May 20,

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLI No.

The House met at 2:00 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Lush): Order, please!

I would like to bring to the attention of hon. members the

presence in the Speaker's Gallery today of the High Commissioner of the

Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States to Canada, His Excellency Dr. J.

Bernard Yankey.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, once again I have questions for

the Premier. Unfortunately he is not here. I kind of hoped he would be here

today, and the Minister of Education won't be here until tomorrow, I guess, but

it is an important question I want to ask so I will proceed to ask it of the

acting Premier or the acting Minister of Education, the acting everything I

guess, who happens to be the Government House Leader.

I want to refer the Government House Leader to some

references in the Royal Commission, particularly in the appendix. One in

particular, the legal opinion of George Furey, a well known name, who was the

legal counsel to the Royal Commission on Education, wrote a

section of the

report, page 447 in particular, contained in appendix three, in which he says a

number of the recommendations, I think it was number twenty-six and twenty-seven

at least, concerning denominational schools violate constitutionally protected

rights and privileges. I want to ask the acting Premier does he agree with Mr.

Furey's opinion, and if so how does he or the government intend to proceed with

dealing with those particular recommendations, the ones that Mr. Furey says

violate constitutional rights?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, it has been made clear that

government will over the next while examine the report and make decisions with

regards to recommendations of the Commission. I can't prejudge at this point in

time what Cabinet's decision will be. However I will say to the hon. gentleman

that I think it is fairly obvious that there are certain rights that are

entrenched in the Constitution. I think that is an accepted fact all throughout

the Province.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On a supplementary: I

gather the acting Premier said that they are going to deal with it or consider

the recommendations over the next little while. I believe I have heard the

Minister of Education say publicly that they intended to consult with church

groups and church leaderships and so on.

According to Mr. Furey again, the legal solicitor for the

Royal Commission, the persons who have educational rights under term 17 of the

constitution are those who are the adherents of the various denominations. In

other words, not the church hierarchies which he says in the recommendation. I

want to ask the acting Premier does he agree with that opinion specifically?

Also, does he agree with Mr. Furey when he says, and I quote, 'Any attempts to

amend term seventeen should involve direct input from the class or classes of

people protected under the Constitution.'

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

MR. BAKER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there has been a rather

extensive consultation process going on up to this point, as the hon. member

knows. There have been over 1,000 representations made to the Commission, and

they did come up with certain recommendations. The Minister of Education has

stated very clearly that - and other people, other stakeholders within the

system have expressed this view - that a lot of these changes are better done

through cooperation. I think that is the approach that the Minister of Education

is taking.

However, I will say again that Cabinet has not considered

this document. It was presented to us, we have presented it to the public, and

after a period of time we will make decisions on certain recommendations. So I

can only assume that the recommendations of legal counsel - Mr. Furey being an

excellent lawyer - has proper conclusions in his recommendations.

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to see

that the acting Premier has indicated he agrees with Mr. Furey's opinion. The

point I was trying to make is that it is the adherents of the denominational

groups who are the people who should be dealt with and whose educational rights

we are talking about, not the hierarchies of the church and the leadership of

the churches. So the consultation needs to be much broader, I think is what Mr.

Furey is saying.

Let me ask the acting Premier this question. Mr. Furey also

says that there are other adherents of non-protected religious groups - those

who do not have protection under the Constitution - as well as non-adherents,

whose rights to an equal education and meaningful input into the educational

system, must be addressed. I wanted to ask the acting Premier: how does the

government propose to address the concerns of those particular groups of people?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I repeat. We have gone through

the Royal Commission process, we have provided opportunity for a lot of input,

and we now have the report before us. At an appropriate point in time, when

government has considered the recommendations - we agree that everybody has a

stake in this, that it is very important to all citizens of the Province,

regardless of religious affiliation. At an appropriate time Cabinet will make

decisions, and then these conclusions will be announced to the House, or if the

House is not sitting, will be announced publicly.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. I am pleased

to see the acting Premier make this point and this commitment. Since it is being

considered by the government, and since the Premier has said on many occasions

that the Constitution belongs to the people, and that the people should have

direct input into changes or modifications to the Constitution, I presume the

acting Premier agrees that principle applies in this situation. Therefore I want

to ask him directly: would the government consider holding a referendum or a

plebescite in order to give the people who are going to be most affected by

this, a direct say into this particular issue?

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, it is a hypothetical question to

start with; government has not decided what action is going to be taken on the

recommendations. If government chooses to take no action then obviously nothing

of the sort will be necessary, so it is a hypothetical situation up until the

point at which government decides what it intends to do with the recommendations

so, right now it is a hypothetical situation, but I would say to the hon.

gentleman that we have shown in the years that we have been in office that we

consult very widely and we are firm believers in getting the opinions of people

all over this Province.

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

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

Minister of Development and Tourism.

Arising from some information the minister was good enough to

table in the estimate committees last evening, being a list of projects funded

by Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador for the year 1991. Would the minister

first of all, Mr. Speaker, tell us why it took some five months to get that

information from the time that it was first requested, what would take so long

for the corporation to compile a list of 400 projects or 400 and some odd

projects, and the amount of money that was made available to the individuals?

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

Tourism.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, as I said last night, it took

some time to compile these lists. These lists had to come in from the regions,

we had to double check to make sure authorization was in place and waivers were

signed. I should tell the hon. members - as I did last night - perhaps this

corporation, even though it is a young corporation, is perhaps the most

transparent corporation that I know of in the country. We have been alive for

twelve months, we have put all the facts on the table; every single company that

has been helped in Newfoundland and Labrador has been laid on the table. The

amounts have been laid on the table, the types of loans have been laid on the

table and I promised the hon. member that in due course I will have backup

statements on how these loans originated and why they were approved. But it took

some time, the original request came from CBC Corporation and we set about in

the regions compiling the lists. I do not know of any other development agency

in the country that does what this government has done with its corporation.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister

for that and we look forward to receiving the additional information, which he

did certainly agree without hesitation he would provide us. Would he tell us, in

the meantime, while we are waiting for this detailed documentation, has there

been a change in policy of government, in other words, is the emphasis still on

resource based industry, manufacturing industries, high tech, technology

transfer, research and development, tourism, crafts and that sort of thing, in

contrast to competitive sort of businesses - retail operations and the like?

Would the minister tell us, is this policy still in effect?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I sound repetitive because at the

estimates committee I addressed that issue last night. Every single businessman,

every single businesswoman, in this Province who wants access to Enterprise

Newfoundland and the various loan programs that we have in place, whether it is

venture capital, the small enterprise loan, the conventional loans, or equity

positions, every single businessperson, he or she, wherever they live in this

Province, can access all of the programs any time. Now we deal with each one on

their merit. Four hundred and twenty-two, I believe, were approved. There were

probably hundreds turned down.

We try our best not to put money into companies that are in

direct competition with companies across the street, unlike other agencies, some

of them federal. We try our best to protect the market share. If there is room

for expansion, and the business plans and the market studies show that there is

room for expansion, well we deal with each on their own merit and we provide the

money in that context.

Mr. Speaker, we have not drifted away. We are very tuned into

the resource industries, and we want to help small business people, whether they

are small fish plant owners, or tourism operators, as the hon. member says; but

every single business, every single businessperson, ought to know that this

public capital of $24 million, float out $2 million per month over twelve

months, is available to everybody, and every single -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) Sprung.

MR. FUREY: The hon. member mentions Sprung. Well we saw

what was available to Sprung.

AN HON. MEMBER: That speaks for itself.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry for the distraction.

My point is that the money is available to every single

businessperson, irrespective of where they live, irrespective of what their

business is. We are not in the business of trying to fund money where there is

direct competition, but every single one of them is dealt with on their own

merit, whether they live in Mount Pearl or Grand Falls or St. Lawrence, as we

have helped companies down there, in Torngat Mountains or over in Holyrood, in

Port au Port - even in St. John's East, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, the minister is coming to the

point that I am trying to clarify. There are thousands of businesses out there

today that are having serious financial difficulty. They would like to know now

if they qualify for funding. I would like to know if I have been misleading many

of my constituents who approached me and said: Is there government funding

available? I told them, no, funding wouldn't be available.

Will the Minister confirm, Mr. Speaker, that things like

retail clothing stores, grocery stores, chicken takeouts, games arcades,

computer companies, building contractors, paving contractors, photofinishing

studios, beauty salons, restaurants, flower shops, trucking companies, music

stores, lounges and even community centers now qualify for this type of funding?

AN HON. MEMBER: Good question. Good question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. the Minister of Development.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I cannot comment on whether the

hon. member has been misleading his constituents. That is for him to decide. I

can only tell him that if he takes the time and the trouble to find out what

programs are available through Enterprise Newfoundland he will see that there

are a number of programs provided.

One is the small enterprise loan which is the former rural

development loan which gives all businesspeople across the Province access to

loan money at three points below prime. There is the conventional loan which

gives all businesspeople, irrespective of size, an opportunity to borrow, where

they couldn't borrow from the banks or other places, for prime plus 3 per cent.

Then, of course, there is the equity position which is a seven-year mirrored

program, dollar-for-dollar matched over a seven-year period where there is

waived interest for a period of seven years. That is the venture capital

program. The equity position, of course, is where government goes in and takes a

position with its eyes open and with a deal put in place where they back out if

the company grows and becomes stronger.

Surely the hon. member advised his people in Mount Pearl:

There is one company here that accessed $100,000; another one accessed $3700;

another one, $15,000; another, $1530; another one, $250,000; $38,500; $20,000;

and on and on it goes for Mount Pearl. We even helped juice companies, Sunnyland

Juice, a little company in Mount Pearl that brings concentrates in here, marries

it to fresh water from the streams of Newfoundland and is now exporting it to

PEI.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. WINDSOR: Mr. Speaker, I wish we had a dozen more

Sunnyland Juices, whether they be in Mount Pearl or where they be in this

Province. That is the type of business that we should be funding, not chicken

and rib takeouts and beauty salons and video stores.

Will the minister tell me, in view of his statement, Mr.

Speaker, and in view of the Premier's statement of last week when he said that

government would not be funding the competitive arms of Lundrigan's

conglomerate, for example, how does he justify that statement, in light of the

list of projects that the minister tabled last night?

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

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the hon. member

is listening clearly or if he is just trying to convolute for a press story or

what he is trying to do. Lundrigans or any company, any single company - let me

make it quite clear - any single company, whether it is starting up to be a new

company, whether it is an existing company that needs stabilization, whether it

is a company that needs expansion, every single company in this Province, every

single businessman and every single businesswoman, has access to Enterprise

Newfoundland and Labrador. Every single business person.

If you care to look at the district proportional breakout, it

is almost incredible. Because every single district, every single company in

every district, somehow has managed to spread itself out very evenly - unlike in

the past, Mr. Speaker. There was never an arm's length in the past when I sat on

that side of the House. It was governed by politics and politicians and the

money was passed out. If you were Tory, you were okay, and if you were Liberal,

you were denied. That day is gone, Mr. Speaker. Gone!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

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

see right through it, that's how transparent it is.

I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries, following up

on my question yesterday about the shrimp fishery on the Northern Peninsula,

particularly. As a result of that question and some press reports, I had a

number of calls from the Northern Peninsula yesterday evening. I want to ask the

minister: How many shrimp processing licenses are there out and about the

Province? How many shrimp processing licenses has his department issued in the

Province?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I can provide that

information. I know there are plants in Anchor Point and Port-au-Choix, and, I

think, in Harbour Grace. There are several shrimp processing plants around the

Island.

I made some enquiries today with respect to the situation in

the Great Northern Peninsula area. I think FPI is now buying shrimp from

fishermen there. The plant in Anchor Point is not yet in operation. I said

yesterday, we have requests in now from two different sources for processing

licenses, well, not processing, but certainly, buying licenses: Clearwater, a

company that is operating a plant in the town represented by the hon. gentleman,

and the proposal to provide, or at least to reinstate, the plant in Trepassey,

which has with it a very major shrimp harvesting component. So, I can find out,

Mr. Speaker, and table if he wishes, the exact number of processing plants in

the Province. I can do that tomorrow.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The minister must

be aware that Clearwater is looking at buying shrimp from a shrimp fishery in

Fortune Bay. I would be very surprised if Seafreez is looking at buying shrimp

on the Northern Peninsula and trucking it across the Island, when it is going to

cost about twenty cents a pound to truck it. Maybe they will be, but I would

have to question the viability of that.

The concern on the Northern Peninsula, Mr. Speaker, and I

would like to ask him: Is he aware that right now Fishery Products International

- yes, they are buying shrimp, but they have restricted the boats to,I think, a

12,000-pound a week quota, about sixty, sixty-plus, boats. That is very

restrictive on those shrimp fishermen because, with the downturn in the

groundfish resource, these fishermen are not able to make ends meet.

So the question is: Will the minister seriously consider

issuing another shrimp processing license, at least a buyer's license, to the

Northern Peninsula area to help those fishermen who really need now to catch

more shrimp to survive?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, we are certainly willing to have

a look at it but I cannot say for sure that we will agree to doing that.

Because, under normal circumstances, there doesn't appear to be any problem for

the fishermen to dispose of their shrimp catches. Now, we have had times - I

recall last year, two years ago, when the plant in Anchor Point had to engage

the services of a mobile freezer, capable of freezing about 40,000 pounds of

shrimp. They brought that up to the Anchor Point area. That helped solve the

problem then.

I will admit, there are times when it is difficult for

fishermen to sell their shrimp, but to issue new licenses, Mr. Speaker, I don't

think, will be the answer, quite frankly. Nevertheless, we are looking at the

request. The hon. gentleman mentioned about Seafreez, what their intentions are.

I can tell him now that they are looking at shrimp from a number of sources,

from the Barents Sea, provided by the Russians, and also looking at the

possibility of buying shrimp up in the Northern area.

So it might well be that within a very short period of time

there will be more buyers than there will be shrimp.

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

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker.

My information, I say to the minister, is that there is

really, I think, a maximum of two active shrimp processors right now in the

Province, and there are probably between nine and twelve shrimp processing

licences that are issued but are not active. I was wondering if the minister

would consider having a look at how many shrimp processing licences are out and

about the Province that are not being used. The question is: Would the minister

not consider one of those licences for the Northern Peninsula to help those

shrimp fishermen who can only now catch 12,000 pounds a week and are having a

difficult time because of the problems with our fishery? Would he not consider

looking at that to see how many shrimp processing licences are really active,

with a view to providing another licence to the Northern Peninsula? He would not

be increasing the number of licences in the Province. Would he consider that?

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, we are willing to consider

anything, I suppose, that makes sense; but I should inform the hon. gentleman,

there is no reason to believe that the plant in Anchor Point will not be in

operation soon. It has the capability of processing a lot of shrimp. It is a

good, modern plant. They are having some problems now, I think, with respect to

negotiating with the union, but that is a problem, I am sure, that will be

resolved very shortly.

Certainly, we have to be very careful not to allow too many

plants to be licensed around the Province, because in so doing then we might be

jeopardizing the viability of the plants that are already there; but we will

have a look at it.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for

the Minister of Social Services.

At lunch hour, today, twelve agencies banded together to

present to the public the crying need for counselling services for survivors of

sexual abuse. At that time, figures obtained from the Department of Social

Services were released, indicating that the number of reported child sexual

abuse cases in the last year available, 1990-1991 was over 1200 - almost double

from the year before.

My question to the Minister of Social Services is: What plans

does he have for providing counselling services to ensure that these survivors

of sexual abuse are able to get the kind of counselling that they need to deal

with the aftereffects, some of which are long-term and require serious

therapeutic counselling? What plans does he and his department have to provide

for that need?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: The groups that had the press conference

today, of course, were speaking to the problem that we have with us, and the

recommendations that we had from the Hughes report. I believe they made a

comment that the Hughes report did not, in fact, go far enough with their

recommendations.

In fact, the mandate of Hughes was not to deal with many of

the questions that were raised by this working group, and the organizations that

were represented today. However, the concerns were obviously very valid, and we

are dealing with this matter in my department right now, looking at the Hughes

recommendations, and reviewing the acts that are pertinent. Of course, as the

member knows, we have faced-off many of our professionals, our social workers,

against this problem. We are focusing on it in every region of the Province, and

making sure that it is given top priority.

To answer the question more definitively, we are going to be

working very closely with these community groups. They are obviously very

important, because they mirror a lot of the concerns in the community. They

point out quite accurately now that awareness has been heightened by the Hughes

Enquiry in particular, and more cases are coming forward. More are being

reported, which is good, which certainly we encourage, and we intend to work

very closely to put in place better procedures to help this problem.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you.

As the minister knows, the Hughes Inquiry didn't really deal

with this issue at all in the general way. I ask the minister, other than saying

what he has said already, which is that he sympathizes with the problem, can he

tell us what specific programs he has in mind, and is he prepared to acknowledge

that his department does not, in fact, other than crisis intervention, have any

programs right now that provide counselling to survivors of sexual abuse and

provides direct services to people? Will he acknowledge that and tell us what he

proposes to do about that?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Social Services.

MR. GULLAGE: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

It is a good question. In fact, it was raised by the womens'

organizations as well. The whole matter of sexual abuse, whether it be children

or adult sexual abuse of women, has to be addressed and we are looking at that

problem on a regional basis. The fact of counselling is a very pertinent

question and we are going to ensure that counselling is put in place. We haven't

decided yet how we are going to proceed with that because, obviously,

counselling is required of various professionals, not just social workers.

So we are dealing with the overall picture of counselling and

how best to put it in place in regions of the Province that are obviously

different. It does present some problems in some regions versus others. That is

where we have to change our procedures to procedures that bring the victims

closer to the counselling that can be made available,

whereas now, of course,

many of the centers that we have in place and the resources we have in place

operate, in many cases, in isolation to our offices. So that is the challenge we

have ahead of us, to bring our services and other services that are available in

the health care system, and professionals in that system as well, closer to the

victims.

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

MR. HARRIS: My final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is to

the Minister of Health.

Would the Minister of Health be able to confirm, Mr. Speaker,

that the original plans to expand the activities of adolescent counselling

provided by the Thomas Anderson Center to five other areas of the Province have

not been fulfilled? Could he also confirm that, in fact, of the thirteen

positions that are available at the Thomas Anderson Center only five of them

have been filled? Can he tell the House about that and what he plans to do to

remedy that problem?

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the Anderson Center was built as

a pilot project and the intention was to expand throughout the Province.

Unfortunately, the center has never really gotten off the ground and it is being

reviewed. So the member is quite right, we have some vacant positions there, not

entirely due to the fact that we can't recruit. There is a problem there. We

just recently put the Anderson Center under the Janeway Hospital Board and there

are some labour problems there which is making it difficult to recruit at this

time. There is a dispute between two bargaining units of the same union. That is

one of the problems we are having with recruiting.

There is not a whole lot of supply of the kind of people we

need to work with the kind of qualifications that are required in the Anderson

Center, Mr. Speaker. A minimum of a Masters Degree is required either in

psychology or sociology or certain degrees in nursing. So there are not a whole

lot of these people available.

As to whether or not we plan to expand into four or five more

locations, Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the hon. member and the people of

Newfoundland that the very arguments that are put forward in the member's

question are making us review the wisdom of spreading throughout the Province

with similar centers. This center has not been an outstanding success. We have

to look at it and we have to ask ourselves whether or not we are going to

expand. Also, Mr. Speaker, we are looking at more community-based mental health

services which might be able to fulfill this need.

We recognize there is a problem there. There was an attempt

made to solve the problem with an Anderson Center type building. To date it has

not proven successful.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, recent media reports have suggested that the

Department of Works, Services and Transportation have offered the town council

of Happy Valley - Goose Bay $400,000 to do the winter maintenance on the

Trans-Labrador Highway from Happy Valley - Goose Bay to Labrador City - Wabush.

I wonder if he could confirm that that has occurred?

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Works,

Services and Transportation has indicated to the Town of Happy Valley - Goose

Bay, if they can come up with a plan which would see winter maintenance from

Labrador City - Wabush to Happy Valley - Goose Bay for the sum of $400,000, that

sum of money would be made available.

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

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker, isn't the minister aware that

this highway connects 10,000 people to the Trans-Canada Highway system in this

country? Is this another downloading of provincial responsibility on

municipalities? Is the minister sending signals to other municipalities not

connected to the Trans-Canada Highway, such as Burgeo, Bonavista, or St.

Anthony, that they too will be treated in a similar fashion? Or is this just

plain, ordinary discrimination against Labrador?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Transportation.

MR. GOVER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

At a meeting with the joint councils with the Premier in

Labrador, in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, the issue of winter maintenance on the

Trans-Labrador Highway was raised. The councils indicated that the winter

maintenance on the Trans-Labrador Highway, this is my information, could be done

for a very nominal sum considering the distance involved and considering our

experience with winter maintenance on the Island. In fact, I believe the figure

that was suggested, although I do not have this confirmed, was $300,000.

I subsequently met with the Town Council of Happy Valley -

Goose Bay and I indicated to them, that in the department's opinion, to winter

maintain the Trans-Labrador Highway to a provincial standard would require the

expenditure of several million dollars on current account. In addition, before

that could even be considered, at a minimum, capital expenditure would have to

be made on the Trans-Labrador Highway in the range of $7 million. In fact, in

the Roads for Rails Agreement there was $9 million allocated for the

Trans-Labrador Highway. Two million had been committed. That left $7 million in

the agreement. I indicated to the council of Happy Valley - Goose Bay, before

you could reasonably expect to do winter maintenance on the entire length of the

Trans-Labrador Highway, an acceleration of that $7 million would have to be

made.

Subsequent to that meeting I requested, of the federal

Minister of Transportation, the acceleration of the remaining $7 million in the

agreement to be spent this year. In addition, I instructed my staff to begin

preparing plans to expend that $7 million this year. Some time went by and I

received no answer from the federal minister. The construction season in

Labrador is short - shorter than in the Island, and I again called him and I

again wrote him on the urgency to expend the $7 million if winter maintenance

was going to be done on the Trans-Labrador Highway.

Last week I received a written response from the federal

minister, from the federal Conservative minister, that they could not find it

within their financial capability to allocate the $7 million to Labrador this

year. Consequently, winter maintenance cannot reasonably be performed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

The time for Oral Questions has elapsed.

Presenting Reports by

Standing and Special Committees

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Fortune - Hermitage.

MR. LANGDON: Mr. Speaker, I would like to report to the

House that the resource committee has consented and passed without amendment,

the estimates of expenditure of the following departments:

Department of Fisheries, Department of Forestry and

Agriculture, Department of Mines and Energy and Department of Development and

Tourism.

At this time I would like to thank the vice-chair, the Member

for Humber Valley and the other members of the resource committee: the Member

for Eagle River; the Member for St. John's South; the Member for Baie Verte -

White Bay; the Member for Green Bay and the Member for Menihek and the other

substitutes for the professional manner they exhibited in the estimates

committee, and I would also like to thank the ministers and their officials for

the professional way they responded to the committee's questioning and it was a

pleasure to have chaired these meetings, Mr. Speaker, and I want to express my

thanks to the members.

Thank you very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the annual

report for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1991 of the Newfoundland Crimes

Compensation Board.

Notices of Motion

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

DR. KITCHEN: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that I will on

tomorrow move that the House resolve itself into Committee of the Whole on

Supply, to consider certain resolutions for the granting of further

Supplementary Supply to Her Majesty.

Answers to Questions

For which Notice has been Given

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

MR. CARTER: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House, the

Member for Grand Bank, questioned me about the 1992 crab fishery and I have some

information here now indicating that the 1992 season officially opened for

full-time crab fishermen on April 13th, in NAFO area 3L; on May 1st in area 3Ps;

3L is going to be opening on May 31st. The following plants have been licensed

to process crab and have advised us of their intentions:

Argosy Seafoods Limited is not in production, Beothic Fish

Processors Limited is in production; Breakwater Fisheries Limited, Cottlesville

starting production tomorrow; Canada Bay Seafoods Limited, Roddickton will not

be in production in 1992. FPI and Bonavista Seafoods Limited will be in

production today, Fogo Island Co-Op Society Limited, will start production when

the season opens in their area; Moorfish Limited, Port de Grave started

production on May 19th; Notre Dame Seafoods Limited no commitment yet; P. Janes

and Sons Limited, their plant is closed resolving some problems with the workers

and the union. Quin-Sea Fisheries Limited, Old Perlican is not in production.

Quinlan Brothers, Limited Bay de Verde started on May 18th. Sea Treat Limited,

Little Bay Islands is not in production at this time. Shawmut Fisheries Limited,

Witless Bay commences on May 19th; St. Mary's Bay Seafoods Limited in St. Mary's

not in production and Terra Nova Fishery Company Limited, Trouty commenced

production on May 19th.

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

MR. DECKER: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Kilbride

asked to table our expenses during the period that the bye-election was on in

Baie Verte - White Bay. I am tabling these expenses, the ones that were at the

taxpayers expense. My visit to Baie Verte - White Bay, Mr. Speaker, was paid for

by the Liberal Party of Newfoundland and Labrador, unlike the bye-election in

Windsor - Buchans when all the Cabinet went out and spent two weeks campaigning

at government expense, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Provincial Affairs.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. FLIGHT: At the Mount Peyton Block.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has recognized the hon. the Minister of Municipal

and Provincial Affairs.

MR. HOGAN: In answer to the questions that were put

forward by the Member, Bob Aylward, MHA for Kilbride, Mr. Speaker, on the number

of trips taken by the hon. minister for the period September 17, 1991 to October

15, 1991 inclusive, while he was Minister of Social Services, including dates,

destinations and the duration of each trip.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HOGAN: Mr. Speaker, total of all expenses claimed as

a charge against the taxpayer by the hon. the minister and persons accompanying

him on all trips in (

i) above, including air fare, accommodations, meals,

gratuities, telephone, entertainment, et cetera.

Answer: no trips taken during the period in question.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To the question posed

to me yesterday by the hon. Member for Torngat Mountains, regarding the big game

licenses. Those should be in the mail sometime the middle of next week. So

depending on where you live it may take a little longer to get the information.

Orders of the Day

MR. SPEAKER: It being Private Members' Day I call on the

hon. the Member for St. John's East. Before recognising the hon. member, the

Chair would make a ruling on a point of order on Friday. The Chair would have

made it yesterday but some of the members were not present. They are not present

today but the Chair does not want to leave it any longer.

It was a matter of unparliamentary language. In the first

instance the Premier raised a matter of unparliamentary language with respect to

the Member for Mount Pearl. The Chair would have addressed that at the end of

Question Period but during the Premier's raising of the question, the hon. the

Leader of the Opposition queried as to whether or not the Premier had made an

unparliamentary utterance. The Chair has had an opportunity to look into it.

Before reading that the Chair would like to quote from

Beauchesne, page 143, paragraph 486, with respect to unparliamentary language.

This points out the difficulty with rulings on unparliamentary language.

Paragraph 486(1) in Beauchesne says: "It is impossible to lay down any specific

rules in regard to injurious reflections uttered in debate against particular

Members, or to declare beforehand what expressions are or are not contrary to

order; much depends upon the tone and manner, and intention, of the person

speaking; sometimes upon the person to whom the words are addressed, as, whether

that person is a public officer, or a private Member not in office, or whether

the words are meant to be applied to public conduct or to private character; and

sometimes upon the degree of provocation, which the Member speaking had received

from the person alluded to...."

We had one Speaker who made a famous ruling on tit-for-tat.

Under that particular sentence. That would have been the ruling made by this

Chair had the Leader of the Opposition not intervened to comment on whether or

not the Premier had made an unparliamentary utterance. Paragraph 486(1) goes on:

"...and all these considerations must be attended to at the moment, as they are

infinitely various and cannot possibly be foreseen in such a manner that precise

rules can be adopted with respect to them."

In looking at the remark made by the Premier - "despicable"

was the word in question, I think - but in checking Hansard the Premier makes

some remarks and at the end says: despicable. Then some member says something

that is inaudible and the Premier answers to the effect that: no, I just dislike

despicable members. That is all. Of course in that instance he refers to a

group. As all hon. members know, when we are talking about unparliamentary

language we are talking about in the personal sense. When a person makes a

reference to a personal member, and the Premier had been making a general

statement in the sense referring to the whole group. So in that particular

instance it was not unparliamentary.

In reference to the Premier's point of order, that again is

inaudible in Hansard, so the Chair cannot make decisions on statements that are

inaudible.

Private Members' Day

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am very pleased today to have an opportunity to have a full

debate on the motion standing in my name on the Order Paper:

THEREFORE

BE IT RESOLVED that the House of Assembly supports

the recognition and designation of the 28th day of April in each year as a "Day

of Mourning for Persons Killed or Injured in the Workplace" and directs the

government to declare such day as an official day of mourning by such name

without creating a legal holiday.

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members will know, there was an

opportunity given on the 28th day of April for members to provide unanimous

consent to such a declaration and such a resolution. And again on the next day,

Mr. Speaker, when the resolution had, in fact, appeared on the Order Paper and

all hon. members had had an opportunity to read it, once again, all hon. members

were given an opportunity to provide their unanimous consent to the resolution.

It was thought, Mr. Speaker, that there would be no difficulty in this regard,

it being a matter that one would expect all hon. members to support, because it

is something of such great significance across this country.

The federal government had done it through

an act of the

Parliament of Canada supported by all parties in that Legislature. Five other

provinces have also done the same thing. But instead, Mr. Speaker, the reaction

of the government, in particular, was to criticize, once again, the mover of the

resolution, to suggest that this was

an act of grandstanding, that this was

absolutely unnecessary because there was already a day of mourning having been

declared by Canada, and various other remarks, Mr. Speaker, that I won't refer

to. But, Mr. Speaker, they were unworthy of members of this House and unworthy

of the government of this Province and showed a distinct and direct lack of

respect for an issue of great importance to working people in this Province.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution was brought forward at the

request of a group which has worked very hard to achieve recognition for the day

of mourning and for workplace health and safety, the St. John's and District

Labour Council, who had asked me to put forth such a resolution to see if the

Province would be prepared to declare it to be a day of mourning. I did so, Mr.

Speaker. I drafted the resolution. I compared it with the federal resolution and

put it forth as a friendly suggestion to the government and asked, as is clear

from Hansard, for unanimous consent.

To be accused, Mr. Speaker, of grandstanding is to ignore

that such a request is a legitimate request by legitimate people who are

representative of working people in this Province and who want to emphasize and

have a special day to do two things, Mr. Speaker: To mourn and to share their

sense of loss for fellow working people who have lost their lives through

workplace accidents; and also, Mr. Speaker, to place a public emphasis on the

issue of worker and workplace health and safety. Mr. Speaker, those are the two

things. These are legitimate objectives. They are a part of the concerns that

are raised by working people, through the labour movement, through trade unions

and collective agreements, through representations made to government, of

serious concern about their own health and safety and the health and safety of

fellow working people.

Mr. Speaker, to say that this is not a concern of the

ignore the fact that this Province has a very serious and direct responsibility

for workplace health and safety under the provincial jurisdiction of the Labour

Relations Act for government employees. Because of its requirements under the

Occupational Health and Safety aspect in the provincial sphere of influence,

labour relations and workplace health and safety is a constitutional

responsibility of the Province, Mr. Speaker, and only indirectly does the

federal government play a role under the Constitution in areas under their

direct concern.

Mr. Speaker, the Province of British Columbia has proclaimed

that April 28 be a day of mourning for workers who have suffered loss of life,

or have been seriously injured on the job. The province of Alberta has not

proclaimed such a day but they have in fact placed a plaque on the grounds of

the legislative House to commemorate injured, disabled, and killed workers. The

province of Saskatchewan has proclaimed such a day. They have in addition

ordered that flags be flown at half-mast on all provincial buildings. This is

another mark of respect for the issue of workplace injuries and death of

workers. The province of Manitoba has also proclaimed the day of mourning and

have ordered that flags be flown at half-mast in that province on the day of

mourning to commemorate such a day. The province of Quebec has also made a

proclamation of a day of mourning. They do not follow the same date. April 28 is

the date followed in other provinces and in the parliament of Canada. The

province of Quebec holds its day in the month of October. They have proclaimed

it as a day of mourning and have ordered that all flags be flown at half-mast on

that day.

This is an important, although symbolic, act of recognition

by a government of this Province, and of other provinces, of this important

issue. I think workers in this Province are getting sick and tired of being

treated flippantly by this government. They are getting sick and tired of having

a government that shows no respect for working people, by acknowledging the

importance of such a matter, by taking collective agreements and ripping them up

after they have signed them, by threatening to do the same thing with collective

agreements when it comes to workers' compensation. These are a number of the

issues that workers are continuing to see from this government.

Now let me talk about the extent of the difficulties with

respect to workers. We know that there are a -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) civil servants, every family

has somebody laid off, out of work (Inaudible).

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The Chair has on several occasions reminded hon. members on

both sides of the House as to the correct procedure for asking questions. In any

event, members are not to interrupt another member speaking. I refer hon.

members to Sir Erskine-May, one of the great authorities on parliamentary

procedure. He says: members are not to disturb a member who is speaking by

hissing, booing, exclamations or other interruption.

I have quoted that to hon. members on several occasions and

have indicated that if a member wants to ask a question a member can stand in

his or her place and ask the member speaking if he or she would permit a

question. If the hon. member does not permit the question, well that is the end

of it.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the Province of

Newfoundland the most recent labour force statistics show a total of 222,000 in

our labour force, all of whom, in one way or another, are concerned with

workplace health or safety, and may fall victim to injuries at the workplace. In

some of the more dangerous occupations like - I know there are many people who

are not in specifically dangerous occupations, such as members of this House.

But there are people who do engage in dangerous occupations which quite often

puts them at risk and results in serious injuries and fatalities.

For the benefit of hon. members I have obtained some

information from the Department of Employment and Labour Relations which

disclose that for the last year, in the year 1991, there were thirteen

fatalities in this Province, a decrease from the year before, 1990, when there

were twenty-eight fatalities. The year before that there were -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, in the year 1989, there were

twenty-seven fatalities.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: I know hon. members, Mr. Speaker, like to

make gibes, but I consider this to be a serious matter. We are talking about the

death of Newfoundlanders in workplace injuries. I know that hon. members may

wish to make political points and to make political gibes, but this is a serious

matter. I think, as I said, that the people of this Province and the workers of

this Province are getting sick and tired of the attitude of this government

toward issues that are of great importance and seriousness to workers.

As I was indicating, the Department of Employment and Labour

Relations reports that in 1989 there were 10,584 lost time accidents. In 1990

there were 10,346. In 1991 there were 9,229. That is a very serious number of

accidents. Not all of them would have been serious, only serious enough for a

worker to lose time at work. I believe the statistic is probably related to not

being able to show up for the next shift.

The fatalities are of great importance and great seriousness.

Not a very long period goes by between the time when we are reminded of the

danger of work activity. Just recently we all know of the tragic fatality at the

Bull Arm site, the second at that site, although government and the company seem

to like to ignore the fact that the first one was also a fatality. Not long goes

by until we are reminded of the dangers of work, not only in this Province but

in our neighbouring province, the Province of Nova Scotia, where two

Newfoundlanders, or Newfoundland sons, were tragically killed as well.

All accidents at the workplace are equally important, that

result in the death of a worker, whether it be in this Province or in the

Province of Nova Scotia, or elsewhere throughout Canada.

Last year 1,137 workers in Canada were killed, with 618,000

on-the-job accidents. This does not count the hidden deaths, the premature

deaths that occur as a result of exposure on-the-job to toxic substances, to

radiation, to dust of various kinds. We have had that tragic experience in this

Province with the St. Lawrence mines and the premature deaths of so many workers

in St. Lawrence. One has only to go, as I have done, through the cemetery in St.

Lawrence, and feel the sense of grief and tragedy in looking at the gravestones

of so many men, and the ages of these men in their thirties and forties, who

died as a result of the conditions in that mine in St. Lawrence. It is a sad and

tragic event, and it is an event, along with other problems that we experience

today.

We still have individuals suffering from asbestosis, from

silicosis, as a result of mining activities in other parts of this Province, who

will themselves suffer premature deaths as a result of their engaging in

activity by which they hope to be able to provide a livelihood for themselves

and their families.

It is a sad thing to reflect on that, and it is appropriate

that one day be acknowledged and set aside by the Province to reflect on that,

to acknowledge it as a provincial day of mourning as well as the federal

jurisdiction, as the other provinces, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan,

Manitoba and Quebec have done to date.

I do not see it as a matter for great controversy really. I

suppose it is unfortunate that we have to choose a whole afternoon to debate

such an issue, because as the Member for Eagle River says, we have no difficulty

passing it. I do not know if he speaks only for himself, or whether he speaks on

behalf of the caucus. It may be that the Government House Leader's remarks in

the House the other day, they have reflected upon them and have recognized them

as being hasty and premature, and that they may have been shamed into a change

in their position. That may be the case. If they have changed their position, I

welcome that, Mr. Speaker, because my purpose is not to make political points

here, my purpose is to achieve the objective set forth in the resolution that

was presented in my name before this House.

So I would ask, Mr. Speaker - I suppose we have to wait and

see what hon. members opposite may have to say about this. I know they are -

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

I am having difficulty hearing the hon. member for St. John's

East. I would ask hon. members to my left and right to refrain from speaking so

loudly while engaging in private conversation.

The hon. the Member for St. John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I know, and I am sure that hon. members opposite,

individually, share the sorrow and grief of individuals who have been killed in

workplace accidents, and I hope that that would be reflected in how they vote on

this issue.

As I said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to have an

opportunity to have this matter debated today because, although unanimous

consent was refused by the Government House Leader on the 28th and 29th of

April, I had expressed the view yesterday that perhaps a debate and a vote in

this House might, at least, achieve a majority vote from the House of Assembly

and see that this resolution might pass.

So I will say no more, Mr. Speaker. There appears that there

may be a danger of provoking hon. members opposite to change their minds once

again. I will resist any temptation to do that because I do hear, despite the

political gibes and usual kinds of comments that you hear from members opposite,

I do detect a potential interest on the part of hon. members to support the

resolution. Even though I have a minute or so left, but I will sit down early

and hear what they have to say and make my final remarks at the close of the

debate as is normal under these circumstances.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

Labour Relations.

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

I just might take a second, Mr. Speaker, to commend the hon.

Member for St. John's East for placing this particular resolution on the Order

Paper. In my remarks as well, in the fifteen or twenty minutes or so, I have to

say, I suppose, just for the record, for Hansard and the record of this House if

nothing else, because it is unfortunate that certain comments would be made in

the debate today, in reference to previous actions, that would tend to move such

a serious and worthwhile motion into the political sphere.

MR. SIMMS: Your colleagues are all (inaudible) on your

own side.

MR. GRIMES: If hon. members would bear with me, Mr.

Speaker, I will express clearly the point of view from the government side and

make it clearly understood that it is the full intention of the government of

the Province, having looked at the hon. member's resolution, having already

participated fully and openly and very supportively in the national day of

mourning designated on April 28th, because of the fact that we believe in it and

we recognize that it has worth and it is contributing to things that the

government itself is trying to promote co-operatively with workers, employers

and the public generally - if I just take a couple of minutes to address the

unfortunate politicizing of it and to indicate that in the last couple of weeks

or so, Mr. Speaker, representatives of the Canadian Labour Congress and the

District Labour Council for the St. John's area and so on have been in contact -

not with me directly, because they have had some difficulty tracking me down, I

have been on the run a bit. They have spoken with people in the Department of

Employment and Labour Relations. There has been a good discussion. The exact

intent and purpose of the passing along of the notion of bringing in the

resolution to the Member for St. John's East has been made clear, that there was

no intent on their part, as people involved in the labour movement in

Newfoundland with the best interests of workers at heart, to politicize the

issue in any way. They were just looking for an avenue to bring the issue

forward so that it could get addressed. I appreciate and understand that

completely.

The only thing, for the record, I think it has been made

clear now that we have - this government has had its differences, particularly

with the public sector unions. But in each of the meetings that I have been

involved with in the eleven months or so that I have been minister, we have

always indicated that even though we have differences of opinion on certain

issues - and this is where I find it unfortunate that the member today would tie

actions and decisions that this government has taken with respect to what we

deem to be unfortunate but necessary and unavoidable wage restraint, to anything

to do with mourning for deceased or injured workers. The two of those, to me, do

not belong in the same sentence, the same debate, the same breath and so on. It

is unfortunate that that kind of rhetoric gets involved with this.

The notion clearly is that we, having looked at this and

understanding it, recognise that there are probably certain other actions that

the government, representing all the people in Newfoundland and Labrador, can

get involved in to be a little more active and a little more pro-active and a

little more supportive of the day of mourning than we have been. The notion that

in other provinces they make a point of flying the flags at half-mast and so on

to bring attention to it, makes sense. We have been convinced in our study and

in the conversations and discussions that have gone on since, between

representatives of the labour movement and our department.

The only unfortunate aspect, I think, that was pointed out to

those representatives, was that maybe instead of going to the Member for St.

John's East or any other member, if the real thing was to ask the government to

do something, why wouldn't they go to a minister of the government - in this

case, being myself, with responsibility - and ask us to do it? Because the

request never did, that I am aware of, come directly to me. I recognised that it

surfaced. And then once - and again, we are willing to overlook that and say

that - you know, I have always invited people, even if we have differences on

other matters - when there are areas that we support and that we should support

and that we agree on, come to us and see if we can implement these things. This

is something that in the interim, because of, I suppose, the politically charged

nature by the way it was introduced, there was certainly some objection raised

by the Government House Leader on the basis of that itself. Nothing to do with

the content or the intent, or what the issue is that we are dealing with, but

the approach.

Since we have had further discussions in the interim we

recognise that the efforts of the CLC across the country, with the local

branches and so on, really are to be commended. Because they have been on the

leading edge of this for some time now. We appreciate their efforts. They have

made great efforts and great strides in bringing this to the forefront, to give

it the attention that it needs, long before many other people were paying much

attention to it. Certainly, they have received great support from workers and

worker representatives in the Province. They have received and are receiving

continuing and increasing support from employers in the Province who recognise

that it really is a real responsibility of the employers to enhance the safety

of the workplace, to make sure that workers who are providing a valuable service

to an employer are not in any way jeopardized in terms of their own personal

health and safety, when they are, in fact, providing that valuable service for

the employer.

They are getting increasing support from the provincial

government, from municipal governments, because most ceremonies have been

organised here in the St. John's metropolitan area. I understand, as well, that

part of the plan is to move out to other areas of the Province. I have

encouraged them to do that. Because I know, in my own area of the Province, in

Central Newfoundland, they hear of these things many times as news stories. But

if there is an actual ceremony in Central Newfoundland and in Western

Newfoundland and on the Northern Peninsula and in Labrador, which would get the

equivalent type of attention in the local media as the ceremonies on a

Province-wide basis get here locally, it would help all of us in bringing

attention to the need for us to be more diligent, more vigilant and definitely

more responsible in taking care of the great necessity of improving the

workplace for everybody involved and making sure that there is an absolute

decline.

The Member for St. John's East, referenced some of the

numbers in terms of lost time injuries. The day of mourning is intended to focus

on that but also to point out that lost time injury is one thing, it is serious,

it is regrettable, but the day of mourning, I guess, really was spawned from the

fact that some people don't lose time but they lose life, and it was only a week

ago, I guess, that we were standing in this House answering questions about the

latest publicly known tragedy at a work site in Newfoundland at Bull Arm, and it

is from those kinds of things that there is always a heightened awareness for a

period of time, people become more sensitive for a period of time and they have

recognized the great need and then, I suppose, as in anything, life goes on and

people tend to go back to what they normally do and maybe, the fear I think,

amongst the representatives from the Canadian Labour Congress and all their

supporters, in the labour movement, in particular, is that life goes on to the

point that everybody forgets, and that is the greatest fear, that everybody

forgets, so they are saying: Let us have the day of mourning which the federal

government has, in fact, supported and implemented, and why not have the

Province, as well, also indicate that even though it is questionable as to how

much more value and work there is, if it is already federally declared, but at

least, I think, we have now examined from the point of view that there are a

couple of other options that the Province, itself, can get actively involved in

if we, ourselves, also give it the designation in the Province as a day of

mourning for deceased and injured workers.

So there is no doubt that the lost time injuries have shown

in the last couple of years to be in decline and I will take the opportunity in

this debate to indicate that it is a real decline, because there are two things

contributing to it. One is that the statistics compiled from Employment and

Immigration Canada and Stats Canada relating to the work force, the size of the

labour force, the unemployment rate, how many people are actively involved,

discouraged workers, and so on, show that during this period of recession, the

work force in Newfoundland has actually declined. So you would automatically

expect that if the work force declines in real numbers, then the number of lost

time accidents and injuries, and so on, would also decline. That has occurred,

but that rate of decline is somewhere in the 4 per cent range. The rate of

decline in terms of lost time injuries is in the 11 per cent or 12 per cent

range over each of the last couple of years now, the last full year and the

first four months or so of recorded incidents for this year. So there is another

7 per cent or 8 per cent positive sign that employers, employees and everybody

involved in the workplace are making a real conscious effort, to enhance and

improve safety in the workplace. And we are pretty certain that the day of

mourning very well may be a contributing factor in that, just as I heard the

addresses at the ceremony that was held here at the Ocean Ranger memorial on the

28th, this year, in which I was very pleased to participate on behalf of the

provincial government, and again, I commend the organizers for doing such a

tremendous job.

That day, as was indicated, highlights it once a year, but

the efforts of the group don't stop there. They want to make sure that people in

the Occupational Health and Safety Division of the Department of Employment and

Labour Relations, employers themselves and workers themselves, because a lot of

the safety committees and a lot of the efforts of many of the unions, have gone

into putting additional emphasis on workplace safety and they deal with these in

their meetings at the work sites on a daily and weekly basis. And, on the agenda

of the workers, I can tell, for a fact, from meetings I have had with the union

representatives, that they have given it higher priority on their agenda, that

on a regular basis in the meetings that the organized workers have at the work

site, they deal with occupational health and safety matters. So some people

might be inclined to believe that they are preoccupied with other matters but

one of their great preoccupations has been occupational health and safety.

The day of mourning on the 28th helps, aids, and assists in

that, because it does give public attention and profile and focus. We have

examined it and looked at it, and are willing now to look at ways, with the

passage of this resolution, we hope, unanimously in the House today, we will

look at the ways then, arising from that, that the provincial government can

make a positive contribution to the great efforts that largely, I guess, are

attributed to the unionized workforce, has already made.

I am pleased to point out as well that it is evident that the

government is about to announce some moves with respect to occupational health

and safety on an ongoing basis, that probably arose from the statutory review of

workers' compensation.

Yesterday, in the House the same hon. member, the Member for

St. John's East, was asking questions about, Would the government guarantee that

when changes are made in workers' compensation that there will be no reduction

in benefits to injured workers? Would the government guarantee that there would

be no interference in collective agreements that provide for full salary, or

top-up provisions as they are commonly known?

I indicated to the hon. member, in response to those

questions that, because of the precarious financial position that the Workers'

Compensation Commission and the whole system finds itself in right now, the

government will be announcing a wide range of initiatives covering all aspects

of workers' compensation that will be necessary, as we see it, to rescue it from

the brink of total collapse.

We will be discussing; we have had discussions; we know full

well the point of view of representatives of the unionized workforce in the

Province with respect to that. They have made it abundantly clear in meetings

with us. We are fully aware of the position of employers in terms of what they

feel should or should not happen, and even though there are differences of

opinion in some areas, there is absolute unanimity in one area, and that is that

everybody says that government, through the occupational health and safety

division, which is funded by workers' compensation, must improve, increase and

enhance its efforts in terms of ensuring the safety of the workplaces for the

workforce in Newfoundland and Labrador.

We have given the signal in the Budget that there will be

positions dedicated in the occupational health and safety division on three

fronts, I guess, and we will be announcing those some time soon when we announce

the total comprehensive changes. But it is clear that in terms of cleaning up

workplaces, that the education aspect of making sure that everybody is aware of

the importance of a safe workplace in the first place, will be emphasized, and

government, through the occupational health and safety division, will be

increasing its capability to deliver co-operative education programs at the

workplace so that employers and employees, together, can understand and work

towards what will be safer in their particular work environment.

We will also be looking at an increased research capacity

from the point of view of being able to target our efforts where they are most

greatly needed, because the latest statistics are a little bit alarming in the

sense that a little over 30 per cent of the total number of claims in workers'

compensation relate to sprains and strains, most notably, back injuries. The

large bulk of those arise in the health care sector, and of all the claims in

the health care sector, the publicly funded health care sector, over 50 per cent

of them are related to strains and sprains, mostly with back injuries.

We have already instituted on a pilot basis, a back injury

prevention program which will get again increased emphasis. It is already in

several of the health care centres, several of the hospitals, and it is being

evaluated. We will add additional resources to that program, the details of

which will be announced shortly.

We are also looking at continuing research as to what other

areas have been identified so that rather than having people going around just

educating generally, as to improved safety in the workplace that we can target

places where there has been higher incidence of injury, and where it is obvious

that somewhere, either between the employers or the employees or in a shared

way, that someone has done something less than what could have been done to

decrease the number of accidents and lost time injuries. Because, unfortunately,

some of them end up being not only lost time but permanently lost time injuries,

which is a tragic death. So we will increase our research capability to target

areas that need direct attention, and then we will also beef up our efforts in

the areas of enforcement.

So, Mr. Speaker, in the enforcement area, we will be looking

at going out and inspecting sites to make sure that they meet standards, and

through the inspection process to encourage people to comply. But also we have

indicated clearly that we will not hesitate to prosecute when people violate the

standards. The record shows that we have done that increasingly. From the

prosecution and enforcement side it is important, too, to point out in the

context of this debate that the Department and government clearly spells out to

everybody there is a responsibility not only for the employer but also for the

employees.

It is most evident, I think, in the last prosecution that

became publicly evident in the Province, where the contractor was found

negligent, and was fined, the foreman - and I say "foreman" because it was a man

on the job - the boss on the job was found negligent and was fined, but the

worker, who worked in an unsafe environment, was also found negligent and was

fined. I think that is the message that has been coming through loud and clear

in meetings I have been having both with the employer representatives and with

the representatives of the unionized work force, that in their education

programs, particularly from all of the unions affiliated with the Newfoundland

and Labrador Federation of Labour, that they are pointing out to their workers:

you have a responsibility, too, as a worker, that if you think it is unsafe,

tell somebody. Don't agree to go and work somewhere if you think it is unsafe.

You have a right to refuse. Exercise your right. Go to your employer. If your

boss is telling you to do that and you think it is unsafe, bring it to their

attention.

In the last case we had a point where the worker thought it

was unsafe, knew it was unsafe, but still agreed to go and work in an unsafe

environment. There was a problem, the job was shut down, everybody was found

guilty, everybody was fined.

So we have shown and demonstrated the willingness to cover

all aspects of it. From the education, from researching, so that we concentrate

our efforts where needed, and to making sure that everybody understands their

responsibility and exercises them properly. Because the goal is the same for all

of us, in terms of diminishing the lost time, diminishing and reducing and if at

all possible, which is probably not practical, totally eliminating the personal

grief and tragedy that comes with injuries at the workplace. There is no doubt,

in coming right back to the resolution at hand, that we would ask today that

there be unanimous approval for this resolution. Because it is clear in our

minds, upon study, reflection, recollection and research, that there probably

are two or three other things that we can do, as a provincial government, that

will add to and supplement and augment and increase and build upon the efforts

that have been largely carried forward by the Canadian Labour Congress

representatives, the District Labour Council representatives, and the

representatives of organized workers.

So I ask all hon. members to join today in support for this

so that we can see what other appropriate things we can do in the Province to

encourage people to have safer workplaces, so that a day of mourning might

become a thing of the past and might never have to be observed again, because we

might live in an Utopian world sometime where there won't be any more lost lives

in the workplace.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First, I am quite

surprised that we would have to have this debate today. This resolution was

brought forth on April 10, I think, on a Friday. On April 27 or April 28, a day

or so prior to the day of mourning that had been declared by the federal

government, the Opposition House Leader stood in his place in this House, not

the Member for St. John's East, the Opposition House Leader. So it was unanimous

on this side of the House that we would be very supportive of having this

resolution put forth with just a two or three minute debate from each side of

the House.

The reaction of the government side, the Premier and the

President of Treasury Board, was very negative. In fact, if I remember what

happened on that particular occasion, he accused the Member for St. John's East

of grandstanding, of trying to get his name in the paper, and that was the sole

focus. Now, after listening to some comments from the government, I hear that

they are now supportive of this resolution, and the Minister of Labour, I

suppose having had a chance to review Hansard to see what his colleague said -

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

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Government House Leader on a

point of order.

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I hate to interrupt the hon. gentleman, and we will give him

a few minutes at the end if he wants. I do not want to interfere with his time;

however, he is ascribing motives and actions to me that are not correct, and I

would simply like to point out that.

The subject of debate on that particular day was whether we

would interrupt proceedings to handle an emergency situation. Our view was,

because it was already declared in the Province, and because we had already

previously taken

part in the service and so on, that it was an after-the-fact

kind of thing and it was not an emergency kind of situation that need interrupt

the normal flow of the House, and we have agreed to deal with it today.

It is not that we disagreed with what was said. It is not

that at all, as everybody in this hon. House knows. It was simply the attempt at

grandstanding by the member for St. John's East that we were objecting to. It

was not the wording of the resolution.

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

point of order.

MR. MATTHEWS: To that point of order, it is very clear.

Anyone who reads Hansard of April 28 and April 29 can see for themselves what

transpired here on that particular day. I rose that day under Notices of Motion

and asked the House to give unanimous consent for the hon. Member for St. John's

East for his resolution to be passed, declaring that day as a day of mourning.

That day speaks for itself. The government was anything but supportive, and

anything but co-operative, so that is all I have to say to the point of order.

But it is good to see that there has been a change -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. MATTHEWS: No, you are wrong again.

It is good to see that they have had a change of heart for

the right reason, I say to Government House Leader.

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

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker, the resolution was not proposed

by the Government House Leader, or the Opposition House Leader, as an emergency

resolution at all. Given that it was the day in question, it was asked for

unanimous consent to pass it. The next day the Government House Leader called it

a charade. So they had time to reflect for a day or so, and then the next day

called it a charade.

With all due respect to the Government House Leader's

comments, they are incorrect, and anyone who can read Hansard on the 28th and

29th of April will find that the words speak for themselves. I guess that is all

I can say.

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

MR. BAKER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I am glad that both hon. members agree that what I was

objecting to was a charade by the part-time Member for St. John's East, and that

I was not objecting to the words.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

There is no point of order. It is the hon. member using an

opportunity to clarify a point.

The hon. the Member for Fogo.

MR. WINSOR: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I do not know what sensitive note that this change of heart

that the government has had has done to the Government House Leader, but he is

certainly very sensitive about the remarks that he made on the 28th and 29th.

The fact of the matter was that on the 28th when the

resolution was introduced, the government might have, because it was

government's day, determined that they were not going to allow debate on it. On

the 29th - on Wednesday, on Private Members' Day - we asked again to have

unanimous leave of the House to do it, and without debate. The Leader of the

Opposition responded on the 29th. The Member for St. John's East rose on a point

of order and asked that we introduce this resolution.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, I did not interrupt the Member

for Exploits when he was speaking for fifteen or twenty minutes. I ask the same

courtesy of him.

It was these people, the government, who on the 28th and 29th

refused to give unanimous consent to debate this resolution. We gave consent. We

had no problem, so you know our position on it. We were supportive of that on

the 28th and 29th and we are supportive today. It was the government which was

not supportive of the action. Now, Mr. Speaker, that is the crux of the matter.

On the 28th and 29th, the two days in question, we were very supportive of it.

In fact, our House Leader rose to ask that we give leave, and the next day it

was raised by the Leader of the Opposition.

So I do not know where the member is coming from, saying: am

I for it or against it? We are obviously for it. Mr. Speaker -

MR. GRIMES: Never mind the old foolish politics of it

(Inaudible).

SOME HON. MEMBERS: (Inaudible).

MR. A. SNOW: Was very serious then.

MR. WINSOR: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what has happened

to the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations since the 28th or 29th. He

suddenly thinks it is a serious issue. It was not serious to the government on

that day. They accused the Member for St. John's East of grandstanding because

he dared introduce this resolution to the House. But it is an important issue,

because over the number of years literally thousands of Newfoundlanders -

AN HON. MEMBER: And Labradorians.

MR. WINSOR: - and Labradorians - have lost their lives in

trying to improve and develop the economy of this Province. Because that is

usually what it is all about. When people are killed in the work force it is

because they are doing something to substantially change the way of life for

other Newfoundlanders.

Mr. Speaker, it is only fitting that we have an official day

of mourning. Whether the federal government has declared it, that does not mean

that this Legislature cannot in this House take the resolution that the member

had, and I will just read the 'be it resolved': "...that the House of Assembly

supports the recognition and designation of the 28th day of April in each year

as a 'Day of Mourning for Persons Killed or Injured in the Workplace' and

directs the Government to declare such day as an official day of mourning by

such name without creating a legal holiday."

Now that was a fairly simple, clear-cut resolution that

should have been passed on the day prior to it. Since then we have had some

significant events that have happened. As a matter of fact, two Newfoundlanders

were among a list of people who just lost their lives in the Westray mining

accident. Two more Newfoundlanders, in that two that were native, and one who

lived out of the Province at the time. I do not think the third was a resident.

There were two, one from Triton and one from Daniel's Harbour, and one I think

from the Bay d'Espoir area, but he was not now a resident of the Province. Three

totally, but two were actually residents of this Province. Again pointing out

the danger and the price that people have to pay who work in such areas. My

colleague for Grand Bank, who will speak in this debate later, I am sure he

could tell many stories of people from the St. Lawrence area who have throughout

the years lost their lives in the workplace.

The Minister of Labour Relations, when he spoke, spoke of the

need to, in the workplace, make sure that this kind of thing does not happen.

That we reduce the number of accidents and we reduce the number of deaths that

occur. Just recently we had apparently the second fatality at the Bull Arm site.

One has been declared not officially - well, they do not know what happened. The

other one, we know the young man recently lost his life there. There have been

twenty-two other fairly serious accidents that have occurred in that site in the

last three months.

So the workplace is still not safe. Safety, I remember, when

I worked in Labrador City some years ago, the safety inspector, his job and his

opening line would be that all accidents are preventible. Perhaps they are, for

the most part, perhaps they are. But it needs an effort on behalf, as the

minister said, the employer, the government which enforces the legislation, and

the employee, to see that it is.

Quite often (Inaudible) the minister made reference to the

fact that in a case a while ago all three got prosecuted. That does not really

do a whole lot for an employee. If you are in an unionized situation a person

has a fair amount of leverage that he can use because his union will back him.

Quite often in the private sector out there, there are a number of people who

have to go to work in quite unsafe conditions and the fear of reprisals prevents

them from making some kind of a complaint. It will be very difficult to get a

case heard without someone to back him.

I kind of had to smile because I saw some of the equipment

that the Department of Highways have used throughout the years. I recall being

on council and getting a list of equipment that the Highways was putting up on

tender, and this had gone on for a number of years. You would find out that it

had just been taken out of the depot a week, two weeks, a month before, by the

Department of Highways. Mr. Speaker, the equipment that I saw, if there was

anything safe about that equipment, then I do not know why we have any

inspection services at all in this Department or in this Province.

Because I am sure the condition of some of that - even

recently I have seen pieces of highway equipment with as much as 400,000

kilometres on them. They are still being used on the roads today. The government

should look at its own, and ensure that it does its own safety inspections to

ensure that it lives up to the letter of the law.

But in the few brief remarks that I have, we on this side

have no difficulty in supporting the resolution. It is regrettable that we have

to do it today, that it was not done on the 27th or the 28th, whenever the

resolution was asked to be brought in, before the official day of mourning, the

federal one. It was because the government, for some reason, chose to ignore the

resolution, accused the Member for St. John's East of playing politics. That is

regrettable. I am glad today to see that they have changed their mind and they

have come to their senses to realise that workers are important with this

government. I am glad to see that they are now going to support this resolution.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

The hon. Opposition House Leader.

MR. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I want to

have a few words to say today on this private member's resolution put forward by

the Member for St. John's East, a resolution that I am pleased we are debating

today. I am pleased at the outset to say it is nice to hear from the Government

House Leader and the Minister of Labour Relations and others opposite that they

are going to support the resolution and we will have it passed. But as has been

said by previous speakers, it makes me wonder why we had to come here today to

debate this resolution when we could have dealt with it several weeks ago.

Several weeks ago when the time probably would have been a little more

appropriate - not that today is not appropriate - but it was a little more

appropriate with dealing with the issue.

There has been a real change in the government's attitude

towards this resolution which is good, but I am not surprised, I say to members.

I am not surprised that the government has changed its attitude, its direction,

because that is what happens with this government. It cannot make up its mind.

All you have to do is reflect on Bill 16. Last year it was brought to the

Legislature where government was going to freeze workers' wages for one year and

the workers of the Province, as difficult as it was, believed that it would be

for one year, after they just rolled back, tore up their agreements. But what

did they do this year? They brought in Bill 17 which supersedes Bill 16 and we

now have another two year extension to Bill 16.

So that is why I am not surprised to see the government

change its mind the way it has on this resolution brought forward by the Member

for St. John's East, which is really calling upon this Legislature to declare

"the 28th day of April in each year as a 'Day of Mourning for Persons Killed or

Injured in the Workplace".

Now the previous speakers have indicated the injuries and

deaths that have occurred, and injuries that are still occurring. From my own

area of the Province, the Member for St. John's East talked about St. Lawrence,

and the terrible tragedies that have taken place there in the St. Lawrence

fluorspar mines. Where we have seen a full generation of miners that have died

as a result of industrial disease, a result of working in an unsafe workplace.

No ventilation. Even in the last episode of St. Lawrence fluorspar, when it was

re-activated by Minworth. There were significant improvements made to that

fluorspar mine; there were still some occupational health and safety concerns

with the operation then, I say in all seriousness to the Minister of Labour

Relations.

The gentleman who is now president of the miners' union in

St. Lawrence was front row and centre with occupational health and safety in St.

Lawrence the last few years that the mine operated. He had many discussions with

the department on that important issue. All was not well then, I say to members

opposite. There were still some problems with getting safety inspectors down

into the mine when the workers thought they should come down and look at the

situation.

When you talk about deaths, in my home town of Grand Bank

where we lost I do not know how many men, but we lost two full trawlers of men,

of crews of two trawlers, the Blue Mist and the Blue Wave, who were fishing the

Grand Banks in the winter storms of February. Both sunk for whatever reasons,

ice and bad weather conditions, with a load of fish and a load of men. I can

remember those days very, very well, and when you talk about a day of mourning,

Mr. Speaker, any of us who have experienced such a tragedy in a small community

can readily identify with days of mourning because we know the impact that it

has on a small community.

Everyone in a small community feels the effects of one death,

but can you imagine, in a town the size of Grand Bank, where you have thirteen

or fourteen deaths and you get the news that the trawler is lost with all hands?

We went through that twice in the town of Grand Bank, I say to members opposite,

and it was a very sad day. But these people died doing their work and, yes, I

think it is most fitting, Mr. Speaker.

We see what happened with the Ocean Ranger disaster, which

perhaps more than anything else, highlighted the very serious problem and, I

guess, highlighted the need to have a day designated as a day of mourning for

persons injured or killed in the workplace. As previous speakers have said,

there probably have been thousands of people who have lost their lives in their

workplaces in this Province, and I think it is the least that we could ask. I

commend the Member for St. John's East for bringing this resolution to the House

of Assembly.

I don't think it was very much to ask, really, that all

fifty-two of us here, provincial legislators, would agree to declare April 28th

of each year a day of mourning for persons killed or injured in the workplace. I

don't think, Mr. Speaker, it was very much to ask, that all members of this

Legislature pass this resolution unanimously. Was that very much to ask? And

what did we see on the particular couple of days when we dealt with this issue

previously? - that the government was not willing to do it, because they said

the federal government had done it, we were a part of Canada, and therefore,

that should be satisfactory to us.

Mr. Speaker, this is the government and this is the

Legislature closest to and most responsible for the people of Newfoundland and

Labrador, and I think that the present government have a problem recognizing

that. They have a problem recognizing their responsibility for and to the people

of Newfoundland and Labrador. So I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, at having these

few words today. I am pleased to hear that the government is going to support

this resolution, I commend the Member for St. John's East for bringing it

forward and we certainly will be supporting the resolution, when the time comes

for the vote.

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

MR. K. AYLWARD: I will take five minutes, just five

minutes or whatever it takes to express my support for the motion, and to

indicate that there should not be any partisan politics involved in an issue

like this. This matter is one of recognition of the injured worker and the

worker who has developed the Province over the hundreds of years that it has

taken to do that, and the history of the Province, in developing the many

industries that we have had over the years, has been one where the worker has

had to take many risks because of the types of industries that we have had to

develop.

Our economy is based mostly on resource development, and

because of that, many risks are involved in the different types of industries we

have had to develop over the years. So I think it is important that the

recognition be there, and that the House concur with it, and that over the next

number of years as we further go towards the building the Province's economy and

building the foundation for its people, that we understand and educate ourselves

to occupational health and safety. It is extremely important in the workplace

and the only way that the message can get through, is through education, through

legislation that the government has and requirements for the employers, and so

on, but education is a major factor.

There is always a tendency for anybody who is working, to

keep working and work hard and sometimes not be as careful as he should be. So

that theme, I think, should be pushed, and I know that the Province is

attempting to do that in the workplace, and it has to continue. But this is a

matter that affects this Province in many ways. Many of the people who work in

industry, work in government in the health care sector, for example, and other

sectors of the provincial public service are in positions where there is some

risk involved to the physical being and, in that case, these people must be

protected and we must have the proper recognition for the risks that they take

in helping to develop this Province.

Over the years, we have seen the many benefits that have

accrued to the people of our Province because of the risks that the workers have

taken. Our job is to ensure that there is less risk and that the worker has the

proper protection, and we have to continue to do that.

So, there is no partisanship involved in this then, Mr.

Speaker. It is just a matter of people supporting this motion. I think the whole

Province would. As the federal government have already brought it in, I, as the

member for the Stephenville area, concur and I am sure all members of the House

do.

It is a chance to highlight what the worker of the Province

has done over the years, especially in this Province where we have a

resource-based economy and there is very much risk involved at times in some of

the things our people do. It is a recognition of that factor.

Those are my comments, Mr. Speaker. Thank you.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the House ready for the question?

MR. A. SNOW: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. A. SNOW: The hon. Speaker undoubtedly had a memory

lapse in attempting to identify somebody who wanted to stand and speak on this

resolution, Mr. Speaker.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and speak on

what I feel is a very important resolution.

I wasn't surprised when the hon. the Member for St. John's

East introduced this Private Member's Resolution, that the government members

attempted to not allow it, not permit it. I wasn't surprised because the

hallmark of this administration has to be, I believe anyway, very anti-labour.

Whether that is your own employees or -

AN HON. MEMBER: That isn't relevant.

MR. A. SNOW: It is relevant, Mr. Speaker.

To not have respect for one's employees when they are working

in the workplace, in a hospital, a government building, with the police force,

in a fire hall or wherever they may be working, Mr. Speaker, and adequately

compensating them, also sends signals to the private sector that they also

shouldn't have respect and consideration for their employees, Mr. Speaker. That

is what really, really disappoints and disgusts me with the attitude of this

administration. As I suggested, I wasn't really surprised, but I was disgusted

and disappointed with it.

I would suspect the reason they have changed their attitude

now and are up speaking in favour of this resolution is because there are a lot

of people in the galleries, and the people in the galleries have influenced the

hon. members to start getting up and speaking. They will undoubtedly present

other pieces of legislation in this House which will show to the people of this

Province that they have absolutely no respect whatsoever for the rights of

ordinary Newfoundlanders and Labradorians in the workplace, whether it is

rolling back their wages or whether it is easing back on safety regulations in

construction jobs or whatever it may be.

AN HON. MEMBER: You are playing to the people in the

galleries, aren't you?

MR. A. SNOW: No, Mr. Speaker, I don't play to the

galleries. I never have.

While I was a mayor of one of the most industrialized

communities in this Province, the Town of Labrador City, I had the opportunity

of participating in declaring a municipal holiday in respect for the people who

had been injured and had lost their lives in the workplace. A lot of that, Mr.

Speaker, was because of the respect that I have for the people who are in the

workplace. Indeed, a lot of them don't go to work with the idea of having to put

their lives on the line, so to speak, to earn a living, but it does occur, and

it occurs every day throughout this country, probably moreso in this Province

because of the economic mess that this Province is in.

Mr. Speaker, I have a friend who told me a story about when

he got layed off in 1952, in St. Lawrence. He had the opportunity of either

going underground in St. Lawrence, or going to work in the iron ore mines in

Schefferville, Quebec. He decided to go to Quebec, albeit he could not speak

French. It was a very similar wage rate, but all of his neighbours were saying,

'Boy, it is hard down there. It is rough. A lot of people are getting hurt, and

a lot of people are dying.' He went off to Schefferville, Quebec, and worked up

there since 1952. He subsequently got transferred to Labrador City and worked in

the iron ore mines in Labrador City, and has retired.

But, Mr. Speaker, when he tells a story about how he walked

through the graveyard, when he goes back to St. Lawrence, to his roots, with all

the people that he worked with, the people that he grew up and went to school

with, played soccer with - he does not meet them now to go fishing or have a

yarn about what they did during their school days or their youth, playing soccer

down on the Burin Peninsula, because they are all buried in the graveyard. I

believe he says there are only two of the people that he went to school with who

are still alive, because they left and went somewhere else to work. They had to

go to another province, the Province of Quebec.

If we do not, as legislators, pass this resolution and be

more respectful of the people who are endangered out in the workplace, I think

we are not doing our job as government members or as legislators in this

Province. The least a person could expect when he goes to work to earn a living

to support his family is to be able to come home and enjoy the benefits that

they have worked hard to get. That is the least.

If we can pass this resolution today, and bring more

awareness to the responsibilities of employers and the rights of employees; the

responsibility of employers to provide a safe and healthy workplace so that

people can go to work and earn a living for their families - because not only

must this resolution become a memorial to the people who have lost their lives,

and to the people who have been injured in the workplace, but it also must be a

highlight, a flag, something to bring more awareness to the plight of employees

who have to go to work, that they have to go to work in an unsafe workplace to

make a living - and they are going there every day - promoting awareness among

people. Then people will start to speak up, saying it is unsafe. Because there

are places out there in this Province where it is unsafe to work today. People

are being injured every day, and what do we see this government do? They talk

about cutting back workers' compensation benefits to employees, instead of

looking at what the problem is in creating the accidents that these employees

have to endure in the workplace. That is what they do. They are not interested

in protecting the rights of workers as much as they are in protecting the bottom

line for profit-minded, unscrupulous business people who want to take advantage

of the ordinary workers. What they would want to do is roll back the clock on

the rights of workers for I don't know how long. I suppose we would be back to

the days of Charles Dickens, if you left them alone.

Other provinces have shown the way in recognizing that this

should be done. The government of this country, Canada, has shown the way to do

it. I am pleased to see that the hon. Member for St. John's East has seen fit to

introduce this piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, because I too, having had the

opportunity of working in a heavy industry, the mining industry, in western

Labrador, albeit it is not the only industry, there are other places where

people can be and are injured in the workplace and, indeed, do lose their lives,

I know how a family feels when a worker doesn't come home in the evening.

I have read poems and stories about the dilemma of the family

staring out at sea when a ship doesn't return, but believe me, Mr. Speaker,

there is a lot of trauma and personal grief when a miner doesn't come back from

his shift in the mines in western Labrador. I know it, I have seen it. I have

seen my friends get injured, having to be flown out. I am seen them get killed

on the job. And, yes, it has made me more aware, and I hope that I will never

forget, never ever forget, the grief that these families go through when one of

their parents or their brothers or their friends don't come home from work, that

they have been killed.

I believe that by passing resolutions such as this, it will

make us all more aware of the problems in the workplace, that we all have a

responsibility to ensure that the workplace is a better place, a safer place,

for these people to go to work. So it is not just a memorial to those people who

have had an injury and lost some time from work, it is not just that, it is also

a memorial to the people that have lost their lives, Mr. Speaker.

I also believe that in the case of the Iron Ore Company of

Canada and Wabush Mines who operate the mines in western Labrador, that they

have operated a very safe mining operation, probably the safest place, I would

possibly think, in the case of lost time from injuries, of any other industrial

operation in eastern Canada, and probably in the country. I think it is largely

due to pressure put on by the unions, but also through an awareness brought on

to the company that you can improve your bottom line sometimes, you can improve

your bottom line profits, so to speak, by making a place safer to work because

the employee pays more attention. He feels more committed to the company and

does work better because he feels that that company is not taking advantage of

him. He has a loyalty as an employee to his employer or her employer. I believe

a company can motivate employees to be more productive if, indeed, their

workplace is a safer place to work.

While a government isn't necessarily motivated by bottom line

or profit, they are concerned with costs. Instead of taking the attitude of

cutting back benefits, such as in workers' compensation, to cut back benefits to

make things harsher on employees, to lay off people to increase the burden on

employees, the workload on employees, such as they are doing in the health care

system, instead of doing that, they have to think what is causing the problems

in the job-related injuries that are occurring in the public sector, especially

in the health care sector, Mr. Speaker. There has been tremendous pressure put

on this sector by the massive layoffs, and these people have to work harder and

longer, and that is not working.

I would think that one of the reasons why the mines in

western Labrador are one of the most productive mines in the world is because

the employers treat their employees with a lot of respect. That respect then

transfers to loyalty and creates more productivity, more work on the job,

because the employee feels loyal to the employer.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that why they voted for Brian

Mulroney?

MR. A. SNOW: No, that is not why they voted for Brian

Mulroney. They didn't vote for Brian Mulroney, they voted for Alex Snow in the

last provincial election because they know he will be loyal to them and he will

speak up for them. They didn't vote PC during the federal election, but, Mr.

Speaker, I am pleased to support the resolution and I commend the Member for St.

John's East for the initiative to present it and I hope that this House will see

fit to pass this resolution, to bring more awareness to the problem of the

accidents and the deaths in the workplace and also, to make more people, more

employers aware of the problem and hopefully correct the situation which causes

these accidents and deaths.

I hope that the government not only supports the resolution

by saying 'aye' this afternoon to vote yes for it, but also, in action, Mr.

Speaker, more importantly than supporting the motion in saying yes to it, is in

action, to treat their employees with respect and their employees will then

treat them with more loyalty and produce more. Instead of increasing the work

load and decreasing the benefits, what they should be doing is treating their

employees with the respect that they earn. They have earned it, and if they do

that I think that they can make a workplace, the public sector workplace, a

safer place to work and thus create a better environment for them to work in and

it will be a better place to live and work in this Province.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. DUMARESQUE: I would like to take a few minutes today,

Mr. Speaker, to speak on this very important resolution. I want to say at the

outset, Mr. Speaker, that we on this side of the House are supporting this

resolution today because it is the right thing to do. It is the right thing to

do because we believe that the mining disasters, fishing disasters or any

disaster which results in a loss of life and untold damage to the families are

of concern certainly to society in general.

For those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I think it is appropriate

that the House recognizes and supports this particular day of mourning and I

would echo the comments of previous members in commending the Member for St.

John's East, in bringing this resolution to the House today. As we all know, the

day of mourning is in place for the country and it is in place again for all the

right reasons.

I would like to think that all hon. members of this House, on

which ever side of the Legislature they may sit, have the same kind of

commitment to workers health and safety, to the lives of people who go into our

manufacturing plants or any other places where there is danger. Certainly all of

us carry the same kind of commitment to see that legislation is put in place to

enhance the workplace and to try and reduce the number of incidents that we have

in injuries and certainly in deaths in the workplace.

As the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations has

pointed out, Mr. Speaker, in recent years we are fortunate I guess to see a real

downturn, a real decline in the deaths and injuries in the workplace in this

Province. That is not a statistic I guess, that this government takes and says

that is going to be the end of the day, and it is not a statistic that the

government takes and says we have to take the full, unequivocal benefit for that

for the last three years. It is not something that has resulted overnight and we

would be the first to say it to the members opposite and to the people in the

workplace, that the ideas and the energy that have been put into place by

employee-employer groups, the health and safety committees that are so prevalent

in the industry out there, that it is a commentary on everybody, the worker, the

government of previous days, the commitment of the financial resources that the

people are giving to the government to be able to spend in this way and you

know, Mr. Speaker, it certainly is a time in this Legislature for the kind of

solidarity, the kind of serious debate that must accompany a particular issue of

this importance.

We are fortunate on this side of the House; I know, for

myself, sitting next to the Member for St. John's South, a member who spent his

lifetime, up to his time before he got into politics, in the fishing industry,

in particular in the health and safety area of the fishing industry. So we are

fortunate to have a member like the Member for St. John's South who is very

familiar with the offshore fishing industry, which we know is a very dangerous

place to work. It is a very high risk area for people to be working, and I think

it is through his dedication and commitment to health and safety in this area

that I know the hon. minister is being helped, and the government is being

helped, in trying to make sure that we put in place the necessary commitments to

this particular issue.

It is also no loss on the government; as a matter of fact it

is a great benefit to the government to have the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs, who spent a lifetime in the industrial sector of health and

safety. I know, as a previous employee of the Iron Ore Company of Canada, as I

was, that hon. member brings great awareness to the issue of health and safety

in the industry, like the mining industry of Labrador West, or from the Long

Harbour facility where I know he used to work, and other hon. members here.

I look again at the Member for Harbour Grace, another hon.

member who spent considerable time working in the iron ore mines of Labrador

West, and in the Long Harbour mines; a member who served on the union, I

believe, as a steward in the union movement, who brings considerable commitment

and considerable history of working within the union movement, within the health

and safety committees, within the overall process of trying to see that whatever

can be done to accommodate the safety of workers to try and prevent injuries.

Myself, I also spent seven years with the Iron Ore Company of

Canada in all parts of that operation. I was aware, of course, being a previous

member of the Steelworkers' Union in Labrador West. I also had the opportunity

to work from the management side while I was there at the Iron Ore Company, so I

was able, I guess, to see both sides of the issue. I was happy to see, and I am

happy to say, as the Member for Menihek did, that the record that the Iron Ore

Company has is one of which we should be proud.

It is not lost on people. It is not through luck. It is

through commitment and through hard work by all people concerned, union,

management and government. It is the kind of triparty arrangement that we would

like to continue to see foster in this hon. House. Since this government has

come to power, I believe we have nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to how

we are dealing with the health and safety of the people in this Province.

As the hon. minister noted in his Budget allocations, this

year we have $600,000 more for health and safety expenditures, so we are

putting, I believe, the kind of commitment which we can reasonably commit to

this particular area of government policy. We are seeing the members on this

side of the House who have experience, who have understanding, who have

continued commitment, counselling the government on ways that we can enhance the

process. We see this year, or somewhere within the last year, we put in place

the preventative mediation process where employers and employees now get

together and try to resolve these kinds of issues. No doubt health and safety

issues are amongst the issues that it is possible to resolve before there is

some kind of another clash.

We have seen this government provide a full-time staff to see

that this particular program is implemented, and all of this is being done, this

$600,000 of extra money, this particular program, this is being done in our

times. This is being done when there have to be reductions in spending. This is

being done when we see other programs being cut. This is being done, Mr.

Speaker, I believe because nobody on this side of the House is accepting the

fact that our health and safety programs are as good as they can be. We are not

accepting the fact that maybe our statistics at the Iron Ore Company of Canada

and our records in other parts of the Province in industrial or manufacturing or

the fishing industry - they may be low but we are certainly not lying back and

saying: it is gone to the point where we don't have to put that extra money in,

it is gone to the point where we don't have to come up with those creative ideas

to try to get the employer and employee, unions and government together. We are

not complacent, Mr. Speaker. We are very much progressive in dealing with this

area.

I am very proud to be able to see the minister do the kinds

of things that he has up to this point in time and very pleased knowing that we

have hon. members on this side of the House who are giving their special

understanding of various sectors of the industry to our government. I am sure

that they are very useful in the policy development process of this particular

area of our responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to say these things as somebody

who is very concerned and who doesn't want to see politics, particularly

partisan politics, become a part of this particular debate today. Sometimes, Mr.

Speaker, we are all to quick to see the government as the bad element of our

society. We are all too quick to say that they are unconcerned, that there is

not enough, that we are dogmatic and, Mr. Speaker, that we are pursuing a

certain way. At times we have to just hold back that partisan zealousness that

we have, to hold back on some of that political posturing, because there are

very, very important issues to be dealt with at a time when the people of the

Province are looking to us for leadership.

So I think, Mr. Speaker, that, certainly on this side of the

House, all members would know that we have a government, a minister, who is

drawing on the assets of this particular caucus and, indeed, taking, I believe,

very, very valuable dollars in an otherwise very difficult economic time, to see

that these extra dollars are put into place and not just money being thrown at

the problem. We are seeing creative ideas coming from this minister and this

department and this government.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say, that on this day I

certainly join with the Member for St. John's East and commend him for bringing

this resolution to the House. I certainly will support it wholeheartedly and, I

am sure, that as the 28th of April comes by next year we will be happy knowing

that we have done our bit to see that the people who were injured or deceased,

as the result of a workplace accident, are remembered and rightfully thought

about. Certainly the kind of ongoing work that needs to be done may be

stimulated in some way by the recognition of this day of mourning.

So, Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly support it and I would

encourage all other hon. members to do the same.

Thank you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Port au Port.

MR. HODDER: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to take a few

minutes to support the resolution put forward by the Member for St. John's East

and to echo some of the comments that were made by members on both sides of the

House.

Mr. Speaker, in particular, I would like to say that the

Member for Menihek made one of the best speeches I have heard in the House for a

long, long time. Obviously as a member who represents an area which has had

mining accidents and which has a highly industrialized community, he certainly

knows his subject and certainly what he said came from the heart.

I listened to the Member for Eagle River when he talked about

how good his side was, or how good the minister was. I do not think we should

ever take the attitude in a matter such as this that we are ever that good. We

should always be questioning ourselves, and we should not sit back on our

laurels.

At first when this debate came up today I thought: this could

have been passed by an agreement to the resolution when it was first presented,

as this side of the House unanimously wanted to do at the time. But I do think

that it is a good opportunity for members to speak on this particular issue. I

was a little bit concerned at first that some of the members on the other side

were reluctant to get up. It does give members time to reflect. Most of us, I

suspect, did not expect to be speaking today, because normally everybody speaks

their twenty minutes. I think it is a good exercise that people can get up and

speak for a few minutes and sit down again.

I think it gives us a chance to reflect on some of the

problems. When I listen to members on both sides of the House speak of some of

the tragedies that have happened, accidents that have happened in the workplace,

in my own district in the time that I have been there, there have been a lot of

accidents in the small boat fishing industry, which is a very hazardous fishery.

I have known occasions where a person on his way back with a brand new

long-liner was wrecked in the Member for St. George's district, back about four

or five years ago. Various incidents that have happened with people trying to

pursue their livelihood. It does not matter whether it is an industrialized

area, such as Labrador City, or a town such as Grand Falls or Gander, or an

outport. People who pursue their way of life, I think we should take time, at

least once a year, to pay tribute and to reflect on the tragedies that have

happened in our past. At the same time I think it is incumbent on the

government, whichever government, to make sure that the regulations that they

put in place are regulations that will prevent these sorts of things from

happening.

I think that is the intent behind the member's resolution.

That people stop and reflect on what has happened and those people who have

suffered. As well, that we keep in our minds - because if you look back at the

history of the work force, and the history of mankind, there was a period before

and during the Industrial Revolution when workers were treated extremely poorly.

These times have changed. But it was through legislation and the consciousness

of people that child labour laws were changed in the late nineteenth century. It

was through the consciousness of people and the legislators in a democratic

society that many of the rules and regulations that are now in place - both