seal harvest. We have no other choice but to stop

the foreigners overfishing, and if Bill 17 is to become a reality it is because

of the circumstances that are taking place, because there is no money to pay

out. If the economy of this Province is going to survive, we have no choice in

making those decisions. We have no choice in stopping people out there

destroying our stocks.

I got a letter here today from Stephenville, from a

fishermen's committee. They are talking about where the union and DFO have

gotten together and they are talking about cutting out 22,000 part-time

fishermen in this Province. It's there. They now have that in the process -

cutting out 22,000 part-time fishermen. In the name of God, when you take them

out of the fishing boat, what are they going to do? This has been a way of life

in this Province all over the years. A fisherman will go out in the Spring of

the year and catch some lobster, and if the fish come into his community he will

catch some fish. Then he will go into the logging camps and he will cut some

logs, or he will go and build a boat, or build a house, or do something else to

supplement his income. It has been a way of life for Newfoundlanders. There is

no other way to do it, and here is a case in point where we are agreeing with

cutting out 22,000 people.

Well the only thing I can tell the Department of Fisheries

and Oceans, and the union, and anybody else who agrees with it, when you cut out

those 22,000 fishermen, pack their suitcases and give them a subsidy to move up

to Ontario where there are no jobs so they can go on welfare up there, because

there is going to be no money to pay welfare in this Province, and if you do not

give people a right to earn a living, if you take that away from them, they have

one choice. You move them or you let them starve. You move them, Mr. Speaker, or

you let them starve.

At the same time we have this crisis on our hands, we have

Bill 17. Bill 17 is going to be voted on in this House of Assembly, and I have

no doubt it is going to pass. I have no doubt it is going to pass, and there are

going to be a lot of people personally affected by it who will be upset - very

upset. They are going to be upset because they cannot get any money, any

increases, but they can be thankful under the circumstances today, that they

have a job. I am not saying they are going to have a job tomorrow or next week

or next month, but at least I have a salary coming in now, and at least they

have a salary. What about the tens of thousands of people in the fishing

industry in this Province who do not have any salary coming in? Who do not have

any income and will not have any income, and who have to feed their families,

have to pay their bills and pay their mortgages and try to keep their heads

above water.

It is like the business community. The people in business now

are not making money. Ninety per cent of the people in the business community

are not making money. It is a case of survival - trying to hang on and hope and

pray that things are going to get better. Mr. Speaker, there is only one way

things are going to improve in this Province. We have to get back our fishing

industry, and there is only one way that is going to happen. The people of this

Province have to realize and understand the seriousness of the crisis that is

facing the Province. They have to feel it, they have to understand it, and they

have to work with it. We have to work together as a Province, unions and trade

associations, NTA's, nurses, firemen, police, every man, woman and child, with

the same energy in the one direction, and then there will be returns, increases,

and no wage restraints for anybody.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Capes.

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

I must say, it is too bad that more people were not around to

listen to the great speech we just heard from the Member for Port de Grave.

Despite the fact that he might be using it a little bit to colour the effect of

Bill 17 and what it is really doing, there was a tremendous amount of truth in

what the gentleman said. I will comment on that, perhaps, as we get on a little

bit. But we are speaking, really, on the amendment to the bill.

We still have to emphasize the fact that Bill 17 is a

disastrous bill. We can say what we like about the present financial condition

of the Province, or of the government, and to some degree we are justified when

we say that we are going through hard times. We don't have to impress that on

anybody, but we have gone through hard times before in this Province. We have

gone through much harder times than we are going through right now. The only

thing about it, I suppose, is back when we went through the really hard times we

were used to it and we were prepared for it whether we were fishing, whether we

were farming, or whether we were in business. But now we have grown to expect to

be helped along when we run into hard times. We have grown used to the easy way

of life and we are not really used, perhaps, to rolling up our sleeves and doing

that bit extra when hard times strike.

If we look at the Budget, if we look at the bottom line in

successive Budgets, we don't see a tremendous drop in revenues. In fact, each

year we see increased revenues. A lot of people out there think government is in

such hard shape that they have no money. They say to you, 'Well, how can

government do it? They can't do anything else because they have no money.' They

have more money than they had last year, and last year they had more money than

they had the year before, and the year before they had more money than they had

the year before that, so, consequently, if government have the same amount, or

more money, at least they should be able to provide the same amount of services.

Mr. Speaker, the big concern with this legislation is not

that it addresses the fact that we are in a time of financial restraint. That to

a degree is acceptable, but this bill goes beyond the acceptable. It not only

freezes wages, it takes away the wages that were given and along with that the

legislation rolls back agreements that were made, or salaries that were made,

and the most important thing it does, unfortunately, is it destroys completely

the collective bargaining process. We talk about freezes, we have to freeze

salaries. Well, salaries were frozen before in times of restraint and the people

who were employed by government were upset as anybody would be. If a private

entrepreneur businessman goes out and tells his employees that there is going to

be a freeze and they are not going to get an increase for a certain year, they

are going to be upset about it, everybody is, but when they realize the freeze

must come in order to protect jobs then, disagree as they may, they would, as

the former speaker said, rather have a job than have an increase. But, on the

other hand, when the freeze becomes a cut, then it hurts even more. Now, you may

ask, What are you talking about, 'when the freeze becomes a cut'? Well, the

wages of the public servants were frozen this year, and frozen for another year,

but along with that, they have been hit with an increase in their personal

income tax, up to 6 per cent if you consider the 2 per cent over the last couple

of years. So, if you only get the same amount of money you got last year but you

have to pay an extra 6 per cent in taxes, then that means a cut in your

take-home pay. The serious side is with the breaking of agreements because when

you meet a group of your employees and over successive months discuss with them

their concerns and bargain, and it takes time and it costs money, and it gets

people upset, or it plays on the emotions whether it be pleasurably or not so,

and finally, you arrive at an agreement and you go back to your membership, or

you go back to the employer and say, we have reached an agreement with these

people, and if they ratify it and sign it, everybody is happy. Then you find out

shortly after that, you have been led down the garden path simply because the

agreement that you have signed has now been taken into the House of Assembly and

destroyed by the same government that signed it.

That, Mr. Speaker, is what is thoroughly unacceptable, it is

precedent-setting, and certainly this violation of trust cannot be allowed to

continue in this Province. Because if it does - and we have said it before -

then nobody will have any faith in the collective bargaining process, certainly

will have no faith in governments.

There are a number of things here on the - (Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEARN: There are a number of things here on

collective bargaining and the dishonesty that has taken place, and the blatant

use of the power of numbers in the House to destroy contracts that we would like

to get into. But every member in this House realises that. Members who speak -

especially the backbenchers - from the opposite side admit it is not a good

bill, that they do not like it. In fact, I would say the

section where it

freezes or prohibits any increase could be acceptable and supported by the

government, perhaps, in time of restraint. But I cannot see how any backbencher

representing workers around the Province can stand up and see a government by

sheer dictatorship rip up contracts that have been signed. Hopefully, when the

vote comes, whenever it comes, in the next few weeks or months, we will see

people who have indicated they are displeased with the bill then stand up and

vote against it.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get back to some of the remarks

made by the previous speaker when he talked about the need to bring money in

before we can start paying money out. Now, we all realize that in this Province

we have, because of our geography mainly, the need to have a great number of

public servants.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. HEARN: To service a province like Newfoundland and

Labrador, we have to have a tremendous number of public servants, simply by

geography, not because of the numbers of people with which we deal. But

geography beats us again. It beats us when we go to build roads, when we go to

install water and sewer, when we go to erect recreational facilities, when we

talk about servicing in relation to travelling co-ordinators visiting schools or

health inspectors going out into the field, or forestry people travelling around

the Province, or municipal affairs people visiting the offices. You can go on

and on. Whichever way we turn around we are beaten by geography. Our whole

educational system has been affected from day one by geography more so than

anything else.

But here, in the sheer numbers of public servants needed to

properly service our Province, as I say, we are beaten again by geography. There

is nothing we can do about it. The need is there. Now, if we are going to bring

in these extra dollars that the Member for Port de Grave talks about, then they

must be new dollars. There is no good regenerating old dollars. We have to

increase the new dollars that we bring in. We can only do this through the

resource sectors.

We see our forestry in trouble right now, with the Minister

of Forestry announcing that he is going to cut back the number of people

employed at the seedling centre in Grand Falls because he figures that nature

does a better job than humans - and that has been proven entirely incorrect. We

must have an aggressive forestry reforestation program, a replanting program, if

we are going to gain at all upon the severe losses over the years.

The forestry is much like the fishery. We took away and we

didn't care. And we put very little back, until recently, both companies and

governments are starting to see that if we are going to continue to take away

the woods, especially with the new technology we are using, then we must also

start replanting and reseeding. And, at this time, in particular, when the

companies that use our forests, the paper mills, in particular, and pulp mills -

when we see that the forests are getting into trouble, it is no time to start

cutting back upon the people who are there to do something about that very

problem.

If you look at our other resources, our mines, many of our

mines, as you know, are becoming depleted, several are closing down; we don't

hear of any big, new mines opening up to employ the numbers of people who are

being laid off in the old ones.

Of course, besides the depletion of our resources in that

area, we are running into advanced technology. A few days ago, I had the

opportunity to tour the paper mill in Grand Falls, and the thing that amazed me

most, because I have been in paper mills before, was the effect that computers

have had on the work place. Where, before, all the checking and testing and

labelling was done by humans, now it is a matter of one person sitting at a

computer and everything is done. So that is another battle we have to fight.

So, here we have our resources that create jobs because of

advanced technology. In the woods, where you had x number of loggers cutting

down and trimming and piling the wood, now you have one fellow on a machine

going through clear-cutting the works, trimming it to specifics, stacking it,

everything happens by machinery, so we are beaten all around. But the sorrowful

thing about that, is that some of our resources, such as our mines, as we take

away our oil and our minerals - our minerals in particular, oil will regenerate,

I guess, over a number of centuries, but the minerals, in particular, are

non-replaceable. If a gold mine is discovered, after x number of years, all the

gold is taken out and that is it. It is not the same way with our forestry. Our

forests can regenerate provided some assistance is given and some direction is

taken, but in order to do that we must have the proper personnel involved.

However, the big resource in Newfoundland that can keep us

going is the one that started us here, as I have said several times, and is the

one which, undoubtedly, will keep us here if we are to stay here in the future,

and that is the fishery.

There is no way, Mr. Speaker, that the oceans can withstand

the pressures that are being placed upon them by men, and once again, we can

look at technology. Now, technology is wonderful if it is handled properly, but

if it is not handled properly, then it can be extremely destructive, and this is

what we are seeing with the fishery. And we don't have to talk about advanced

technology, about the fish finder where, now, you can go out and set it on top

of your trap and it tells you whether you have to haul it or not, to find out

whether you have any fish.

When we were trapping some years ago, you went out in the

morning and unless the tide was exceptionally heavy, you had to haul up the

heavy cod trap to see if there was any fish in it and when you had it up so far,

when all the heavy work was done, you realized that, yes, you had some, or no,

you had none. Now, you sail in on top of the trap and you check your fish finder

and it will tell you whether or not you have any fish. That is okay, it can be

an asset to man; it saves a lot of time and effort and work, but, the

technology, mainly, that I am talking about is the type of boat and the type of

gear that we use, and I am going to draw a comparison with something else before

I finish, if we have time.

If we - and I have said this before. I think last night I was

watching the news and they showed some clippings on CBC - maybe it is the

regular thing, but every evening they show a few notes of things that happened

in years gone by. One of the things they highlighted last night was the White

Fleet tied up around Water Street, and they showed all the Portuguese moving

around town. They showed the time that the 4,000 or 5,000 Portuguese marched

through the city and brought the statue up to the Basilica. They showed them

going in buying shoes downtown, they showed them doing several things. But it

showed fishermen from other countries coming in using our port, using our

dockyard, which is now practically on the brink of destruction, buying at our

shops, buying supplies for their boats; whether it be water, oil or food

supplies, everything was purchased here. The whole economy of St. John's, in

particular, was improved because of the foreign fleets that came here. Now, we

kicked them out because they were overfishing on the Nose and Tail. If that had

been beneficial, then it would be acceptable, but it didn't keep them from

overfishing. All it did was take away the benefits they had brought to the

Province. Be that as it may, when these people were fishing, our own people

fishing side by side with them, what technology were they using? Of course, on

the Grand Banks and on the other inshore banks, the inshore shoals around the

Province, they were using hook and line, mainly, or as we call them, trawls

-long line, with the shorter lines and the hooks for the townies and the Central

Newfoundland people who don't understand what trawls are all about. You baited

the hooks, you set the lines, you hauled them in each day and you removed the

fish, and mainly, you had prime, quality, fresh product, only taking the proper

fish, extremely fresh product, which was then brought to market or salted aboard

the boat, or whatever.

Then, we got too advanced for that and we invented the

draggers and we got the purse seines and the otter seines, and we went out and

towed these huge contraptions over the bottoms. First of all, before regulation,

we towed them over wherever we could tow them, whether it be in the harbours or

near the headlands before restrictions and limits were placed upon their

operation. And we took everything that was in the path of that contraption

whether it be the type of fish we wanted or whether it be any other type of fish

or life that existed on or near the bottom in the areas. We had fleets of them.

I can remember looking out through the window of my home

years ago seeing the lights in the fall, in particular, when the inshore boats

gave up fishing for the year. Then the draggers and the trawlers, the small ones

and large ones, moved in and raped the grounds all around the inshore

communities. In the nighttime it was like looking out at another city, not to

say a community. All you could see were lights, where these boats were dragging

over the bottom, taking everything, and it is still happening today. We can talk

about the foreigners destroying our fish, and we can talk about the overfishing,

and we can blame the Portuguese and we can blame the Spaniards, and we can blame

whoever we like. To a great degree they are at fault, but they are no more at

fault than ourselves, because we have been just as guilty as anybody, and the

funny thing about it is, we haven't improved one iota.

Now, we are limited by quotas because there is no fish. But

how are we catching it? We are still going out scraping up everything that is

there, no concern for by-catch. Until we started bringing in the enforcement

mechanisms, people just went out, caught whatever they wanted, threw away what

they didn't want and destroyed everything in their path, and it is still

happening today, Mr. Speaker.

If you want to add to the draggers, you can throw in gill

nets. When the original gill nets came out some years ago, I heard some older

fishermen say, 'There goes the end of the fishery,' because they were realizing

- then, of course, they only had old cotton nets that after a short time,

rotted, and if the fish got in by the end of the summer, the fish was falling

out because the twine was rotting. But when they developed the nylon and then

the monofilament nets these, the monofilament ones in particular, last for

years, maybe for centuries.

We saw companies coming in. In order to get boats they gave

out free gill nets so the crew came up and they were loaded up with gill nets,

and the company kept supplying them so it didn't matter how many you lost. We

saw company boats. They went out and set their fleets of gill nets, and a storm

came on. They went back and they couldn't find them. It didn't matter. They went

in and got more and more and kept setting them, and hauled then in when they got

a chance and if they lost them they could not care less. Today there are

thousands and thousands of gill nets around the virgin rocks and around the

coast of Newfoundland and any other place where it is fit, or half fit to set a

gill net. What are they doing, Mr. Speaker? They are fishing. Despite what

people say, you will find others, and research has been done, to show that nets

retrieved after having been in the ocean for years still contained live fish.

Some get rolled up and undoubtedly are not in a fishing condition but others,

once they are filled with fish, and when the fish rot parts of the net even,

rise again to continue holding fish, so when we add this to the dragging

technology, to the raping of the breeding grounds, to the destruction of the

ocean beds and the homes of the fish in the ocean, disturbing the environment in

which they live, to the seals that the former member also mentioned, and to our

lack of ability to address the seal population.

I can challenge any member in this House to go back over the

speeches made in the House during the last ten years and they will see that

every time the fishery was discussed, and sometimes when it was not even a

fisheries topic, that I raised the issue of seals over and over and over. I

agree fully with the Member for Port de Grave that if that situation is not

addressed that is one aspect of the fishery and the destruction of the cod

fishery and other fish in the ocean, that will always be there to haunt us and

it is becoming a greater problem. It is not a matter of running around Europe

and looking good, and getting coverage, as the Premier did, by blaming the

foreigners. The Premier followed along on the footsteps of the Minister of

Fisheries and the Prime Minister. They went over and the foreigners, the EEC

counties, and the diplomats there talked to the leaders of the country. They

were talking to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Fisheries, and to the

federal diplomats.

The Premier of the Province to them, despite what he came

back and said, all he talked about was the reaction that was given to the issue,

the issue that had been raised by the feds and by the diplomats, by the country.

The Premier was talking to civil servants who, because he was Premier of a

Province, acknowledged the fact undoubtedly he was there and told him basically

what they had been doing with the diplomats from the country. The Premier is

really just a pimple on the backside of the major diplomats and of the country

who were over there negotiating on our behalf. We should not fool ourselves by

thinking the Premier is going to make any great initiatives, or dents, in what

is going on. He certainly has to play his part, we have to assure them that we

agree with what is happening, the stand that is being taken by the leaders of

our country on this issue, and we have to keep emphasizing the fact that it must

continue, but just addressing the overfishing by the EEC countries is only a

very small part of the problem. It is the part that can get attention and make

us all look good but if we do not look at the seal population, if we keep

running away from Green Peace then that whole

section is going to have a

disastrous effect on the fishery.

If we do not look at ourselves in the mirror, and if we do

not address the technology we are using then we are going to be just as bad of.

Even if we get the foreign countries completely off the Nose and Tail, if we

kill every seal that is out there, and then if we turn our own fishermen loose

again to do the same thing they have done in the past, in a few years time we

are right back to square one. Surely God there must be a learning process here,

and we have to learn from the past. Why did the fishery last for hundreds and

hundreds of years, and there was a fair amount of fishing going on?

The key word in it all was technology, and unless we address

that and unless we look ahead, and maybe get back to working a little bit harder

to catching or retrieving that resource, whatever that resource might be,

whether it be fish or forest, or fowl, then we are never going to have it. And,

while I am on the word fowl let me make one comparison because I think my time

is running out. A few nights ago I was present at a meeting where a pubic

servant, a member of one of your departments, showed a number of slides talking

about the environment and all of them were pretty hard-hitting because they

described our own environment, the Province in which we live. They showed

examples of what it was like several years ago, the peace and tranquillity and

the undisturbed natural elements that you will find in a few places in

Newfoundland still,

and comparing it with what we have today. I challenge every

one of you to just think back to your childhood and what it was like in the

communities or towns in which you grew up and compare it to what it is like

today, and ask yourself what has made the difference? The answer is, the

difference has been made by us, and our lack of concern and our lack of caring.

The comparison I wanted to make to the draggers was the use

of trikes. When we look at the countryside that was once beautiful, being

destroyed completely by trikes. They have a place also, but if we are just going

to do what we did with the draggers, and let them run wild and let them run over

the countryside, not only are we destroying the terrain; we are also encouraging

the destruction of wildlife that is around. Now the Minister of Forestry, who

was involved with the wildlife

section for quite some time, knows full well that

by the use of, once again, advanced technology, trikes or terra jets or

whatever, we have people getting into areas where they never got before. The

wildlife that had some protection now has none. What chance does a covey of

partridge have against three or four fellows on trikes, with dogs and automatic

guns? The answer is none. What chance do moose have from people on skidoos or

trikes? The answer is none. What chance do the trout in the ponds that we might

go to twice a year because it was too far to walk on a regular basis, but we

knew we could get a good strap of trout if we spent a couple of hours walking

in, now what chance do they have?

AN HON. MEMBER: Gone.

MR. HEARN: Gone. Why? Because people who would never walk

there are now driving up, throwing their garbage on the side of the bank,

catching the trout, depleting the pond, and then destroying the marshes as they

come out on their trikes. Now I am not exaggerating when I say that, because all

we have to do is look around us. You might counter with the question, what about

the poor old fellow who always wanted to go trouting, now has arthritis and has

a job to get there? There are exceptions and there are provisions, and fellows

like that are not going to destroy the countryside, because they have been

around long enough to know the value. But unless we take a stand on these things

we are not going to have the resources that the hon. member talks about. We are

not going to have the resources to generate those dollars that are going to be

needed to pay those people.

The reverse of that is that if we keep laying off good public

servants we are not going to have the ones to create the necessary rules and

regulations, and more important, to enforce them. Where are the wardens? Why is

it we take the wardens off the rivers after ten weeks when they get their

stamps, when it is prime time in relation to the amount of salmon that is in the

river. It is a tremendous chance for people who want to poach, and we still have

them around, who do not care about our resources. Here we have the wardens,

because we are laying them off, or cutting them back, we are taking them off the

river. Why is it our wildlife officers have such large geographic areas to

cover? They cannot look after the herds, neither in relation to their strength

or their health, or in relation to the illegalities that might be going on,

because of cutbacks and because of layoffs. So we are cutting off our nose to

spite our face, as they say.

We must address the problems, and we can be penny wise and

pound foolish. By a bill such as Bill 17 I suggest that we are certainly being

very, very foolish, because not only are we upsetting the public service, not

because we asked them to hold the line, they might not like that, but that is

and can be acceptable. But to sign a contract and praise them up and make them

feel good, and then go laugh at them, because when legislation is brought in so

shortly after contracts have been signed, there is no way that you can convince

anybody that the people who signed these contracts did not know, or at least the

ministers had to know, what they intended to do. Mr. Speaker, that is thoroughly

unacceptable in a civilized society.

Hopefully reason will prevail, and if people have concern

that they will vote against the Bill. Maybe things will turn around, maybe our

public servants will do the type of work they can.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time is up.

MS. VERGE: By leave!

MR. HEARN: I will finish up, Mr. Speaker, by saying that

perhaps they will get a chance to do the work they can so our resources will be

protected so they will generate the dollars, so that we will not have to worry

about bringing in bills such as Bill 17 in the future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the

amendment proposed by the Member for Harbour Main, that this Bill we are

debating, Bill 17, be referred to a standing committee of the House for public

hearings. I will address the amendment and speak later on the main motion,

although in addressing the amendment of course I will be dealing with the

contents of the Bill also.

The reason this Bill should be referred to a committee of the

House for public hearings is that the Bill is so radical and represents such a

departure from the established labour-management practices that were developed

during the nineteen-seventies and nineteen-eighties, and because the Bill is

fundamentally at odds with the election campaign platform on which this

administration came to office.

This is May 5, 1992, exactly three years from the date when

this 'real change' administration assumed office. May 5, 1989, will go down in

our history as a black day indeed. The 'real change' which the minority of

voters, which the 47 per cent who voted Liberal in the last election, expected,

was a change for the better. What has happened of course is a drastic change for

the worse. We have suffered reductions and reversals on virtually every front.

The topic at hand is the public service and is

labour-management relations. What did the Liberals have to say on those subjects

when they were campaigning for election three years ago? I would like to refresh

the memories of hon. members. I have consulted my file labelled 'Liberal

Propaganda' and I have here the glossy colour brochure distributed to every

household in the Province, bearing a picture of his eminence, the leader, the

present Premier. What the Liberals had to say was: this election is about

change. We must change direction in Newfoundland and Labrador. We must stop our

downward economic slide and growing unemployment. We must stop the draining of

our people to other parts of Canada.

On the subject of labour: a Liberal government will create an

atmosphere of rational cooperation in developing labour legislation and in

dealing with public service unions.

How ironic. What they have done is the exact opposite. They

have presided over a reversal of the three or four years of economic growth that

preceded their taking office, they have made a bad situation worse, they have

allowed the economy to slide further and further downward, they have allowed

unemployment to worsen, they have allowed the social assistance rolls to swell

to an all-time high and they are abdicating their responsibility by blaming

everyone but themselves. The Premier is saying: there is nothing we can do, it

is because of the previous administration, it is because of the federal

government, it is because of international conditions, it is because of the

business community. There is nothing that we can do.

Now the Province has a Budget this year of $3.5 billion.

There is a lot the provincial government can do.

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals promised economic growth. They

promised a substantial increase in spending on hospitals and health care. They

promised to establish university campuses throughout Newfoundland, several

university campuses starting with a third campus in Central Newfoundland and

then on to a fourth in Northern Newfoundland, a fifth in Labrador, and perhaps a

sixth on the Burin Peninsula. That is what the present Premier was preaching in

the winter of 1989, three short years ago.

Now the Premier today throws up his hands and says: We have

no choice. We just don't have money to deliver our promises. We just don't have

money to keep our word. We just don't have money to honour our commitments and

fulfil our obligations under signed collective agreements. We have no choice.

Well, Mr. Speaker, did the Premier have a choice when he was campaigning for

election three years ago when he made the extravagant promises of increasing the

economy, expanding the number of jobs, bringing mothers sons home from the

mainland, opening more hospital beds, building more university campuses? Did the

Premier have a choice then?

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Premier hadn't stopped to do some

research. If he had he could have examined the financial statements of the

provincial government. He could have read the Budget for the fiscal year 1988-89

or 1987-88, or 1986-87 to see what the debt problem was, to see what the deficit

challenge was. He could have refrained from bitterly denouncing the restraint

measures that were taken by the Peckford administration. He could have resisted

the temptation to lie to people when he was campaigning.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MS. VERGE: He could have done that.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

I ask the hon. member to withdraw.

MS. VERGE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Because the word 'lie'

is unparliamentary I withdraw that word.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier had a choice three years ago. The

Premier could have told the truth to the people of the Province. The Premier has

a choice today. He has the power to keep his word, to honour his contracts. He

has that choice.

Mr. Speaker, not only did the Premier get elected on a

platform of misleading and false promises, but then in his first year or so in

office he proceeded to raise expectations, to plunge into negotiations with

public service unions, signalling a willingness to agree to hefty increases.

Agreements were signed. Some went out to arbitration. Settlements were reached.

More contracts were signed. This happened up to the early Winter of last year,

of 1991. Well, on Budget Day reality set in. The 'Real Change' reared its ugly

head when the announcement was made that the government was going to wipe out

all those agreements. The government was going to use the power of the

Legislature, to use the power of the majority in the Legislature to renege on

all those contracts, to suspend all those contracts for a year and also to wipe

out the retroactive implementation of pay equity, which had been negotiated and

agreed to.

I remember being on a television panel shortly after last

years Budget, a panel along with the present Minister of Works, Services and

Transportation and the Member for St. John's East, I believe it was. We were

talking about remuneration for MHAs and about whether members were subject to

the same restraint as members of the public service. I remember the minister

appearing shocked when I said this is going to last for more than one year. What

makes you think it will be limited to one year? There is every sign it will be

extended into a second year.

Last year we had Bill 16. Now we have Bill 17. The moral in

all this, the moral of the story, Mr. Speaker, is that this is an immoral

administration. This is an administration that deceives the people. That

negotiates, that signs contracts, and then simply comes to the Legislature and

uses the rule of law to cancel the contracts. The government as employer has a

power that no other employer has. This government has abused that power.

The contempt of this administration for commitments, for

contracts, for collective agreements, is being copied by government funded

institutions and agencies. The other day I had a conversation with one of the

employees of the provincial nurses' union. He said to me: I do not have much of

a reason for working any more. There is no more collective bargaining. He said:

when our members, when our nurses, grieve, and show legitimate cause for a

grievance, point to an obvious infraction of a collective agreement, what is

happening is that hospital administrators are saying: well, yes, you might have

a case, but by the time you take it to arbitration two years will have gone by,

maybe we will be in better shape by then, but in the meantime, whistle Dixie. We

are going to go ahead and have nursing assistants do nurses' work.

At the Springdale - Green Bay Health Care centre there are

nursing positions vacant, there are unemployed nurses able and willing to go to

work in the immediate area, but to save money, to live within its budget, that

institution is hiring nursing assistants.

What kind of a signal has the government sent hospital

boards, school boards, the people of the Province generally? What kind of an

example has this government set? I acknowledge that times are tough. I was part

of an administration in the early- and mid-eighties that had to cope with a very

severe economic recession when interest rates went up over 20 per cent. I am

pleased to say that administration took a different approach to managing. We

honoured our collective agreements but we announced up front that when signed

agreements expired we would impose a period of restraint, and that included two

years of freeze.

Now, many of the members opposite then serving in the House

in Opposition howled. They bitterly denounced that restraint program. Others,

who were in private life, including a couple of presidents of the NTA, fought

against those measures. The present Minister of Environment and Lands and

President of the Status of Women left the office of president of the NTA

prematurely to run for the Liberal Party, leading teachers and others to believe

that she was going to try to implement some of the goals that she had espoused

as president of the NTA. The Member for Exploits was in a similar situation,

having been the NTA past president.

Now they are part of this 'real change' administration that

has betrayed the teachers, that has done exactly opposite to what they preached

when they were union leaders.

MR. WINSOR: He doesn't like to hear it.

MS. VERGE: No, he doesn't like it when he hears it, the

truth hurts. Basically what I am pointing out, Mr. Speaker, is that these

particular politicians have no principles. If they had any principles, if they

had any self-respect, they would have resigned rather than continue in an

administration that has violated the signed agreements with the NTA and other

public service unions.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill which compounds the betrayal, should

be referred to a standing committee for public hearings so that people all

around the Province, whom the government has to serve, can have a say about it,

so that they can voice their preferences. Difficult choices have to be made.

Difficult choices had to be made back in the 80's. Difficult decisions had to be

made in 1989 - 1990, and this administration avoided the difficult choices.

Basically they led people to believe that everything was fine. They contributed

to the illusion of a paradise, a fool's paradise, and then when reality set in,

of course they realized - perhaps they knew all along and were deliberately

conning people - that they simply could not deliver the election campaign

promises that they had made.

This platform on the slick brochure that the Liberals sent to

every household in the Province, this was pie in the sky, Mr. Speaker, pie in

the sky: A Liberal government will create an atmosphere of rational co-operation

in developing labour legislation and in dealing with public service unions. So

this labour legislation, Bill 17, is not the legislation that Fraser March had

in mind when they conned him into supporting them. I don't think it was the type

of labour legislation most of the teachers had in mind when they saw three of

their presidents run for the Liberals.

The betrayal that has been perpetrated by the administration

has caused severe disillusionment among many people in the Province. Mr.

Speaker, many of the 47 per cent who voted Liberal are very sorry they made that

choice. Now for some it has been painful to admit that they made a mistake. It

has been difficult to concede that they were guilty of an error in judgement.

But, Mr. Speaker, the present Premier is slick. No question. I have often

compared him to TV evangelists. He has many of the same skills of presentation

before the cameras, of public speaking, he is a real master of presentation, Mr.

Speaker, the same as the Jimmy Swaggarts and - who are some of the other TV

evangelists?

AN HON. MEMBER: Jimmy Bakker.

MS. VERGE: Jimmy Bakker.

AN HON. MEMBER: Clyde Wells.

MS. VERGE: Yes. I see many similarities in presentation.

The same as a TV evangelist, the Premier can sound very appealing. When he was

campaigning three years ago with his modulated voice and posing in front of the

cameras, he told people what they wanted to hear. He said he was going to expand

the economy and bring the mothers' sons home from the mainland, and that is what

people wanted to hear. Now some of us have some concerns about the daughters on

the mainland, but this is a Premier from a previous era and sexism doesn't

dissolve easily. Old habits are hard to break. But this was a