December

17, 1993

HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY PROCEEDINGS

Vol. XLII No. 38

The House met at 9:00 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER (Dicks): Order, please!

Before beginning the regular business of the day, as I noted

to members, I guess it was a week and a half ago, we've had this box here in the

House for some time. I'm sure members are curious as to what it might be. It

being our last day, one hopes, before Christmas recess -

AN HON. MEMBER: Confession box.

MR. SPEAKER: Confession box. I thought it might be

appropriate to let the public as well as members know what it is. Behind the

screen or the curtain is the portrait of the former Speaker, the hon. Tom Lush,

now Minister of Social Services.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I've had a preview and I think it is a

handsome likeness of the man. I'm sure that the unveiling will reveal whether my

opinion about art is valid or not.

In any event, it is something that I know when I became

Speaker one thing everybody said to me was: at least you will get your picture

on the wall. Today it will be the hon. Tom Lush's turn. Having taken over

Speaker last spring it was - and of course the last being my first session - I

took as my example the fine job that the former Speaker did. Some members tell

me it has served me well, others perhaps have a variance of opinion with that.

In any event, I think the universal verdict on our former Speaker's tenure was

unanimous and praiseworthy indeed.

It is going to be pleasant this morning to unveil the

portrait. Before I ask the minister to come forward I will call on the

Government House Leader and the Opposition Leader, who may have a few words to

say.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, it would be both a pleasure and

an honour and one I would not forfeit at all lightly to say a few words, as you

expose Mr. Speaker Lush to the world.

Tom came into the House in 1975. I had the pleasure of being

associated with him then and many times since. He has been returned, unless

memory has failed me, six times since then, in fact, in every general election

since then, although there was I believe a brief interruption in his service

when he left the House in 1984 and returned in 1985 as the Member for Bonavista

North.

His term as Speaker, Mr. Speaker, I think set not only an

example which Your Honour has followed in my view to the profit of both Your

Honour and the House, but also one that any future Speaker could emulate with

pleasure and with pride. He presided with impartiality, good humour and wit,

with a very deep reverence and respect and affection for the traditions of this

House, and for the traditions of the parliamentary system which this House

exemplifies in this Province. It was a pleasure to work with him and my respect

for him grew during the year or so that I had the pleasure of coming back into

the House with him.

The Speaker in England is the first commoner of the land, the

Speaker is the voice of the House of Commons. Tom Lush, as the Speaker of this

House in the Forty-first General Assembly, spoke with eloquence and dignity and

in every way carried on and increased the tradition which began with Mr. Speaker

John Bingley Garland here on Your Honour's immediate left and goes right around,

I think, Mr. Speaker, with the late Pat McNicholas, hanging immediately to the

right of Your Honour unless there is somebody I can't see in here. I have seen

the portrait. Mr. Speaker Simms stands between Mr. Speaker Ottenheimer and Mr.

Speaker McNicholas, metaphorically, unless - I can't see, he is behind the

pillar. He has never been one to hide his light in the corner but in this case

he is behind the pillar.

Four of these speakers interestingly enough, Mr. Speaker,

have become Premiers. I don't know whether that speaks well for Mr. Speaker

Simms or not but I will leave that for the future to judge. What I do want to

say is that I have seen the portrait of Mr. Speaker Lush, done by Gerald Squires

and I think that it is not only a good likeness but a very strong representation

of a very strong person. My one regret is that somehow a portrait, even as good

as Gerald Squires', was not able to capture what perhaps is my strongest and

fondest recollection of Tom Lush, not in the Chair Your Honour, but in a much

more informal setting singing Amazing Grace as only he can sing Amazing Grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, Tom Lush's time as Speaker was

not amazing, he did it with grace and I am delighted to say these few words in

tribute to him today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, just some preliminary

remarks in response to some of the cracks made by the Government House Leader

about me, this is not my day, this is Speaker Lush's day but I will say to him

that I believe Samson was behind the pillar and he ended up bringing the House

down.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: And I will say this also that if there is any

one member in this House, that all members would agree should be hung, it should

be the Government House Leader.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: But, Mr. Speaker, to move on to the most

important matter that we are dealing with here today - as the only other member

in the House that has had the privilege and honour of sitting in that Chair and

serving the House as Speaker and having his portrait hung - I suppose I can

speak with a different perspective than most other members and former Speaker

Lush would know what I am talking about. It is a terrific honour, there is no

question about that. I have always said that the best job I have had in politics

in the nearly fifteen years I have been here, including in Cabinet and all the

rest of it, as much as I love this job as Leader of the Opposition, was as

Speaker of the House, because there are many, many advantages.

One, it is easier to stay out of trouble when you are Speaker

because you can always tell the press you are not allowed to comment publicly on

any matters, and that is usually helpful from time to time. You also learn

parliamentary tradition and parliamentary practices. You get a chance to visit

other jurisdictions and when people say Speaker Lush, or former Speaker Lush,

when people say that our House is rambunctious they obviously have not visited

the mother parliament in Britain because if they did their minds would be

boggled.

Now, I have to temper my remarks, Mr. Speaker, somewhat when

I heap praise on the former Speaker because I do not speak for the entire caucus

when I say he was a terrific Speaker, always fair and objective, and all that

kind of stuff. The odd one in our caucus, well, there are a couple of odd ones

in our caucus, there are several odd ones in our caucus who do not really agree,

but I know one thing, in his entire tenure as Speaker, as I recall, he only had

to name one member in this House and that was my colleague the Opposition House

Leader, so that is something for him to remember.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Why did you bring that up?

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I always had a lot of respect for

the minister, for former Speaker Lush. I thought he did a very capable job in

the Chair and he always did rule, I think, with fairness and balance in mind.

One thing about a Speaker, you know, is that he decides which way he wants to

rule and then he goes in and asks the clerks to give him the arguments to

support the way he wishes to rule.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: That is the way the Speaker works because

after all the Speaker is a human being and has to rule as he sees it. I am not

sure that Speaker Lush necessarily worked that way but I would not be surprised.

Now, one little titbit I want to conclude with, Mr. Speaker,

to prove the type of individual that former Speaker Lush was and how fair he

was. When I was in Cabinet as Minister of Wildlife, and he was opposition

critic, when he was the opposition critic for that area he used to consult with

me, co-operate, and, indeed, one time I remember him saying: `I would like to

ask a question today, have you one in mind?'

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SIMMS: And I said, `Well, there is a pretty serious

problem, a wildlife problem occurring out in the Millertown area, where people

have been allegedly trapping rabbits with nets,' and sure enough, in Question

Period that day, Mr. Speaker: `I would like to ask the Minister of Wildlife,

what is going on out in Millertown with all them nets trapping rabbits?' And

when I stood to answer the question, I said: `Mr. Speaker, I have to tell the

hon. member, I haven't a clue what he is talking about!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: He got his coverage, though!

MR. SIMMS: He got coverage.

The former Speaker, believe me, has always been a gentleman

who deserves the respect of the House, a gentleman in every sense of the word. I

can't say the same about him as a minister, but I wish him well.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Never catch a rabbit!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Speaker.

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

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) brief words. I haven't had the

longevity in the House of the two previous speakers, nor -

AN HON. MEMBER: Nor will you!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. HARRIS: We will see about that! But I certainly have

come to know former Speaker Lush as Speaker, and having come into the House in

the unique position of being a sole member and not, even then, party leader, I

have had to deal with former Speaker Lush in getting set up and also manoeuvring

around the rules to get heard and to get questions asked, And I must say, I have

had full co-operation and have every respect for Speaker Lush in his duties as

Speaker. I was impressed by his warmth and humour in the operation of the House

and how he was able to handle both sides of the House, I say, with what I felt

was ultimate fairness, although you may disagree from time to time with

individual rulings. So I think it is a very nice tribute this morning to have

him join the others on the walls of the House and be able to look at him in

person, as well - we have the double advantage.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: I now ask the hon. the Minister of Social

Services to come forward.

MR. SIMMS: He wants to make a speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. SIMMS: No leave to make a speech!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. LUSH: With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I remember

one hon. member -

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: I remember one hon. member who probably put it

more appropriately, who, when asking for the Speaker's indulgence, asked for his

condolence!

I want to thank hon. members for their very kind words - Mr.

Roberts and Mr. Simms -

AN HON. MEMBER: Mr. Harris.

MR. LUSH: - and Mr. Harris.

They say, behind every successful man there is a good woman.

I would suggest, also, behind every Speaker there is a good Parliament, and I

want to thank all members for their co-operation, members on both sides of the

House and represented by the three parties. I found them to be most

co-operative.

I want to say that I found the Speakership to be very

challenging. I did give it my best in an attempt to be fair. Fairness, like

beauty, I expect, is in the eyes of the beholder, and many times - but I did

attempt to be as fair as I could. I attempted to understand the rules. I went to

bed many nights - you might find this hard to believe - and the last person by

my side was Mr. Beauchesne or Maingot or Laundry - all of these people.

I did attempt to try to understand the rules. Many of the

Speakers of this House, I have read every one of their rulings, and many of the

Speakers in Ottawa, as well, and I must say that I did enjoy it.

I want particularly to thank the staff who had a lot of

patience with me. I want to thank the present Clerk of the House, Mr. Noel, and

Ms. Murphy, both of whom, as I said, had a lot of patience, staying here late,

after hours, when we had some delicate rulings.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. LUSH: No, there were times when I - and Mr. Simms had

decision made, and asked the Table officers for the

appropriate rulings, but most of the time, I took it rather objectively and went

out and analyzed it and tried to give it the fairest ruling we could in

accordance with the authorities.

Also, of course, I want to express my gratitude to the first

Clerk of the House, Miss Bettie Duff.

So, I want to thank all members for their co-operation. I

enjoyed the Speakership. As I said, I found it quite challenging, and I wanted

to make a reference to the CPA. I became very involved in the CPA, both the

Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Canadian Parliamentary

Association, and I attended practically all of their conferences. As a matter of

fact, somebody said something yesterday - when the Speaker recessed the House on

a certain ruling, one of the members on this side of the House said, `I think he

is going to be rather quick because, unlike Lush, he didn't go to Africa when

they had recess!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Anyway, I certainly did enjoy the CPA. To the

extent - it is a great fraternity - that I knew every Speaker in Canada and a

good many Speakers throughout the British jurisdiction. And practically at any

time when we got into trouble, I felt comfortable in calling any of them, all of

the Table officers; as a matter of fact, at one point, last year, we called the

present editor of Sir Erskine-May; I have forgotten his name now, Sir Somebody -

Boland, was it? Last year, we called him.

So, it is a great fraternity, the Commonwealth Parliamentary

Association, and the Canadian Parliamentary Association. I just wanted to say

that, because I think sometimes all hon. members probably don't take the CPA as

seriously as they should, but it is a great organization, and I wanted to tell

you how much I enjoyed being a part of that organization.

Just in closing, I remember last year, when I was doing my

swan song - I didn't know it was my swan song - I had gone up there this summer

just on a vacation, knowing that they were having their annual meeting of the

CPA, and I dropped in and was welcomed. On the last night there they had a

banquet and sometime just before the banquet, about 4:00 p.m., I met Mr. Simms

and he said: `We have arranged for you to have your swan song tonight.' I

thought the boys were just trying to pretend that they knew something. I had

been asked to say the grace, something that I have been quite known to do in

many functions. They asked me to say the grace. I went. So when Mr. Simms said:

`We have arranged for you to have your swan song tonight,' I just thought he

wasn't really on the nose as to what was going on. Somebody had told him

something and he pretended to know more than he really - of what was really

going on.

I went home - the Deputy Speaker was with me - and I was

rehearsing the grace in French. I had no problem with saying the grace in

shower, I was going through all kinds of motions and saying the grace in French.

I'm sure Mr. Snow must have thought something was going wrong with me, but I was

in there and when I came out, I asked: `How did it sound in French?' He said:

`It sounded pretty good to me. I didn't know what it was, but we knew you were

doing something there.'

When I got over there I was at the head table and I was all

ready to say the grace with the French lines particularly memorized. When we

stood up, and I was all ready to say the grace, didn't the MC, who was Senator

Doody, ask the Speaker from PEI to say the grace.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: Well! Imagine! I really didn't know what was in

for me. Now, the grace was gone, and I had lost my lines in French. In any

event, it came to the appropriate place and Mr. Simms was right. Senator Doody

asked me to say a few words, and I can only -with no grace, but I substituted

for the grace. But I am very fortunate that it was Senator Doody, about whom I

remembered many stories here in this House, and I was able to tell a few

stories.

I want to thank all members for their kind words this

morning. I thank you for your co-operation. Again, I want to thank the staff,

all of those who contributed towards making my Speakership a little less

worrisome and, indeed, as enjoyable as it was. I thank you all.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I guess you want me to go over and do the -

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. LUSH: I just wanted to say -

MR. SPEAKER: Time!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: The member's time has elapsed.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave!

MR. LUSH: I wouldn't want you to judge Gerry Squires'

work entirely on the subject, but let me tell you this, when you are looking at

it, do look at the style, the method and the art.

Thank you all very much.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

AN HON. MEMBER: Good job.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you.

Statements by Ministers

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and

Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker, I have two statements this

morning.

As my hon. colleagues are aware, the negotiations for the

General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade came to a successful conclusion on

Wednesday past in Geneva. I would like to use this opportunity to make some

preliminary remarks on the possible effects of that agreement on this Province.

I remind my colleagues that the negotiation of international trade agreements

are the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal government, but they do require

extensive provincial involvement.

As you will see in the coming days, the GATT has liberalized

trade in areas that are consistent with the Strategic Economic Plan this

government presented in June, 1992. I believe the SEP enhances the potential

that globalization of trade will have for this Province.

When the GATT comes into force on July 1, 1995 it will lower

tariff and non-tariff barriers around the world and establish new multilateral

rules for world trade, thereby increasing market access for many of

Newfoundland's exports, both goods and services.

During the negotiations, this Province made numerous

representations to the federal government.

In general, the Province was particularly interested in four

critical areas.

Number 1, the Protection for Regional Development Programs:

The Province has supported efforts to exempt regional development programs from

possible threat or retaliation in future countervail actions. Canada was

successful in ensuring this in GATT. This significant gain will allow the

government to continue its regional development efforts without fear of trade

sanctions that have plagued us in the past.

Regional development in each country will have to meet GATT

standards. These standards mean that regional development assistance must be

applied to areas of a country which are experiencing a measurable degree of

disparity. This approach is consistent with the Government of Newfoundland and

Labrador's views on regional development.

Secondly, Market Access: The Province has sought the

elimination of tariff and non-tariff barriers to Newfoundland's key exports,

notably fish products, newsprint, petrochemicals and minerals.

The market access negotiations have resulted in a number of

key sectors going to a zero tariff level, at this point in time, in July of

1995. They include wood and wood products, paper and paper products.

Unfortunately for Newfoundland and Labrador, the federal

government was unable to get everything we asked for in respect of the fishery.

My officials are analyzing the GATT offer in fisheries and we will be able to

brief the Province shortly on this matter.

The third critical area was Resource Access: The Province had

sought assurances that the GATT text would not impair Canada's capacity to

regulate access to its fisheries resources, nor link access to foreign markets

for fish to the allocation of fish resources in Canadian waters. By rejecting

the European Community request for allocations in return for lower tariffs,

Canada guarded against inappropriate trade-offs.

It is our understanding that Canada has included

fishing-related services in its Most Favoured Nation Exemption List, and will

not be giving up resource access for market access, as the European Community

wanted. This was done to preserve Canada's ability to withdraw port services

against countries which do not conduct their fishing practices in a manner

consistent with sound conservation.

Fourthly, Agriculture Supply Management: The Province has

supported efforts to ensure GATT continues to provide a strong and clear

foundation for supply management programs. As part of the negotiated agreement,

Canada was unable to maintain its system of import quotas which are key

underpinnings of any supply management programs. However, appropriate levels of

tariffs were implemented to replace the import quotas that currently protect

certain agricultural products.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Forestry and

Agriculture has been in Ottawa for the past two days being briefed by Mr.

Goodale on this matter. So as we take away supply management, a tariffication

process will kick in.

Mr. Speaker, consistent with the Strategic Economic Plan, the

new GATT agreement also provides for better access to services markets abroad

and will provide new opportunities for globally competitive Canadian service

industries such as engineering, telecommunications, and environmental

consulting. You will remember that these service areas were targeted by the

Strategic Economic Plan and are being heavily promoted in my own department.

Over the next three months the final act, the GATT act,

consisting of the legal text of the agreements and the schedules of concessions

will be finalized. These will then be submitted to the national governments for

formal approval. It is proposed that the agreement will take effect on July 1,

In the interim, we will be proceeding with detailed

assessment of the full impact of the Agreement on this Province.

In particular, Mr. Speaker, I want to notify the House that

the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture, on his return, intends to brief the

Province on the impacts on agriculture, the new GATT Agreement.

Thank you.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I think it is a

very positive step that a GATT Agreement has been reached. Especially in Canada,

in this Province, as an export nation and Province respectively, it can only be

positive and help our export industries in becoming more competitive on the

world market.

I find it quite interesting that the Strategic Economic Plan

is consistent with GATT. I am glad the 117 nations consulted and registered a

Strategic Economic Plan and to use that as a guiding force in reaching an

agreement on tariffs and trades. Yes, I think it is about time that this

government got with it.

It is good that there is protection for regional development

programs. I think it is very important also to have a certain protection in

those areas so there will be no retaliation on countervail actions. It is also

very important that in industries - especially here in this Province where fish

products, newsprint, petro-chemicals, minerals, et cetera and wood products are

now going to see a reduction to 0 per cent. It is unfortunate and it is a little

lacking at this point in time. The statement does not mention the specifics on

what will happen with reference to the fishery. I understand they have not got

to the point where there will be a complete reduction in tariffs on the export

of fish. That is very important in our market and in the future of this

Province, that we be able to export on a world scale.

In the United States we have seen a reduction with our

Free-Trade Agreement and now with the North American Free-Trade Agreement but

there has been very prohibitive tariffs on the export of fish into the European

Community. I see that more information will be forthcoming, I think, in the near

future, the minister has indicated there, but at this point it is very important

and very crucial here for this Province to be able to compete on a world scale

not just with the United States and export into Mexico. I think it is important

that we open up exports on a global community.

It is interesting also to know that telecommunications and

engineering industries in this country are going to benefit by reduction in

tariffs there and that is a very positive step. Overall, I see the general

thrust that our federal government has taken with free-trade with the United

States and a North American Free-Trade Agreement. This has gone a step further

to enable provincial and federal companies, that are operating within this

country, to be able to compete now on a much more competitive basis here. The

ultimate goal will be to reduce all tariffs around the world so that we will

have a complete global economy. We can only be protectionist for so long,

eventually we are going to get to the point where tariffs are going to be lifted

and anything that can accelerate that and open up a whole global marketplace has

to be positive.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

have leave to address the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: No leave.

MR. SPEAKER: No leave. No I am sorry, no leave.

The hon. the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

MR. FUREY: Mr. Speaker:

I wish to notify the Legislature today of the status of the

position of President and Chief Executive Officer of Enterprise Newfoundland and

Labrador Corporation. Hon. members may be aware that the former President and

Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Jim Janes, retired from his position effective from

1 October, 1993 for medical reasons. Mr. Janes had originally been appointed to

this position in 1990 and has served the Corporation with distinction during his

tenure as President and Chief Executive Officer. In light of his valuable

contribution to the work of the Corporation, I have asked that he agree to

remain, on a volunteer basis, as a Director of the Board of the Corporation for

the foreseeable future. I am pleased to report that he has agreed to my request.

I am also pleased to announce today the appointment of Mr.

A.A. Brait, effective 4 January 1994, as the new Chairman of Enterprise

Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation, to replace Dr. Doug House, who is

currently acting as Chairman of the Corporation. Mr. Brait is currently Chairman

of the Board of NewTel Enterprise and brings a wealth of private sector

experience and community involvement to this position. Mr. Brait is also a

former Chairman of the Economic Council of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Dr. House has been Chairman of Enterprise Newfoundland and

Labrador and its predecessor, Newfoundland and Labrador Development Corporation,

since June 1989 and has provided invaluable service to the Corporation through a

period of considerable reorganization and planning. Dr. House's responsibilities

as Chairman of the Province's Economic Recovery Commission are onerous and the

appointment of a new Chairman for Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador

Corporation will allow him to devote more of his energies to the work of the

Commission. His contribution to Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation

has been very significant, and has helped provide continuity to the Corporation

through a period of sometimes dramatic changes. The Economic Recovery Commission

will continue to be represented on the Board of Directors of Enterprise

Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation, one of the commissioners will be

appointing soon.

I am also announcing today the initiation of a public

recruitment effort to find a replacement for Mr. Janes as President and Chief

Executive Officer of Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation. The new

Chairman, Mr. Brait, will participate in this recruitment effort and will be one

member of a selection committee that will make recommendations to Cabinet before

the end of January, 1994 for a permanent appointment of a new President and CEO.

Other members of the selection committee will be Mr. Peter Kennedy, Deputy

Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, Mr. Hal Stanley, Clerk of the

Executive Council, and Mr. Jim Janes, former President and Chief Executive

Officer of Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, I am confident that the announcements I am

making today will help ensure a strong management structure for Enterprise

Newfoundland and Labrador Corporation - a structure that will position the

Corporation for the challenges that lie ahead.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

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

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

I want to have a few words in responding to the minister's

statement and say one thing about the minister, he acts very quickly. Once I

tabled that very damaging memo yesterday, the minister went out last night and

shook up Enterprise Newfoundland and Labrador which we support; we support that.

They had a big shake up, but having said that, Mr. Speaker, I note in the

minister's statement he makes reference that Mr. Janes retired from his position

for medical reasons and we are sorry to hear that. We wish him well in whatever

the future holds for him; as well, with the appointment of Mr. Brait, Mr. Tony

Brait. I guess on this side we commend the government for appointing Mr. Brait,

a very reputable individual, a great business record, and as the minister's

statement so rightly outlined, he has served as Chairman of the Economic Council

of Newfoundland and Labrador. I guess, when we were the government we appointed

Mr. Brait to that position so we have a lot of respect for the individual.

With respect to Mr. House, he says now his responsibilities

at the Economic Recovery Commission are onerous, the appointment of a new

chairman will allow him time to devote more energies to the commission, I guess

there are a number of things we could say about that, a number of adjectives

that we would use to describe Dr. House's responsibilities and performance

besides onerous -

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has expired.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: - and the other thing I hope, Mr.

Speaker, is that he does not use all his time now to further develop the

starvation strategy that government is trying to enforce in the Province, with

the document they tabled a few days ago.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Oral Questions

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

MR. SIMMS: Thank you.

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question, before I put some

questions to the Government House Leader, I have a quick question to the

Minister of Works, Services and Transportation.

Yesterday, in Central Newfoundland and the Exploits Valley

area, the Exploits Valley region, the road conditions I am told were atrocious.

I had calls to my home last night from people who live in the Exploits area,

Bishop Falls, Botwood and those areas, and these are people who drive into Grand

Falls to work; they work at the mill or the hospital or whatever and it is a

very heavily travelled area, and in the early morning in particular, and they

say that the roads were slushy, extremely slippery and just like glass. Indeed,

regrettably, there was a major accident later on, mid-morning, near the weigh

scales where one man was killed and four people sent to the hospital.

Now I was told by these callers that they were driving to

work at about a quarter to eight and it was not until that time that they saw

the ploughs heading towards that area, so I guess my question is, during this

time of year, mid-December with forecasts and everything being available, you

know in advance, and in a heavily travelled traffic area that we are aware of, I

want to ask him: why wouldn't the ploughs have been out on the roads earlier,

5:30, six o'clock? Why are they not out on the road much earlier these days, is

it because of cutbacks in the department or, what would be the reason for that?

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

Transportation.

MR. EFFORD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition is quite right, there was a

major accident in that area yesterday and there was a loss of life and it is to

everybody's regret that that unfortunately happened, and especially in road

conditions and storms conditions like it was yesterday in Central Newfoundland;

but I want to ensure this hon. House, there is absolutely no cutbacks in winter

maintenance, absolutely none.

The only cutbacks this year were on a management level in the

Department of Works, Services and Transportation where we closed out some

depots. Thirty-five I think it was in summer maintenance, five permanently, and

we laid off a level of management. There were four levels of management between

the foreman's level at the depot and the director's level. This summer we made

those changes. The winter maintenance program is in full stream. The shift

starts 4:00 o'clock in the morning and there is absolutely no reason why ploughs

were not on that highway. In fact I asked that question when I was informed of

the accident yesterday morning. The question I asked was, why were the ploughs

not there? I was assured by the officials in the department that the ploughs

were on the road. They said there was a major storm out there yesterday morning

and that is the reason why they were busy on the highway, but I was told if

there is any information that those ploughs were not on the road it is not

because of any cutbacks or any slow down in the winter maintenance program, and

it would have to be another reason. Now that the hon. Leader of the House has

brought it to my attention, saying that the ploughs were not there, I will

certainly check. I asked that same question and I can assure this House that

there are no cutbacks and the shift starts at 4:00 o'clock in the morning and

goes through until 3:00 o'clock in the afternoon, the first shift, and if

conditions dictate then they will be on for twenty-four hours. Weather

conditions dictate how long we operate the ploughs.

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, maybe the minister could further

check. That is the information I have. I would like to ask some questions to the

Government House Leader. The calls keep pouring in on this BIS program and over

the past several days the Premier has repeated the obvious point, that there

really is not a job creation component in that plan, yet if a family of four is

going to get any more than the basic $9000 a year someone in that family someone

is going to have to find work. That is obvious, so I want to ask the Government

House Leader why would the government propose such a plan before they even know

whether there are enough job opportunities available that would give people a

chance to supplement their basic income? Would he not at least admit to the

stark reality that without this additional employment a family of four would be

forced to live on $9000 a year or $7 per person per day? Will he not admit to

that stark reality, whoever is going to answer the question?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have been a little surprised at the line of questioning

from the Leader of the Opposition over the past couple of days with respect to

this matter because he must be concluding by reading this that there is

absolutely nobody in Newfoundland who works. The point I have made when myself

asked, the question myself in another forum in the last few days is that if you

check the statistical basic done by Stats Canada in any one month the minimum

number of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians that you would find employed in any

month during the year would be in excess of 170,000 in a workforce that ranges

anywhere from about 210,000 to 230,000 or 240,000 depending upon the season, so

we have in fact a program whereby 170,000 people in the workforce will be

getting the basic income supplementation for themselves and other family

members.

They will keep their earned income, which they are earning

whenever they work, whether it be for a week, five weeks, ten weeks, fifty

weeks, whatever the case might be, and they will also get a supplement along

with the earnings they get for working itself and then if they have members in

the family who are in the category that they are finished school and are in the

prime opportunity to continue their education there will be an education

supplement. The program is a marvellous program, Mr. Speaker, to take care of

the basic income needs of a family. With respect to the question that the Leader

of the Opposition keeps asking, the $9000 level is exactly what is there now in

the same range for those unfortunate Newfoundlanders who today - because there

are a group of them today, this is not a new circumstance, who get absolutely no

work in the run of a year and there is absolutely no way under this program that

they can be one copper worse off with the new program than they are today, and

for everybody else, for the particular group that does have some earnings, the

largest portion of those people will be significantly better off under this new

program than they are under the present system.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I would caution members opposite

not to show too much enthusiasm for that response, because I can assure you the

statements are not accurate.

In any event, we are not talking about the people who are

working, we are talking about the people who are not working. I don't know what

province the minister is living in. He himself admitted in a newspaper

article

that he has accepted for some time that the real unemployment rate is probably

double the Stats Canada figure of 21 per cent. So he is admitting the

unemployment rate is at least 42 per cent. We have a serious unemployment rate

in this Province. The minister does not seem to want to recognize that at all.

Let me ask him about another disincentive in this program,

even though he is surprised at the line of questioning, the disincentive for

existing families to stay together. I'm sure he has heard about it, because it

is a point raised publicly by a Memorial University economist. He shakes his

head, but I mean it is a reality, and it is a fact. What he is referring to is

that under this program a family of two adults and two children will get $3,000

each for the adults, $1,500 per child, or $9,000. If one adult officially drops

out of the family unit, he or she would get that basic $3,000. The remaining

three family members, now officially headed by a single parent, would get $3,000

for the adult, $3,000 for the first child, $1,500 for the second child, a total

of $7,500. In other words, four people who would stay together as a family unit

would only get $9,000, but they could improve that income by 20 per cent if one

of the members of the family unit moved out.

That is the stark reality, I say to the minister. People who

are going to be forced to live in abject poverty in this Province because of

this will be driven to acts of desperation. It is a matter that has been raised

publicly. I want to ask him: why on earth would the government propose a plan

that encourages the break up of the family unit? Why would they want to

encourage that?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That just adds to my

disbelief in the line of questioning. I think that anyone, whether it be an

economist at Memorial University, the Leader of the Opposition, any other member

in this House of Assembly, that would suggest that a logical conclusion that

anybody in Newfoundland and Labrador would make would be to break up their

family so that they could access $1,500 is unbelievable.

Absolutely an unbelievable statement. I don't give any

credence to anyone who would suggest that in our Province or anywhere else in

the country people would make a conscious decision, for $1,500, to decide to

split up their entire family. I don't believe it. It is absolutely incredulous

to me that anybody would even utter the statement.

The other

part is that I've heard the references as well -

and the Leader of the Opposition just made them - to abject poverty. What we are

saying here is that we are recognizing a current circumstance. There are some

families of four today in Newfoundland and Labrador who depend upon some kind of

basic income from the government to sustain them. It is at low levels, we

understand that. Nobody get rich on these schemes. It is currently social

assistance. These people, if they have been in the unfortunate circumstance of

getting absolutely no income from employment - and that will be a reality for

some people probably no matter when, going long into the future; there will

always be some people in the society who might never be able to work for a

variety of reasons, or can't get any work - they will be sustained.

For that group of people, Mr. Speaker, what we have is a

program here that guarantees them that they will have at least what they have

today. It will remove one of the problems with the system now which is that

those people currently under the current systems that are in place in the

Province and the country, if they are fortunate enough or lucky enough to find a

week or two or three weeks of work, today they are discouraged from taking it.

Because they lose a benefit. Under this program those same people will be

encouraged and the incentive will be there for them to take even an hour's work

if they can find it, or if they can create it themselves. Because they and their

families will be better off.

Whereas under the current system everybody in this

House knows, everybody in the Province knows, that someone who is unfortunately

dependent upon social assistance to sustain them and their families, that unless

they can get major amounts of work that is going to replace their total social

security income, that they had better take none.

It is that kind of disincentive in the current system that

has caused us to come out and say: we believe that this is a much superior

alternative for the basic income needs of families in Newfoundland and Labrador.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. SIMMS: Mr. Speaker, I tell you, is there any wonder

why this Province is in the trouble it is in, with these kinds of programs. The

minister doesn't know what he is talking about. Under social assistance, social

assistance recipients are entitled to keep a certain portion of money that they

earn. It is called allowable income. So what is he talking about? He doesn't

know what he is talking about. In their own document on page 32, they talk about

a family of four on social assistance who now would have a total family income

of $9,456 - under their proposal, that family would have $9,000.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it! Read the document!

MR. SIMMS: Well, that is what is says here! It is in your

document! It says it here. A single parent with three children who now has a

total of $9,864, will receive $9,000 under the new program. Now that isn't more,

Mr. Speaker, that is less!

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the rest of it!

MR. SIMMS: That is less!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. SIMMS: Now, he can do all he wants to try to detract

from the points we are trying to make and the questions we are asking by coming

back and saying: `Oh, yes, but somebody on this much' - but the point is, the

ones I quoted from here are accurate quotes.

Now, I want to ask him a final question and it deals with the

education supplement. The education supplement that is provided in the plan is

there for those who qualify to participate in post-secondary education and

training. That, in itself, is a good idea. But I want to remind him that before

young people can qualify for post-secondary education, they have to get through

thirteen years of primary, elementary and secondary education. We all know how

great an impediment poverty is to success during those early formative

educational years.

With very few exceptions, very poor children don't do well in

school. Many of them leave school at an early age before they have anything like

a basic education. Again, under their plan, thousands of children and families

will be reduced to desperate poverty, I say to the minister. Relatively few of

them are going to survive to go on to post-secondary education. So I want to ask

him: How great a benefit is this education supplement for children who don't get

the basic education they need in the first place to get to a post-secondary

education level?

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

Labour Relations.

MR. GRIMES: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Before I deal with

the education supplement issue, just to clarify again - the Leader of the

Opposition or anybody else in Newfoundland and Labrador who would get their

hands on this document could not, with any degree of honesty at all, try to

suggest that the people we all feel are the most unfortunate in society, having

to depend on social assistance for their family maintenance and not getting any

work - some of them can't work, we all know that. Others will not get any work,

and we all hope there will be a diminishing number in the population that that

will apply to.

This document clearly spells out that there is no set of

circumstances - none - in which they can be any worse off under this program

than they are today.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. GRIMES: If you read the document, it is clearly

stated that any time, even with the basic income supplements, if the family

still has absolutely no other income, then a social assistance top-up will be

applied, so that whatever levels of income they are on today will be maintained,

and any housing and medical needs will be met. If you are reading the document

instead of looking for holes you will see that the answers are clearly there.

With respect to the question, Mr. Speaker, about the

education supplement: the education supplement, as outlined in this program, is

available for all of those who succeed in terms of the normal system. This is

the point that the Leader of the Opposition is trying to get to. It would

normally be applied between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one when they

graduate from school and would be looking at post-secondary opportunities.

However, in the preliminary discussions and development of this - because this

has to be further defined as we go through the consultation and in working it

out with the federal government, like the whole program. This is out for initial

discussion. We are consulting now and finding out at what levels the federal

government will participate, what parts of the program - hopefully, all of it -

they will be interested in.

But with the education supplement, in the preliminary

discussions, even those who do not graduate from school at the normal times, or

may never graduate from school but might need at a later age even, beyond

eighteen, twenty, twenty-one or twenty-two, to need some assistance to continue

with their education, even if it is basic adult education, upgrading and so on,

the education supplement is intended to be available for them, as well, when

they need it, for a maximum of four years for any student, basically at any

time, but normally we would expect that most students would take advantage of it

between the ages of eighteen and twenty-one.

So that matter is still in the preliminary discussion stage,

but there is an understanding that there will be groups of people who will need

the education supplement but would not normally avail of it between the ages of

eighteen and twenty-one.

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

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This morning, my

question is for the Minister of Environment and Lands.

Since the U.S. Navy are not assuming responsibility for

clean-up in Argentia, except in areas of imminent danger to health and safety,

work, through drilling and excavation, to find out what contaminants are in that

9,000 acre land lease area. What participation is your department lending to

this investigation?

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: Mr. Speaker, the majority of this work is

being undertaken, obviously, by the federal Department of Environment. We have a

committee of people who work with them, but it is in a very peripheral sort of

way. It is totally the responsibility of the federal government.

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

Placentia.

MR. CAREEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Yes, I say to the minister, it is the total responsibility of

the Canadian Government, and under their law we are not to take - except lands

that are contaminated. Mr. Speaker, since thousands of people from this Province

have worked in Argentia for years, and because it is easy to miss a contaminated

area, I am asking your department and your government to help the situation by

giving this item, this investigative item that is being handled in Argentia now

- and preliminary reports will have to be in by the end of January - to give the

item the needed publicity to help us seek out people who have information on

contaminated areas.

Madam Minister, I am wondering if your department will give

this Province the publicity we need -

AN HON. MEMBER: You are campaigning now for the Tories.

MR. CAREEN: I have been campaigning since May 4th.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. CAREEN: I am wondering if your department, your

government will, through the media, ask Newfoundlanders who might have

information, please.

Thank you.

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

Lands.

MS. COWAN: We are not in the habit, Mr. Speaker, of

interfering with environmental assessments that are being done by Environment

Canada. I am not sure, but I would presume, if they follow the pattern that we

do in the Province, that they do advertise these undertakings. I can certainly

check and see if they are doing so, but it would be in their ball park to do

that. However, as the Environment minister, and the fact that we live here in

this Province, certainly, I have been watching the whole thing with interest,

and if we feel that in any way the federal environmental committee that is

looking at the thing is not dealing with it in a responsible fashion then, of

course, we will speak to them through the proper channels.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. the Member for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I would like to ask the Minister of Social Services if he is

taking any action to address the alarming deficiencies identified in the report

of the Child Welfare League of America.

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

MR. LUSH: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have taken many, many

initiatives with respect to the recommendations made by the Child Welfare League

of America Report.

If the hon. member had been listening to the news he would

have known that one of the biggest steps that we took was the training

investigations for child abuse. That was initiated in co-operation with the

university, the Department of Justice, the Royal Newfoundland Constabulary, and

our own department, in an attempt to better equip people for investigations with

respect to child abuse.

I want to tell the hon. member, that particular initiative

gives this Province the leading edge with respect to investigations in Canada.

We are one of only three provinces that have initiated this program and it was

as a result of the recommendations of the Hughes Commission and also

recommendations made by the Child Welfare League of America. As a matter of

fact, this was just in its beginning stages when they made the report and they

lauded this particular initiative, even though it wasn't fully initiated when

the report was made.

Mr. Speaker, another initiative was in the area of training.

We have initiated all types of training in the area of social services with

respect to our social workers and with respect to victims of crime. Another

movement, this will be the last one, was the computerization of our department

and, Mr. Speaker, this was a major move. Throughout the Hughes Commission and

the Child Welfare League of America, one of the great condemnations was the fact

that we didn't have a good system of collating, collecting and gathering

information. We have now computerized the department, which again is going to

give us the leading edge with respect to collating and gathering information.

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

Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Child Welfare League Report describes a system in crisis.

Child welfare workers are trying to cope as best they can but they are

overwhelmed by the problems of rising poverty, larger numbers of single-parent

families, massive increases in child protection referrals and an inadequate

budget. I would like to ask the minister if he is doing anything to help out the

front lines. He needs at least 150 child welfare workers to bring down caseloads

so that workers can begin to deal with this problem. I would like to ask the

minister: Is he is considering hiring more child welfare workers so this problem

can be confronted in the area where the concern is greatest?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, too many times people try to match

the numbers of people with the numbers of social workers to make a kind of

relationship between the caseload and the numbers of workers we should have, and

very often, that doesn't work.

Mr. Speaker, for years and years, teachers tried to suggest

that all of the problems could be solved in education if we lowered the

student/teacher ratio. We know that is not always the case. You can't solve

problems by making a ratio numbers correlation to try to solve them.

Mr. Speaker, we know that there is a problem and we again

have done many things to try to help the front line people in the Department of

Social Services. One of the things we have done is to collapse the offices and

try to make our offices bigger, which again was a direct recommendation of the

Child Welfare League of America, so that working in bigger units, people could

have a kind of peer relationship that is so necessary when you are working in a

stressful job. They could discuss their problems with expects in the field, in

their own office, rather than being frustrated and coming to the office alone

with no one to talk to. So we have collapsed our offices and tried to make them

bigger units to have more professional people together working out of the one

office.

We have put in seventy-five social workers since 1990,

twenty-five in last spring's budget. Mr Speaker, we are doing everything we can

to assist the social workers, to ensure that we have the best social system that

we can afford, a social system that is adequate, efficient and in accordance

with the Province's fiscal ability.

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

for Bonavista South.

MR. FITZGERALD: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that it

is obvious the minister is not committing himself to hiring any extra child

welfare workers, I ask him: If he is not going to do that, would he make sure

that the people we have in place now deal with the problems and with the cases

they were hired to look after, instead of having them doing other housekeeping

duties in the Department of Social Services? Let the people do the work they

were trained to do.

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

MR. LUSH: Mr. Speaker, one of the things identified and

one of the strong points emphasized by the Child Welfare League of America's

report was the fact that we had competent people - that we had a strong

workforce, that we had good competent, well-qualified people, and I can assure

the hon. member that we are working together with these competent people in an

attempt to get the best productivity and in an attempt to get the best

performance that we can from all our workers. We are making the best

arrangements we can to make their working conditions as good as we can make

them. I just returned from visiting offices throughout the Province. I haven't

visited all of them yet but it is continuing. I have probably done about half of

them, Mr. Speaker, and I am absolutely delighted with what I see, delighted with

the commitment that we get from these workers, and delighted with the kind of

co-operation we are getting from them. I can assure the hon. member that we are

going to do everything we can so that we can ensure that the working conditions

are such that we are getting the best performance from our people, that they are

using the skills for which they are trained, and we are going to leave no stone

unturned to make sure that the working conditions are proper for these people to

work accordingly for our people.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I have a question for the Minister of Health. I am sure the

minister is aware of the great need for a chronic care facility in the

Clarenville area. The Nycum bed study in 1986 showed that ninety-two beds were

needed in that area. I ask the minister: Will he give a commitment to see that

the people of this area are given the opportunity to have the same type of

service that is available to people in other parts of this Province?

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

DR. KITCHEN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In the area of chronic care, we have in the Province a

sufficient number of nursing home beds. The problem is that some of the

institutions we have are not properly set up for the highest level of care and

what our priorities are now in that area is to convert those nursing homes,

which are now looking after relatively non-sick people, in some cases, or level

1's as they are called, into nursing homes which can accommodate higher level

care and once that is done there should be no real problem. Perhaps some people

would like to have a nursing home in every community in Newfoundland just as

other people would like to have a hospital in every community in Newfoundland

but we just can't handle it that way. Nursing homes have to be a certain size in

order to provide the appropriate care, but at the same time I realize there is a

problem in the Clarenville area and we will address it in due time.

MR. SPEAKER: Question Period has elapsed.

Orders of the Day

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

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Speaker, could we go into Committee

please?

On motion, that the House resolve itself into Committee of

the Whole, Mr. Speaker left the Chair.

Committee of the Whole

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

The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, my suggestion to the committee will be that we

should deal in order, with Orders 5 through 8 which are in the order given,

Bills 54, 52, 48 and 49; and may I advise Your Honour, that we will be moving

amendments to Bills 48 and 49. I suspect members on the other side may by moving

amendments to at least Bill 49, but let us start with 54 and 52 first, there are

no amendments on this side.

Motion, that the committee report having passed the following

bills without amendment, carried:

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Municipalities Act (No.2)."

(Bill No. 54).

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Election Act And The Elections

Act, 1991." (Bill No. 52).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 48.

"An Act To Amend The Electoral Boundaries Act." (Bill No.48).

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

MR. BAKER: Mr. Chairman, we are proposing and I am moving

an amendment to clause 1 of the bill, by adding after subsection 4 in clause 1,

an entirely new subsection 5, which would read: "For the purpose of subsection

(2)," which, Mr. Chairman, relates to the quotient, the number, the commission,

Mr. Chairman, the quotient for each proposed district, the total population by

the number of 45 and so on, to clarify that -

"For the purpose of subsection (2), the total population of

the province shall be considered not to include that portion of the total

population living within the area of the province comprising

the district proposed by the commission under subsection

15(4)."

Mr. Chairman, this is just to clarify our intent with regards

to Torngat Mountains. I would like to move that amendment.

MR. CHAIRMAN : We are voting on the amendment put forth by

the hon. the Minister of Finance.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 1 as amended, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 49 -

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

Minister of Justice, if I may, on the Electoral Boundaries Act.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Bill No. 48.

Order, please!

MR. TOBIN: As it relates to the situation I mentioned to

the minister yesterday evening in the House regarding the Burin Peninsula, in

terms of where you are bringing it down to 12,000-something, and now both

districts are in the area of 14,000. They won't fall within the 10 per cent

category, that is if you take the Fortune - Hermitage portion, all the Fortune

Bay area of the Burin Peninsula, and put it in with Burin - Placentia West

and/or Grand Bank and divide it by two. You will probably have somewhere in - if

it is your intent to put two districts on the Burin Peninsula for that area.

What category will that fall under in terms of being acceptable with a

population of around 14,000 to 15,000 in both districts?

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure that I can answer

that question. Let me try to do it this way, by saying first that the bill - it

is actually

section 3 which adds a new section, 15 - says to the Commission that

they establish the quotient and then they can go plus or minus ten for any

district in the Province.

If they want to get into the plus or minus 25 per cent level

they must either come within 15(3)(a), which in my understanding would not apply

to the Burin Peninsula, or 15(3)(b), which says they may go into the 25 per cent

its size or shape." That may or may not apply to the situation the hon.

gentleman raises, I just don't know. That is one point I would make.

The second I would make is to remind him and the House again

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: I thank my hon. friend, I've been catching

hot potatoes for a time, and I caught the pen that I just dropped. I would say

to my friend for Burin - Placentia West, and remind the House again, Mr.

Chairman, that the Commission's job is to recommend. They will recommend within

the guidelines. They did it before, I have no doubt they will do again. The

guidelines are different. One assumes the recommendations will be different, but

that remains to be seen.

Once they make their recommendations then we will end up with

a situation where the government will have to bring forward a bill. What I am

saying to my friend is there is another stage where adjustments can be made if

they should properly be made. I have no hesitation in saying that the government

are not going to depart lightly from the Commission's recommendations. That in

fact would be gerrymandering. The whole idea of having an arm's length

commission as we do in this Province is that they make the recommendations and

the House should adopt them, in our view, in our judgement as a government,

unchanged, unless there is good reason to change.

There could be two good reasons to change. One would be if

the Commission makes a mistake. Not impossible. Perhaps unlikely, but not

impossible. Or secondly, the Commission itself may say: We have to do this

because of the rules, but if we were freer we would do it in another way and we

think you should look at it.

Let me give you an example on that, Mr. Chairman, give my

friend an example. I have looked at the Labrador one carefully.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. ROBERTS: Of course, because there is a lot of

controversy about it in Labrador.

Under these rules, the most that could be awarded to Labrador

would be three-and-a-half seats. Torngat, a Western Labrador seat, a Lake

Melville seat, and then a seat with the Coast of Labrador, by which I mean the

border, L'Anse-au-Clair to Cartwright and Sandwich Bay, the communities of

Cartwright and Paradise. That seat would not have enough people in it to be a

seat, so it has to be lumped in with a seat on the Island. Now I have very

strong views myself about that, having once represented a seat that included

some people from Labrador and some people from the Island, but the rules, as

drawn, would not permit that.

Now the commission will then have, as I see it, three choices

with respect to Labrador. One is to recommend three seats. It is technically

possible, within these rules, to divide Labrador into only three seats -

Torngat, a seat that would split Happy Valley - Goose Bay, sort of, and west, a

seat that would be the other half of Happy Valley - Goose Bay and the rest of

Labrador. That is one choice.

A second would be three-and-a-half seats. A third would be to

say: Here is what we recommend but, in our view, there should be four seats or

there should be three seats. In that case the government would then have to deal

with that.

I guess all I can say to my hon. friend is that I do not know

the situation on the Burin Peninsula. I have not worked it out as I did in

Labrador, but I did do the numbers in Labrador. Anybody can work them out. There

is no secret about it.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) gerrymandering.

MR. ROBERTS: My friend from Ferryland should not let his

desire to try to make cheap, partisan shots overrule logic or reason. This is

not gerrymandering. It is not even Joeymandering; it is not even Frankmandering.

Now my friend from Burin - Placentia West had a question.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible), to the extreme boundaries of both

districts, and you were to put it in two seats, would be in the area of in

excess or, I would say, somewhere between 14,500 to 15,000 in either Grand Bank

or Burin - Placentia West.

MR. ROBERTS: And that is above the 10 per cent level is

it?

MR. TOBIN: That would be above the 10 per cent level.

MR. ROBERTS: Then the commission would have a choice,

given the hypothesis stated by my friend from Burin - Placentia West. It would

either have to recommend two seats with an area - or it would have to say if, in

its judgement,

section 15(3) applied.

That is a matter for the commission to make judgement, where

we are suggesting they be given some leeway. Notwithstanding one and two, which

are the `one person one vote' and the `10 per cent' rules, the commission may

recommend the creation of a district with a population that goes as much as 25

per cent more or less if they conclude that the departure is warranted by

special geographic considerations.

Now we have not done all this stuff about trying to speculate

a population growth and all of that stuff, but special geographic considerations

including, and the one that would apply, as I mentioned earlier, the

conferred upon the commission there. How they would choose to exercise it is for

them to say.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: My friend from Grand Bank says he thinks

that will... He may be right; I do not know.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: (Inaudible) separated by the bay. Do you

know what I am saying?

MR. ROBERTS: I will say that I had members of the

commission say to me, in conversation - I think they said it in Clarenville, if

I recollect correctly, because that is actually the only conversation I have had

with any of them at any length other than to say hello - that the Fortune Bay -

and Grand Le Pierre, is it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: - in with the Fortune Bay seat. Even though

they are on the Burin Peninsula, that was not a right thing to do because to get

from one side to the other you had to go from Harbour Breton up to Bishop's, and

then along the Trans-Canada. That is a reflection of the reality that today in

Newfoundland we move by road, not by coastal boat, primarily. There are

exceptions, of course, but all I can say is that we have tried to give the

commission some leeway.

Let me again tell the committee, Mr. Chairman, a point which

I think bears repetition, that we have deliberately, the Speaker deliberately,

in my view rightly, put on the commission people who have political experience.

Now I make no apology for that. I think that is something we should welcome.

They represent all shades of political view, but these are people with some real

knowledge of what it is to represent a seat and to try to service a group of men

or women who are one's constituents.

I think that is an improvement over what we have done in the

past where the people on the commission were people with no direct knowledge of

what it was to serve in the House. There are three members of that commission

who have served in this House, Mr. Speaker, and a couple who tried.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) question.

MR. ROBERTS: Yes, of course.

MR. TOBIN: I recognize what the minister said about the

three members on it, who are members who have served in this House. I have

nothing but the highest regard and respect for all of the three members who are

on it, but I can say to the minister that none of them really represented a

rural Newfoundland constituency. Mr. Baird represented Corner Brook, and Mr.

John Nolan, I believe, a St. John's seat.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) ran.

MR. TOBIN: Yes, he ran. He didn't get elected until 1971

- the 1971 election.

What I am saying to the minister is that it is my

understanding, particularly from discussions with my friend for Fortune -

Hermitage, that two seats were being proposed for the Burin Peninsula, because

geographically, it was basically impossible to represent the Fortune Bay area

and the Connaigre Peninsula in one district. It was very difficult in terms of

being able to communicate. It is not like the minister said, back in the days

when coastal boat dictated the mode of transportation. It doesn't happen any

more.

Before this amendment was brought to the House, to change the

minimum requirements from the 25 per cent, it was no trouble for the commission

to recommend the two seats for the Burin Peninsula, but, under this present

amendment, unless something is changed and they can find some reason, then it is

going to be difficult to get away with two seats on the Burin Peninsula again. I

think we will probably be back with Fortune - Hermitage being probably half of a

seat. So I think we should really look at addressing that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Minister of Justice.

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend may be correct

but all I can say again, is to make two comments, one of which is different, the

other which isn't. The one that is the same is to say to him again, that all the

commission can do is work within parameters and then do their best to suit that.

If they conclude that the parameters we have given them don't allow an

appropriate distribution, and I have no doubt they will say so in their report,

there will be an opportunity to address that in the legislation which will

follow this. The report is only stage one of a two-stage process.

Secondly, let me say to my friend again that one of the

effects of raising the entry point into the system - it is like a jigsaw puzzle,

you have to start somewhere. The commission chose to start at forty. This bill,

in our judgement, will ask them to start at forty-six. In each instance, they

still have the leeway to go anywhere between forty and forty-six, it is where

you enter. And, in our understanding and our judgement, asking the commission to

start at forty-six will address some of these issues, because, by creating more

seats throughout the Province it will give them a little more leeway on where

they draw the boundaries. I mean, if you have five seats, you have a lot less

flexibility than if you have twenty-five. Now, all I can say is we will have to

wait and see. The hon. member will have an opportunity, I have no doubt, to make

representations to the commission, again. I assume he will do so - I would urge

him to do so. My guess is that they heard him before with understanding and

interest and no doubt they will do it again. I have no idea what they will

recommend but I will see the report possibly before members do, because it will

be delivered to me, but members will see it very shortly after it gets to me. We

will all see the initial report simultaneously. It will be made public, I

assume, the way they did before. So all I can say is, there is no way we can

address every situation now.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, their final report will have to be

done by July. I assume there will be an interim report in January or February. I

understand, from informal conversations, that the work they have done will all

be put to good use. They will now - they have been over the map, they know the

numbers. Now, they just have to sit down and agree among themselves where they

do the lines with these new boundaries, that will be made public, then I assume

there will be some hearings, and then the final report will come in. That will

be in by July and then, in due course, I presume, the legislation will come here

to the House. That is really all I can say. We can't address every issue because

for every - because we live in the Province.

MR. TOBIN: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: And that's fair enough. We have tried to put

into place a mechanism that allows a proper examination on proper standards and

we will see what comes of it. We did not like the results of the first one, for

the reasons which I have given, simply because we thought the 25 per cent

variation was to broad and we stand by that.

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

MR. SULLIVAN: Ferryland.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ferryland.

MR. SULLIVAN: Probably after the redistribution it might

be St. Mary's - The Capes, who knows.

I want to ask a question, but I want to make a point first of

all. The minister said that the entry system we are entering now at forty-six,

that option was there with the original bill. That commission had the right to

enter at forty-six or at forty, they chose to go forty, and we did not need this

bill to have an entry at forty-six. I want to make that point clear. The

impression the minister conveyed - the impression I got from what he stated was

different.

The question I want to ask: it is my

interpretation, and I

want to know if it is the intent of the bill, that geographical considerations

in 15(3)(b) - most people are looking at it as being a disadvantage of

geography. You can also look at it as an ease or an advantage of geography and

interpret that also to mean that urban areas may be increased by 25 per cent. It

size and shape and because it is clustered together, and if the commission so

sees that the Burin Peninsula, by dividing it into just two, would not hinder or

affect the geography, and a lot of people are close together, they can use that

option to increase it by 25 per cent instead of going on the average now, I

think - originally, it was 12,212, I believe. The quotient now is more like - I

think I made a note here - roughly 12,548. It was 14,212, I believe, and now it

is around 12,548 if you take minus the one, forty-five, divided by the

population of the Province, minus Torngat Mountains population.

Therefore, we can now increase that by 25 per cent on 12,548

and we can go right up to between 15,000 and 16,000, we still can put into the

city, or we still can put in on the Burin Peninsula. The impression we are

getting here of: We are only going to interpret that geography in a negative

sense, we can also interpret it ease of geography in a positive sense. Is that

the intent of this? There is nothing to indicate otherwise that I see in the

legislation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Government House Leader.

MR. ROBERTS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say to my

friend for Ferryland that first, with respect to the impression he may have

taken, I cannot argue with him. I accept that he took an impression from my

remarks. What I will say is I tried to be very clear that the commission acted

clearly within their parameters in doing the initial report. They could have

come in at forty or at forty-six, or wherever. They chose to start at forty.

That is their choice. They had every right to make it.

We take a different view. We think they should start at

forty-six, so the appropriate thing to do is to amend the legislation. If that

is the House's wish, I have no doubt the commission will be guided by that. I

think, in that sense, the legislation last December was perhaps not as well

drawn as it should have been. We made no secret of that. I think I said it in my

remarks out in Clarenville. We draw the legislation, the House passes it. If we

get it wrong, let's acknowledge it and correct it.

His other point, I can't speak to that. The intent is in the

words, and the words are neutral. The words say that if the commission conclude

- and I'm reading 15(3) and going into (b) - that a departure from the 10 per

cent rule to the 25 per cent rule is "...warranted by special geographic

shape," then they may go to the 25 per cent rule.

I can only stress to my friend that if he wants to make this

argument, which is an ingenious one, I hadn't thought of it, but if he wants to

make it, he should put it to the commission and see what they do. What I will

say for the government is that when we get their report we will see what they

say, that is when we will know, and we will then make whatever response appears

to be the appropriate one in the circumstances. The whole point of having a

commission is to be guided and to have the benefit of their expertise and

knowledge, having thought it through, having brought their own knowledge and

experience and wisdom to it, and having heard from people who make

representations.

My hon. friend's argument is an ingenious one. Were I a

lawyer I would say - you know, this is the sort of thing that lawyers either get

paid a very great deal for, or very little for, but it really is ingenious. I

can only say to him, put it to the commission and we will see what comes of it.

Motion that the committee report having passed the bill with

amendment, carried. (Bill No. 48)

A bill, "An Act To Amend The Labour Relations Act." (Bill No.

49)

Government's proposed amendments are as follows:

1.(1): Clause 1 of the bill is amended by striking out in the

proposed subsection 47(4) the figure "10" and substituting the figure "5".

(2): Clause 1 is further amended by deleting the proposed

subsection 47(5) and substituting the following:

"

(5) Notwithstanding subsection (4), where a vote is taken in

exceptional circumstances as determined by the board, the board may extend the

time for the taking of the vote by the number of days which it considers

appropriate."

(3): Clause 1 is further amended by deleting the proposed

subsection 47(8) and substituting the following:

"

(8) The board is bound by the outcome of a vote taken under

this

section except where the board determines that the procedure under this

section has been influenced by intimidation, threat of dismissal or other kind

of threat or coercion."

(4): Clause 1 is further amended by adding immediately after

the proposed subsection (8) the following:

"

(9) With respect to an application for certification as a

bargaining agent, the board shall adhere to the date of the application as the

operative date for determining support on the basis of membership records."

2.(1): Clause 3 of the bill is amended by striking out in the

proposed subsection 51.1(3) the figure "10" and substituting the figure "5".

(2): Clause 3 is further amended by deleting the proposed

subsection 51.1(4) and substituting the following:

"

(4) Notwithstanding subsection (3), where a vote is taken in

exceptional circumstances as determined by the board, the board may extend the

time for the taking of the vote by the number of days which it considers

appropriate."

(3): Clause 3 is further amended by deleting the proposed

subsection 51.1(7) and substituting the following:

"

(7) The board is bound by the outcome of a vote taken under

this

section except where the board determines that the procedure under this

section has been influenced by intimidation, threat of dismissal or other kind

of threat or coercion."

3. The bill is amended by adding immediately after clause 4

the following:

Commencement "5". This Act comes into force on a day to be

proclaimed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council."

MR. ROBERTS: Mr. Chairman, before we go into this debate

- it is now 10:30 a.m. and I have two questions I want to put to the committee

to make sure we have an understanding.

The government are prepared to allow whatever time the House

wishes to debate this matter at committee and at third reading. We are going to

deal with it but we are not trying to forestall debate. I know that members

opposite have some amendments and there are some which we, on this side, will

propose. I'm not sure where the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations is

but maybe somebody will ask him to rejoin us. We have some amendments which I

believe have been provided to members opposite and we will deal with those in a

second.

There are two points. The first is, I have not moved a motion

to suspend the twelve o'clock adjournment provided by Standing Orders. Now, we

are in committee. I cannot make such a motion in committee, so what I will say

is this: if hon. members are prepared to give unanimous consent to suspend the

twelve o'clock rule, fine, if not we will rise the committee, I will make the

motion in the House and then we will come back into committee; now, whichever we

wish, but I don't want to be caught short on a technicality, is what I am

saying; so, if I can have unanimous consent, fine, if not, I will rise the

committee and we will make the motion. My friend from St. John's East gives

consent; my friend from Grand Bank does, and nobody on this side has thrown a

rock at me, so, I take it the Chair will acknowledge we are under unanimous

consent to dispense with the twelve o'clock adjournment.

Secondly, I want to say to my friends, that we sent word to

His Honour, of course, that we would hope he could come to give assent to the

bills today. We will have to give some notice to His Honour - he is not just

standing there at Government House, with the car warmed up ready to come over

here. I will be grateful if the Opposition House Leader and the Leader of the

New Democratic Party, my friend for St. John's East, would at some point, let me

know how long they intend to speak to this. It might be I will have to give His

Honour some notice and I know that they share my wish that we show the Crown's

representative the courtesy that is due to him and that they would do what they

can to accommodate me and with that said, Mr. Chairman, I think you have called

Bill 49?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes.

MR. ROBERTS: Let me make a point then, Mr. Chairman, at

the start. There are a number of amendments which we wish to move and the Clerks

at the Table, the Law Clerks, have prepared these amendments; they have been

provided to members opposite. I will move them, if I may - I want to be sure I

have the attention of the committee, there is a caucus between the two groups on

the other side. My suggestion is that I simply move the amendments now and that

as each clause is called, Your Honour, could put out the amendment and I will

look to my friend, the minister, to speak to them in detail. I am moving them

simply, of course, because a minister, as we all know, cannot amend his or her

own bill. So, with that said, I will move each of these amendments and as we

come - I haven't seen amendments that hon. members opposite wish to move.

MR. GRIMES: (Inaudible).

MR. ROBERTS: Well, alright, my friend, the Minister of

Labour has it - as each clause comes, my suggestion would be that we deal first

with the Opposition amendment, which may or may not be accepted, we will see,

depending on what they say, and then we will deal with the government amendment,

if that is in order, Mr. Chairman. I predict the government amendment will be

accepted, so the issue, then, will be whether the Opposition amendments are

accepted or not. If that is agreeable, I suggest the committee proceed on those

terms.

MR. CHAIRMAN: So what you are suggesting is that we take

the amendments by the Opposition first -

MR. ROBERTS: Dispense with them first.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, is that agreed?

MR. ROBERTS: Okay, and then we will deal with the

government's. If it is in order, that would be my suggestion to the committee,

Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 1. The hon. the Member for St.

John's East.

MR. HARRIS: Mr. Chairman, I think the procedure that the

Government House Leader proposes is acceptable. The debate we are conducting now

will be the general debate and as we come to amendments on particular clauses

and votes on them or discussions of them, we can deal with them in the order

suggested, that if there are any Opposition amendments, then we could deal with

them first and then the government's amendment. But, first of all, before we get

into the specifics of any proposed amendments, I would like to make a few

remarks about the bill and the procedure itself.

We did have a short debate last night on the amendments.

There were a lot of suggestions that we should take another five or six months

to consider the problems and there was some suggestion that even a motion to

that effect might have been made, but that didn't happen. The text was provided

to the member who was speaking, he almost got there, but the Leader of the

Opposition decided that the

debate was long enough, and they were afraid that I would get

another chance to speak for half-an-hour or so. I could only speak for ten

minutes at a time this morning but there may be a number of times; there may be

a number of times and there may be leave; maybe I will leave all hon. members to

deal with this.

But, seriously, I want to say that this legislation has come

on this House rather quickly and the speed with which it has been done is really

underlined by the number of amendments that the government itself has proposed.

I think there are eight amendments in the document tabled by the government.

That is usually a clear indication that either not enough thought has gone into

it, or that there hasn't been enough time to refine and clarify and consider

what they are really doing.

To me, Chairman of the Committee, that is evidence that the

government is moving with undue haste on this, that they are responding to one

point of view that exists in our community and are not listening to all sides

when they are making up their policy decisions. They have now committed

themselves to going with some sort of vote and they are trying to figure out, at

the last minute, amendments that can make some people be more willing to live

with it, they having decided to go with a vote.

The concerns that were expressed by people testifying to the

committee, by the presenters to the Legislation Review Committee, were serious

ones. I say also there were not enough presentations. Organizations such as the

Federation of Labour said that they were contacted at a very late date and asked

if they wanted to make representations, but it was a time when they were tied up

with the occupational health and safety conference and other meetings that would

preclude them from making representations. They asked that more time be given.

Other organizations were dissatisfied with the amount of time that was given.

Anybody outside of St. John's didn't really have any chance to participate in

the hearings on this legislation.

We have a strong interest in labour matters in very many

parts of this Province and people have a contribution to make, whether it be out

in Corner Brook or Curling, or Labrador -

MR. MURPHY: It is not going to be enacted until the

spring.

MR. HARRIS: The Member for St. John's South says it is

not going to be enacted until the spring. Well, that is so, why are we putting

it in place now? Why don't we wait until the spring? Why don't we put it off for

six months and let other people have some say in it? Let's find out a little bit

more.

AN HON. MEMBER: You know why it is being done.

MR. HARRIS: I know why it is being done. It is being done

as a Christmas present for Bill Barry. It is going to be under Bill Barry's

Christmas tree. They want the Lieutenant-Governor to come in here this afternoon

and give Royal assent to this bill and have it presented to - the Premier is

probably going to take it out to Corner Brook with him over the holidays and

give it to Bill Barry in a frame to put under his Christmas tree. That is what

this is all about. That is why the haste is here.

As the member says, it is not going to be put into effect

until the spring. It is not going to be proclaimed for some time. It is not

necessary to have it in the first place. Nevertheless, we are going here with

this undue haste to pass a piece of legislation which has enormous implications.

Because it changes the ground rules under which union organizing and

certifications take place.

It is one thing to stand here in this House, Mr. Chairman,

and talk in a theoretical way, in an abstract way, about what the rules should

be and how there should be rules for one the same as the other, and this and

that. The reality of what happens in an organizing situation, the reality of

what happens in employment situations around this Province, is very different

from the abstract realities that we might talk about here when it comes to the

livelihood of a person who is living a precarious existence at best.

All the debates, for example, about the fish plant in

Curling, Barry's Limited. Do hon. members realize how much money the people who

work at Barry's actually earn from employment in the run of a year? How much? I

see the Minister of Employment and Labour Relations nodding his head. He

probably knows. About $3,000. About $3,000 - that is all they make.

The difference between whether they are unionized or not is

really all about one thing. It is not about going from $3,000 to $6,000, because

that is not going to happen. The difference is, whether you are on social

assistance for the winter, if you have a job and get your ten weeks, or whether

you get unemployment insurance. You don't get unemployment insurance if you

don't get your job, if you don't use the seniority list, if you aren't called in

when you are supposed to be, and to have a union means that there is some order

imposed on this situation that is agreed upon. It is not at the whim of the

plant manager, it is not at the whim of the forelady or the foreman calling in

people, there is some respect for the people who have worked at that plant for

twenty, thirty, or thirty-five years. That is what unionization means to the

fish plant workers at Barry's. It doesn't mean going from $3,000, their income

from employment from that business, to $10,000, $12,000, $15,000, or $30,000.

All it means is a certain amount of dignity and knowledge as to what rules apply

to you as to when you are going to be called in for work. That is the level of

reality that people in this Province are forced to live under because of the

economy and because of the circumstances of availability of employment and jobs

for people in that area of the Province.

Mr. Speaker, it is the outrageous situation of one person

wanting to maintain that kind of control and ultimate authority over people's

lives that has brought about this particular legislation and has forced this

government to put legislation in place that would allow him and others like him

to continue to dominate and control the lives of others and keep them down under

the thumb, keep them on the outside looking in, keep them insecure, dependent

upon the favour of the master.

We talked in debate yesterday about the laws of master and

servant. Well, Mr. Speaker, that is the situation that some employers in this

Province would like to go back to. If they could change the names of master and

servant, they might want to do that, too, but they still want to have the same

kind of control, power, and authority over people's lives that employers had in

the last century and in the century before that. Unfortunately, in some places

in this Province they still have that, and the only way to break that and bring

some democracy to many work places is to have legally recognized rights of

workers and employees to bargain collectively and to say a collective, no, to an

employer when he wants to act in an arbitrary fashion and dictate the rules of

the game, change them from day to day, and have employees curry favour with him

in order to get a job or to get recall to work and anything to do with

employment.

So that is what this legislation is really all about. It is

not about some theoretical abstract notions of, well, if the union did this and

if the employer did that, this is really about the reality on the ground in this

Province, that some employers operate in such a fashion that the only protection

that employees can get is if they, together, collectively, seek to bargain for

their rights, to bargain a contract of employment, to have rules that apply to

everyone, to have a means of satisfying grievances, a means to resolve

grievances if they disagree with an employer without having to go cap-in-hand to

the employer's office asking, please, can they have a bit of work to be able to

feed their families. That is the situation that labour unions and trade unions

have tried to change over the years, and the rules need to be there to help them

do it. Under the guise of democracy, the government has proposed legislation

which will make it more difficult, more costly. There are going to be more

lawyers involved and I know members on the other side of the House don't like

lawyers, and I don't like lawyers, lots of times - there are lots of lawyers I

don't like, but I say this, when you make the rules complicated and you give

opportunities for people to fight over issues of certification without the

guidance of the Labour Relations Board, you get lawyers involved and you get

cost involved and it becomes far more difficult for employees to be able to

negotiate and to be able to meet the challenge of these rules and to get

themselves certified and in a legal bargaining position.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

The hon. member's time has elapsed.

MR. HARRIS: If there are no other speakers, I will

continue.

AN HON. MEMBER: There has to be an intervening speaker.

MR. HARRIS: There being no other speakers, I will

continue another round.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. HARRIS: Is there a point of order somewhere?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you ruling?

AN HON. MEMBER: He can't go on forever.

MR. HARRIS: (Inaudible) make a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There has to be intervening speakers.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Mr. Speaker, just to that -

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Opposition House Leader, on a

point of order.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would just like clarification: what are we saying - that

the Member for St. John's East can't speak on a clause without an intervening

speaker? I think we should clarify that now so that at least we know.

My understanding is that the member can speak on each clause

for ten minutes, but he can't speak on the same clause twice without an

intervening speaker. Is that what you are saying?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Right.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Are you going to rule on that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, there has to be an intervening

speaker.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Okay, well, you rule and then I will get

up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair has already ruled on that. The

hon. member can't sit down and get back up again. There has to be somebody speak

in between.

The hon. the Opposition House Leader.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Really what happened was that our critic, the Member for

Kilbride, intended to speak, and asked for a couple of minutes to just go

outside the House and come back. I thought that the hon. Member for St. John's

East had a bit more time, so I said, `Go on and come back and everything should

be alright.'

MR. ROBERTS: By the time you spoke, he could speak again.

MR. W. MATTHEWS: Yes. So then he will come back and say

what he wants to say, which I don't think is a lot.

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

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: What is the purpose of this? The Minister of

Municipal and Provincial Affairs asked what the purpose of this is. The purpose

of this is to help hon. members understand that we are not talking about some

kind of abstract rights. We are talking about real people who need to have the

benefits of unionization in order to protect themselves from employers who want

to run their lives and take advantage of them without the possibility of their

having unionization, and the more complicated you make the rules, and the more

opportunity there is for dispute about them, the more lawyers are involved, and

when lawyers are involved, it costs money.

Hon. members may think that unions, as a group, have lots of

money, but the reality is that they don't. If individual workers, three or four

workers at a plant or a place of employment, want to be unionized, where do they

get the money to hire lawyers? They don't unless they are a part of some big

organization that may be able to have money.

If hon. members think there is some kind of unending pot

amongst unions for organizing and organizing drives, they are sadly mistaken,

because that is a real consideration in helping to organize the unorganized -

the cost of doing that.

Maybe hon. members opposite know nothing about unions, know

nothing about the rights of workers and the protection of workers, and they

don't know how decision-making is made in locals.

AN HON. MEMBER: You do?

MR. HARRIS: I do. Yes, as a matter of fact, I do. I have

been a member of a number of different unions, including the Labourers' Union. I

have been a member of ACTRA. I have been a member of the Canadian Wire Service

Guild, a member of the Law Society, a very powerful union - that is four. I have

practised labour law for many years in this Province and I know how decisions

are made in the democratic unions. I know that considerations of costs are

important in determining how far a union can go in supporting the rights of

workers.

MR. MURPHY: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Now, the Member for St. John's South doesn't

know, or he doesn't care - one or the other. He either doesn't know or he

doesn't care, so what I am saying -

MR. MURPHY: When you were playing hopscotch on Parade

Street, I was negotiating for the Labourers' Union three times.

MR. HARRIS: Well, there you go. The man was negotiating

for the Labourers' Union, was he? Well, I was a member of the Labourers' Union,

too, so I know how it all works, you see. I know that decisions are made, and

when you have employers prepared to pay major dollars to fight off a union

organizing drive, that the union or the employees themselves, who want to be

unionized, who want to protect themselves from an employer, and have some

control over the workplace and develop a sense of workplace democracy, that is

difficult and costs money.

So we should make sure, if we are making rules about this,

that the rules are straightforward, that they are easy to operate, that they are

not subject to all kinds of manoeuvrings that go on; and I do know this part,

perhaps more than any other member in this House, how complex an employer's

lawyer can make what, on the surface, is a very simple application before the

Labour Relations Board.

I sat and represented an organization in the longest

certification application before the Labour Relations Board. It lasted two

years. The Labour Relations Board sat for thirty-five different days over the

course of those two years to try to get one bargaining unit at Memorial

University certified. Every single word, practically, of the Labour Relations

Act was debated, challenged. Every aspect of the certification was challenged by

the lawyers on behalf of the University.

The University is not an 19th- or 18th-century employer, it

is not somebody out there trying to bash people over the head and force them to

work under the most awful conditions on the face of the earth. A university is

considered to be progressive, considered to be liberal-minded, considered to be

open to the rights of individuals, academic freedom and all of these other

wonderful notions that you hear about universities. But the University opposed

the certification and spent two years paying their lawyers to find every little

jot and tittle and nook and cranny of the Labour Relations Act that might

prevent the professors at Memorial University from becoming certified.

MR. MURPHY: Who prevailed, `Jack'?

MR. HARRIS: They didn't succeed. I represented the other

side so I know what goes on. So I say to the Member for St, John's South, I do

know that if an employer wants to pay a lawyer enough to find loopholes and

nooks and crannies and everything else in the Labour Relations Act, they will do

it. If the individuals want to be certified, they have to match that tit for

tat.

So, what I'm saying - I am just telling the hon. the Member

for St. John's South that when you make rules you don't want to make things

worse so that lawyers for employers - because they are the ones who do this.

They are ones who do it because they are the ones who want to avoid the impact

of the law and find ways of doing it. They will use everything they can to

delay, to prevent, to turn down, to make difficult, applications for

certification. By putting in this representation vote, the experience in Nova

Scotia is that it is a lawyer's field day. Because instead of having an

application go through the Labour Relations Board in a matter of thirty to sixty

days, which is the case now, and maybe in some cases -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Thirty to sixty days, I would say to the

minister, that is the average time for an uncontested application. You are going

to have applications here that will take, with the experience of Nova Scotia,

eight or nine months - lots of chances for lawyers to get in and muddy the

waters, argue about everything under the sun, delay the vote from being counted

even, having everybody, the boss, all hands involved in the application, vote

and get involved.

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible) happen (inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: No, I hope it doesn't happen. Maybe Joe Noel

and the Labour Relations Board over here will find a way to look at this act and

say: Well, we don't have to do that. We can do what we have been doing before,

to some extent. Maybe they will. I hope they do. I hope they take a good

practical approach to it.

MR. MURPHY: You're crossing bridges and you're not doing

anything about it.

MR. HARRIS: Well, we are building bridges that we don't

need, because we have a perfectly workable system right now. The discretion that

the Labour Relations Board has, it should keep. It has not shown itself to be

exercising this in a manner inconsistent with the act. It has not been shown to

be exercising in a manner inconsistent with the labour relations practice across

this country. There is no problem to solve except Bill Barry's problem, and that

is what this bill is all about. I keep repeating that because that must be said

to underline what we are doing here. We have a piece of legislation that is

absolutely unnecessary.

I am going to propose an amendment to clause 1. I might as

well do it now, Mr. Chairman, and then speak to it. I wish to propose an

amendment to clause 1, that clause 1 of the bill be amended by striking out in

the proposed subsection 47(8) all the words after the word, `except' and

substituting the words, `where the board is satisfied that the true wishes of

the employees in a unit are not likely to be ascertained because the employer,

employer's organization or a person acting on behalf of either, has contravened

this act, the board may certify the trade union without reference to a vote

under this section.' I believe the Table has a copy of the amendment, as do the

Minister of Employment and Labour Relations and the critic for the Official

Opposition. I don't know if the Government House Leader has seen it.

That amendment, Mr. Speaker, is done because the government

has made it very plain that it is committed to putting into place an automatic

vote, or a mandatory vote as it is called, in every single certification

application. The evils that are caused by that have been well documented in the

United States of America. It is estimated, Mr. Speaker - and the Member for St.

John's South may be interested in this figure - that in the United States of

America, when employers want to interfere with a trade union organizing drive

and start committing unfair labour practices, firing people and doing that sort

of stuff, the unions lose 90 per cent of the votes. Ninety per cent of the votes

are lost by the unions when employers decide that they want to take the advice

of labour consultants. And we have a few of them around this Province, and the

Member for St. John's South knows who they are. If they start taking the advice

of labour consultants as to how to beat the union - they can't do it legally but

they advise them to break the law because the cost of breaking the law is

nothing, really nothing, comparatively speaking. In the United States if the

employers get involved in that way the unions lose 90 per cent of the votes.

That has been the experience in the United States of America.

So it is very important, if you are going to have a mandatory vote, that there

must be a very strong disincentive for an employer to try to contravene the act.

So this amendment will make sure that there is an automatic certification where

there is an unfair labour practice that causes the true wishes of the employees

to be unlikely to be ascertained because the employers violated the act.

That provision, Mr. Speaker, would allow the Labour Relations

Board to exercise its judgement and discretion in a way consistent with the

other legislation across the country and may be able to prevent the kinds of

practices that have happened in the United States and in Nova Scotia, it may be

able to do that. The vote that is going to be required - if you want to have a

level playing field, if you want to ascertain the true wishes of employees,

well, make sure the employer keeps his nose clean, that the employer doesn't

violate the act and the employees have gotten a majority of cards signed up -

the employer doesn't violate the act to get your vote and that determines the

true wishes.

If, on the other hand, the employer starts trying to change

the minds of the individuals who have already signed cards - we are talking here

about a majority of people who have signed cards - and an employer is not

satisfied with that, he wants to have five days to have a crack at it, if he

violates the act there should be automatic certification, because if you look at

the act, this

section only deals with votes. There is already another

section

which gives the board the power to satisfy themselves on the basis of membership

records that if they have a majority they can be certified. So they would

obviously have to have that majority or they wouldn't be certified. But the

board has been given the power to certify here, without any reference to a vote,

if the employer commits unfair labour practices. I say to the Minister of

Employment and Labour Relations, that should be a quid pro quo to a mandatory

vote. If you are going to have a mandatory vote, there must be a method to

prevent an employer from taking advantage of breaking the act. That is what it

boils down to. Employers should not be able to take advantage of breaking the

Labour Relations Act and getting a slap on the wrist eight or nine months later.

I think the board has the power to give a cease and desist order. Now, maybe the

minister can elaborate on that for us when he gets up. Does he really think that

a cease and desist order eight months later for something that happened during

an organizing drive, or during the preparation for a vote, is an adequate

remedy? I think the answer is clearly, no, but that is all the board can do.

Suppose the employer threatens to close down his fish plant -as Bill Barry says,

`If I don't get an 85 per cent vote rejecting the union, this fish plant will

never open again.' That is what he said. Now, is that unfair labour practice? I

say, yes. It is contrary to

section 26 of the act. What can the board do? The

board can only do one thing, issue a cease and desist order, and that is a bit

too late in the day to try to solve the problems that are created by that kind

of statement by an employer. It can't be done. It just can not be done. Now,

there are other powers in the act. The minister can authorize a prosecution and

they get another slap on the wrist, a fine of $500, or $50.00, or whatever, and

that is about all.

So, if you are going to have a mandatory vote, then there has

to be a quid pro quo that if the employer violates the act, the board `may' -

not `must', not `shall' - the board may, certify the trade union without

reference to a vote under this section. I think that is the least the government

can do in order to protect the rights of individual workers. There is no magic

about a vote, there is no magic about a secret ballot. An employee goes into a

booth and marks his ballot, if that person is acting on the basis of a threat,

an influence, or a statement by an employer that you might not even think is

intimidation, then the fact that it is secret, as opposed to being public,

doesn't mean anything.

MR. REID: (Inaudible) the unions (inaudible) workers.

MR. HARRIS: I hear the Minister of Municipal and

Provincial Affairs talk about the unions intimidating the members. What about

the unions intimidating members? Well, I would like to ask the member if he can

tell me why there has never ever, been a finding against a union, or any

individual, under

Section 28 of the Labour Relations Act? Not once has there

ever been a finding, but there have been very many findings of unfair labour

practices against employers. I ask hon. members to tell us why. We asked for

examples from employers who came before us and they didn't have any. There were

allegations made in the Barry situation that that happened, but no evidence was

ever brought when they were given an opportunity to do so.

So, I say to hon. members that there must be this kind of

protection in order to make the rules fair and to send out a clear message to

employers and to labour consultants, and anybody else who wants to try to use

violations of this act to keep employees from having their rights to be

organized, to be members of unions, and to participate in their lawful

activities - have them trampled on. That is what this bill must do and this

amendment would clearly provide an opportunity to employees to be able to be

protected from this kind of activity.

Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, at this particular speech on

this amendment, I ask hon. members to consider this amendment seriously. It is a

good amendment. It is in keeping with the Labour Relations Acts of various other

provinces, I say to hon. members.

The Labour Relations Act of Ontario has a provision of

similar kind. The Labour Relations Act of Saskatchewan,

section 9 of the act,

reads as follows: `The board may reject or dismiss any application made' - that

is for revocation certification - `where it is satisfied that the application is

made on the advice of, or a result of, the influence or interference or

intimidation by the employer or employer's agent.'

The Manitoba Labour Relations Board says, that where there is

an application for certification, and the board is satisfied that the employer,

or any person acting on behalf of the employer, has committed an unfair labour

practice as a result of which the true wishes of the employees are not likely to

be ascertained -

AN HON. MEMBER: (Inaudible).

MR. HARRIS: Thank you, Chairperson.

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

MR. E. BYRNE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I support the amendment for one reason, as I outlined last

night.

Section 8, as amended, proposed by the minister, clearly states that the

board is bound by the outcome of a vote taken under this section, except where

the board determines that the procedure under this

section has been influenced

by intimidation, threat of dismissal, or other kind of threat of coercion.

I am not sure that amendment proposed is clear enough, is

declaratory enough. Does it really give weight to saying to the Labour Relations

Board that if there has been threat of dismissal, if there has been

intimidation, is it clear enough that the board can then automatically certify?

I am not so sure that

section 8 gives the board that power, gives the board that

discretion.

Again, I say, I support the amendment of the Member for St.

John's East, and with those comments I will conclude.

Thank you.

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

MR. HARRIS: While we are on this amendment, I wanted to

point out to hon. members that the Manitoba Labour Relations Act and the Ontario

Labour Relations Act have similar provisions - and the Nova Scotia Act, as a

matter of fact, has similar provisions - all of which make reference to a

situation where the true wishes of employees cannot be ascertained because of

unfair labour practices.

I think that would be the policy that a board would be

expected to follow in dealing with an automatic certification under the Labour

Relations Acts where there have been unfair labour practices.

I think it is a provision that has acted to keep down the

number of unfair labour practices, particularly during certification drives.

They are a common enough problem as it is, but this particular kind of

legislation provides a disincentive to interference with a certification drive

that has some teeth to it.

The Ontario Board, for example - the Ontario act, has a

provision which states, `If the board considers that the true wishes of an

employee, of an employer, or members of an employer's organization respecting

representation by a trade union, are not likely to be ascertained because the

employer's organization, or a person acting on behalf of either, has contravened

the act, the board may, on the application of the trade union, certify the trade

union as bargaining agent of the employees in the bargaining unit. That is

called the automatic certification in the face of unfair labour practices.

The Manitoba Labour Relations Act, in

section 41, has a

provision to similar effect where, if there is an unfair labour practice, as a

result of which the true wishes of employees are not likely to be ascertained,

the board may, notwithstanding certain other sections, certify the union as the

bargaining agent for the employees.

Saskatchewan has one similar, but it is more appropriate for

a revocation application, and my amendment to clause 3 covers that particular

aspect of the legislation. So I would ask, Chairperson, that members consider

this amendment and support it, as it will bring about a significant improvement

to the legislation as it is now before the House.

Thank you, Chairperson.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

We are voting on the amendment put forward by the hon. the

Member for St. John's East.

On motion, amendment defeated.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Clause 1, amendment put forward by the hon.

the Government House Leader. We are voting on the amendment.

On motion, amendment carried.

On motion, clause 1 as amended, carried.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. the Member for St. John's East, on

clause 3.

MR. HARRIS: My amendment proposes that clause 3 of the

bill is amended by inserting in the proposed subsection 51.1, sub (1), after the

words: `the board shall', the following words, `except where subsection 7

applies', and deleting the proposed subsection 51.1, sub (7) and substituting

the following: (7) `The board may reject or dismiss any application to revoke

the certificate of a bargaining agent where it is satisfied that the application

is made in whole or in part on the advice of, or as a result of, influence of,

or interference or intimidation by the employer or a person acting on behalf of

an employer.'

That amendment, if I speak to that, Chairperson, and clause 3

of the bill, deals with revocation of certification. Once again, there is no

known case of where employees have sought to revoke the bargaining rights of a

trade union, where there has not been a vote granted, unless there have been

unfair labour practices - no known case - but clearly, where an application for

revocation of certification or decertification application is brought for the

purposes of the employer, where the employer has suggested it, where the

employer has asked for it, where the employer has, in some cases, typed up the

application on his own typewriter and got an employee to sign it; in those kinds

of cases, the board rejects the application, does not hold a vote, considers

these types of applications to be employer-influenced and employer dominated and

therefore, will not hold a vote and will reject the application.

This amendment, Chairperson, would give our board,

specifically, the same right as the Saskatchewan board has under its

section 9,

which says that the board may reject or dismiss any application made to it by an

employee or employees where it is satisfied that the application is made in

whole or in part on the advice of, or as a result of influence or interference

or intimidation by an employer or employer's agent. That, Chairperson, will

prevent a fish plant owner, for example, putting the word