Volume XLI Fri da y Province of N e\vfoundland FORTY -FIRST GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NEvVFOUNDLAND Second Session VERBATIM REPORT {Hansard} Speaker: Honourable Thomas Lush [Preliminary Transcript] Number 57 22 Jun e 199 0

The House met at 9:00 a.m. M~. Speake~ (Lush): O~de~. please! Befo~e calling the O~de~s of the Day, I would like to ~emind hon. membe~s that one of the p~ess people, a long time employee of CBC, M~. John O'B~ien, who has wo~ked with CBC fo~ thi~ty-fou~ yea~s in va~ious capacities, and cove~ed events in the Colonial Building, this will be his last day of wo~k. I think he is wo~king on this came~a; this will be his last event. He will be ~eti~ing as of today, and I am su~e all hon. membe~s would want to join me in wishing him a happy ~eti~ement and thank him fo~ his years of se~vice. Some Hon. Membe~s: Hea~, hea~!

Orders of the Day M~. Speake~: The hon. the Government House Leader. M~. Bake~: M~. Speake~, the~e is a mino~ e~ro~ on the O~der Paper, and I am calling the second Motion 3. The~e a~e two of them No. 3 - the second Motion 3. M~. Speake~: The second Motion 3. The hon. Leade~. the Gove~en t House Mr. Bake~: Thank you, Mr. Speake~. Today, in the Province, we have the unfo~tunate circumstance of having two st~ikes in the health ca~e sector. As everybody in this hon. House ~ealizes, the workers in the health ca~e sector are essential to the operation of the system.

Our health care system is such that there are services we Ll June 22, 1990 Vol XLI provide. Some of them can be conside~ed to be of a non-emergency nature, and many services we p~ovide are of an emergency nature. Even the ones we consider to be non-emergencies ve~y quickly develop into eme~gencies. I think there is no need fo~ me to belabou~ that point, because all hon. members know how important these worke~s in the health ca~e sec tor are to the Province. We have two strikes, one of the hosptial support staff, and the other of the lab and X-ray workers.

With the lab and X-ray worke~s. there is an essential services agreement that was struck between the union and Gove~ent and the Newfoundland Hospital and Nursing Homes Association. That ag~eement was struck and then the details of the agreements were wo~ked out on an individual basis in the institutions around the p~ovince. With the Hospital Support Staff we have no essential se~vices agreement with Gove~nment and the Newfoundland Hospital and Nursing Home Association, and the situation is, at this point, becoming of an emergency nature.

Last night, I received a letter f~om the Newfoundland Hospital and Nursing Home Association addressed to myself as President of Treasu~y Board, and the Minister of Health. In essence, it says, I must advise you that a number of our members feel they cannot continue through this weekend with the limited resources available to them and accordingly request that Gove~ent immediately declare a State of Emergency which will require a return to work of striking NAPE staff, as provided for by the Public Service Collective Bargaining Act. The resolution I gave notice of No. 51 (Morning) Rl

yesterday, and we are debating this morning, does essentially that. It also provides access and does, indeed, give to the bargaining unit, binding arbitration on outstanding matters. It also provides a variety of other things, including penalties for non-compliance. So this Resolution effectively, Mr.Speaker, insists that the strike end and that binding arbitration proceed. This resolution has been on the books for quite some time. I know that in a similar situation some of the members opposite, when they were in government, chose a different route.

They chose new legislation rather than using The Collective Bargaining Act, and the reason for that, my understanding of it is, was that within The Collective Bargaining Act, the binding arbitration is on all outstanding items. The management in the hospitals didn't particularly want binding arbitration on all outstanding items, so, in effect, what was done previously, because of the distaste on the part of management for binding arbitration, was the binding arbitration was enforced on money matters, or some money matters, or whatever the case may be, and not on the whole package.

At that point in time, the complaint of NAPE was that Government should have used its own legislation, should, in fact, have used The Collective Bargaining Act and brought in the resolution to declare the State of Emergency, that being the next logical step according to the legislation. The situation is this point in Hospital and Association, as so desperate at time that the Nursing much as Homes they L2 June 22, 1990 Vol XLI dislike binding arbitration on all matters, are willing to go along with the binding arbitration on all matters.

I say that to point out that they are convinced the situation is so serious, that they are willing to give in on their previous position concerning binding arbitration. We have a lot of institutions around the Province which can, perhaps, hold out for another week or two. I am sure all members know what some of these institutions are . We have some institutions which can only hold out for another four or five days; we have more than a dozen institutions which really cannot hold out over the weekend; and we have one or two where the situation, yesterday, last night and this morning, is in a critical situation.

So the Hospital and Nursing Homes Association felt they had no choice. And when we receive a letter, we have no choice but to proceed with the next step, because we have been advised that there are very serious problems in the system. Now, Mr. Speaker, we believe that the binding arbitration that will follow, as much as we do not want to turn over to somebody else the ability to spend Government money, which is, in effect, what we are doing, is distasteful to us in that sense, but we believe this is a fair way to settle the disagreement we are presently experiencing. A lot has been said over the last few days.

All members know that in a situation like this, sometimes things are said that, perhaps, are not the whole story. That is the nature of our confrontational labour relations; the setup is a confrontational No. 57 (Morning) R2

one. But this group of workers is so essential to the maintenance of the system that, at this point in time, we have to put aside a lot of these things that have been said. There are a lot of details which, at this point in time, could be argued, that I do not intend to argue. We have to put aside those things, and we have to say that at a certain point in time the service to the people of this Province has to be provided. We have to say at a certain point in time that the health and safety of a group of people in this Province and, potentially, almost anybody in this Province, is at risk.

We have to put aside the rhetoric, and we have to put aside what now seem to be petty arguments, petty differences, and provide the service that is so essential to the people of the Province. We have to do that and settle this disagreement as quickly as possible. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: The bon. the Opposition House Leader. Mr. Simms: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess the initial word I would use to describe what is transpiring and to describe the decision of the Government here today, is one of extreme disappointment, particularly, I am sure, on the part of the workers involved.

It is extremely disappointing that the Government would chose to take this route. We understand that responsibility has to be shown. We are told, and we have to accept the word of the President of Treasury Board, I guess, and the association, that, in essence, they are saying there is a state of emergency, and that is what the resolution implies. In addition to that, Mr. Speaker, L3 June 22, 1990 Vol XLI we have talked to people involved ln the system, and we have listened and heard news reports.

News reports, of course, we know are not always totally accurate, but at this point we have no other indication but that there are problems involved in this particular situation. I have seen the letter from the Hospital and Nursing Home Association. I believe, in fact, the President of the Union involved has said himself that nobody wants to see people suffer. But, Mr. Speaker, make no mistake about it, the blame for the situation which has occurred today, and leading up to today, must rest squarely on the shoulders of the Provincial Government. There is absolutely no question of that. So, Mr.

Speaker, to say that it is a disappointment, particularly on the part of the workers I guess, is an understatement. After only two days, the Government has decided to legislate the workers back to the work place. The Minister said in his comments, in introducing the resolution, that workers in the health care sector are essential. Now, Mr. Speaker, nobody disagrees with that.

In fact, they are professional workers, they are extremely essential, and they have always, I believe, done their very best to ensure that the people of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador have received the best, the very best of health care in our hospitals and nursing homes. But, Mr. Speaker, these workers also have the right to proper collective bargaining; they also have the right to strike, particularly if they are unable to reach a collective agreement, and particularly if they feel that the bargaining process has been No. 57 (Morning) R3

unfair. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, how else can workers achieve their legitimate demands? The other thing that struck me in the comments of the Minister is that Government had no choice. Well, Mr. Speaker, I submit Government did have a choice, and that choice, Mr. Speaker, was for the Government, particularly the President of Treasury Board and, indeed, the Leader of the Government, the Premier of the Province - they had a choice.

They could very well have taken more of an initiative, gotten more involved, and gone back to the table to bargain in good faith to get a collective agreement, with a determined will and with a resolve to get a collective agreement. The Government did not choose that course. Indeed, they have decided on a more dramatic course. And, Mr. Speaker, it is rather interesting to hear on the public airways this present Government being described as the most anti-labour Government in the history of this Province.

It is extremely interesting to hear those kinds of comments, I can assure you, particularly for those of us who have been involved in governing, I suppose, over the last decade. Because, God knows, many of us on this side of the House have experienced those kinds of situations on the odd occasion, but not always. And, Mr. Speaker, with respect to this particular group of workers, the hospital support group, I do not believe they have ever taken this action before, in the last twenty years or so they have been negotiating.

And that is because, from my experience at least, the Government always considered health care workers to be of L4 June 22, 1990 Vol XLI primary importance, and we went out of our way, I think, to try to ensure, and try to make sure that a collective agreement was reached. Mr. Speaker, if the Provincial Government of the day had followed through on its commitment, on its campaign promise to change what is known as Bill 59, or what has been known as Bill 59, if they had followed through on that commitment, I submit that this situation would not exist today. And, Mr.

Speaker, since 1986 I believe it was, there was clearly a commitment by the previous Administration to proceed or deal with negotiations as if that legislation was in place. I understand the present Government gave the same commitment, that they would deal as if that legislation had been in place. But what is more important, Mr.Speaker, is that the Government has now had in excess of a year - it is now into its second year, well into the second year I submit.

It's their second legislative session and they should take the responsibility associated with not having proceeded in a more timely fashion to bring in that legislation and to make the changes they campaigned on, they commit ted to, and they promised. So the Government clearly must take a considerable amount of the responsibility in this situation.

I also remember, Mr.Speaker, not too long ago, only a couple of weeks ago, in questioning in the House of Assembly the President of Treasury Board with respect to another group in the health care sector which is presently on strike, and, unfortunately, I guess, almost lost in this whole situation - that is another issue I will deal with shortly - I No. 57 (Morning) R4

remember asking the President of Treasury Board question after question: What is he doing? What is Government doing to try to bring a resolve to that situation? I asked the Minister to personally get involved, take some initiative: Pick up the telephone! Call the negotiator! Call the President of the union! Sit down with him! Try to find a way to get back to the table and to get the matter resolved. And the words of the President of Treasury Board, which no doubt will come back, Mr.Speaker, to haunt him for time immemorial: ''Ah, Mr.Speaker, the collective bargaining process is working and working very well". Those were his words, Kr.Speaker. Well, now we see what the

interpretation of those words mean to the President of Treasury board: Let them go out on strike! Rever mind trying to get a collective agreement, let the go out on strike. We do not need to bargain, because that is the collective bargaining process and it is working well. I think the President of Treasury Board obviously should share a large part of the responsibility. I mentioned the Lab and X-Ray workers, Mr.Speaker, and let's not forget that particular group of workers who are also very essential to providing good health care to the people of this province.

And I trust and hope that the President of Treasury Board will take more interest and more initiative in trying to get that particular situation resolved, as well. It is extremely important. Kr.Speaker, it also has to be said that the Government, from what I understand, has not really put its LS June 22, 1990 Vol XLI shoulder to the wheel in terms of trying to get an essential workers' agreement. We hear reports that, in fact, agreements in some of the institutions were being negotiated; the union was prepared to work out those necessary agreements.

In fact, I understand, I do not know if it is accurate or not, that, indeed, in one institution there was an agreement. That's what we understand. So if the government, perhaps, had put more effort into trying to get those essential services agreements in place, then the action the government is taking today probably would not have been necessary. We have seen, in some institutions, the use of scab labour; a lot of replacement workers being bused in to some of the institutions. liTow if that won • t irritate people on the picket line, I don't know what will.

We cannot necessarily blame the workers for some of the re-actions they have taken. And, Mr. Speaker, the police have been called in. It was only a few days ago the Minister said, 'We will never call in the police. We won't have to do what was done four or five years ago', and he made a point in his comments about what happened eight or nine years ago and how it was dealt with in those days. But that, Kr.Speaker, is not the issue. The issue today involves the rights of workers and involves an effort to make a fair and proper collective bargaining effort.

That is the real issue. liTow, Kr.Speaker, I will conclude by making this comment, because I believe it has to be said. I think what we have seen develop over the last several weeks and months with respect to another important issue that we are debating in this Legislature, I .No. 57 (Morning) RS

think it is fair to say that had there not been such a pre-occupation with that particular issue, had there not been so much media hype associated with that particular issue, it might very well have been that the government may have been able to put a bit more effort into ensuring that this particular situation did not develop. I think there is a vacuum in the administration and governing of this particular Government at the present time. Obviously the whole process points out and indicates there is a lot of poor planning associated with this particular situation.

There has been a lack of personal intervention, personal involvement, personal initiative, and leadership. A considerable lack of leadership is very evident. Mr. Speaker, as I have said at the beginning, the decision by the Government is obviously an extreme disappointment to the workers of this Province. The Government must shoulder the responsibility for what has transpired. It is their responsibility. Mr. Speaker, I trust and I pray that the decision the Government is taking today will not seriously deteriorate the situation any further. I trust it will not. I also trust, Mr.

Speaker, that the workers associated with this particular dispute will be given the rights they deserve, instead of the Government taking the intervention measure that it has decided to take today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: The Minister of Health. Mr. Decker: twenty-five or Mr. thirty L6 June 22, 1990 bon. the Speaker, years ago Vol XLI senior citizens homes in this Province were a very pleasant place to visit. Basically, they were hostels. They were elderly people who were well, who could dress and undress themselves, who could go to church on Sundays and go out for the odd-night shopping.

They were a pleasant place in which to visit. Over the past number of years the vast majority of people in these homes have grown a lot older and a lot sicker. They have reached the place today Mr. Speaker where, for me at least, I do not consider them to be the most desirable place to visit. That is when there is no strike. But when you have the workers who normally assist those people out on strike, they are indeed a very unpleasant place to visit, and a more unpleasant place in which to live. In the nursing homes today, we have people who are in bed, in some cases, twenty-four hours a day.

Some of those people have missing limbs, some of them have lost the use of their limbs, they have to be turned over constantly, every hour they have to be turned over to avoid bed sores which will put more pain and agony on those people. That is not happening today. Management are trying to cope as best they can, but because of the need to constantly turn over some of these people that is not happening. Mr. Speaker, we have in those nursing homes today elderly people who have reverted back to the infancy stage. Adults who wear diapers. Diapers which have to be changed constantly.

One of the wards in the institution has about between twenty-five and thirty men who are confined to their beds twenty-four hours a day. The No. 57 (Morning) R6

attendants have to start at one end of the ward and they go down the row of beds and they change the diapers and when that is done, they start over and they do it again. At this moment, this is not being done properly, Mr. Speaker, because there is a strike. In nursing homes today the bedding has to be changed over and over many times during a day. This is not being done with the regularity that it should be done, Mr. Speaker. In the nursing homes we have people who cannot feed themselves.

Someone has to sit down and 1i terally take the food on a fork or spoon and place it into the mouths of those people who cannot feed themselves. This is not being done with the regularity that it should be done, Mr. Speaker, that is what is happening in the nursing homes today. There are people in the nursing homes who have to be fed with tubes. Food has to be taken and literally pushed through tubes into the stomachs of people who are living in some of those nursing homes. That is not being done with the regularity it should be done at this very moment.

In those nursing homes, we have people who cannot bathe themselves. They are taken out and put into a chair lift, into a sling and they are lowered into a bathtub, where an attendant is required to bathe them. This is not being done with the regularity that it should be done today. Mr. Speaker, the wards have to be cleaned on an hourly basis. If the wards are not cleaned continuously, they will literally stink. The wards, Mr. Speaker, are not being cleaned with the regularity that they should be L7 June 22, 1990 Vol XLI cleaned.

On some of the Alzheimer • s wards, where people are wandering in a constant state of confusion and should be supervised minute by minute, Mr. Speaker, this is not being done today and if bon. members think this is funny, I would suggest to them that none of us know what we have to come to before we die, so it is not a laughing matter, and I would tell the hon. Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker, that if he is going to laugh at this matter, this is not the approach that I am taking to this! This is a very serious matter, and I would advise bon. members to treat this with the seriousness that it deserves.

It is not a laughing matter for the people who are in nursing homes, nor is it a laughing matter for the relatives and the friends of those people. It is no laughing matter. At this very moment, in the Escasoni Hayles Complex, this morning, there are sixteen nurses working and there are thirteen other people working. The others are various members of staff. Some of them are trying to cope with the cooking, some of them trying to give direct attention to the people. Twenty-nine people today are working in the Escasoni Home in this city. On a nonnal day there would be eighty. Eighty people would be working.

There is no Essential Services Agreement in place, so that a portion of that eighty would be able to work today. Where there should be eighty, there are twenty-nine. It is quite logical and we can certainly assUffie, since that has happened, the care is not being given in the Escasoni Home. In the Hayles Home today, on a Ho. 57 (Morning) R7

normal day, there would be eighty-two full time employees working in that institution. At this moment, there are thirty-six. We can certainly assume that the normal care is not going on. Now, Mr. Speaker, in a normal, civilized community, we would make it of utmost priority that we have to care for people who cannot care for themselves. That is our obligation as a civilized people. This strike, had there been an Essential Services Agreement in place, I believe we could have coped with at least the basic care of some of the people. The hon. Opposition House Leader, referred to the lab and x-ray strike.

Credit to those people, Mr. Speaker. I have a great respect for those people who did indeed, put an Essential Services Agreement in place. The hospitals: the lab work is not being done to the extent that it would normally be done, but at least no one's health is being overly threatened as a result of the lab and x-ray strike. It is a civilized strike and although I am not entirely satisfied with what's happening with the amount of care that is being delivered, at least I have to say that it is civilized, it is going on in a proper way.

In this particular strike, I am not attempting to put blame on union or on Government, I am just stating what is happening in the nursing homes in this Province today. I should say, in some of the other provinces in Canada, such a strike would not have been allowed to happen. In some of the provinces this particular group has to settle its disputes by binding arbitration. Mr. Speaker, L8 June 22, 1990 Vol XLI since this strike began the Department of Health has been constantly monitoring what is happening in ·the nursing homes, and what is happening in the hospitals.

We are finding that people, management, have been working seventeen and eighteen hours a day. I am convinced that they cannot cope much longer, especially in the Hayles Escasoni Complex. Now there are some exceptions throughout the Province. I will be fair and admit that, Mr. Speaker, some of the smaller hospitals could go on for two or three more weeks and there would not be any tragic, drastic results of the strike continuing in some of the smaller hospitals. Some of the nursing homes that do not have such a high number of high level care could probably last for four or five more days.

But the Hoyles - Escasoni Complex with about 400 residents have informed Government that they do not believe they can cope for another twenty-four hours. This morning the nurses who were required to report for work at 8:00 o'clock, some of them have reported at 7:30, no doubt they were anxious to get in, if they had to spend an extra half hour they would do it. They went up to the picket line and they were not allowed to cross. They were driven back, some of them went to the Holiday Inn and they waited, and they were not allowed in until sharp at 8:00, right to the letter of the law, and they were allowed in.

Last night some management staff from the Department of Health voluntarily went down to work. The van in which they were riding was attacked, the sides of the van were struck and during the night No. 57 (Morning) R8

the tires were slashed. Mr. Speaker, as this motion points out there is indeed a State of Emergency within the health care system in this Province today. That State of Emergency is brought on because this strike is in place, and because there is no Essential Services Agreement in place, therefore, I call upon all members on both sides of this House, if they have any grave concern for the well-being of the victims of this strike, the people who are residents in the Hayles - Escasoni, and the people who are in the nursing homes today, may very well indeed support this motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker: The bon. the Kember for St. John's East. Ms Duff: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Some Han . Members: Hear, hear! Ms Duff: I would just say to the Minister of Health that I would agree with him entirely that this is no laughing matter, and that nobody on this side of the House is laughing. In fact, it is a matter which gravely concerned our caucus and caused all of us to be in this building an hour earlier this morning, even though all of us are brutally tired because of the discussions on Keech Lake.

I am rising to speak on this issue as Health critic, and I have no desire to say or do anything which will inflame or in any way make more difficult an already difficult and volatile situation. I am desperately worried because my concern as health critic and my knowledge in the field of health, not in labour negotiations, that is not any area of expertise, has L9 June 22, 1990 Vol XLI to be for the discomfort and the danger to the sick and elderly who are, in fact, hostages to this situation.

I have great concern, and I would say the Minister of Health probably has more recent and in-depth knowledge of what is going on because Government is the group who are dealing with the situation in an intimate way. My knowledge comes from the outside. I think I have some good sources but it is not going to be as up-to-date or as in-depth as the Minister of Health. I am very concerned with what I understand to be a failure to reach that Essential Services Agreement in this sector.

I am not casting blame but I have been told, and I have to say, I have been told, because obviously I am not at the table, that the essential services agreed to by the union fell far short of any reasonable definition of minimum requirements, and that does concern me. I would think that had the Government bargained in good faith, and paid more attention to the workers from the X - ray and Lab workers unions, which the Minister of Health has referred to as the civilized strike. I do not think any strike in the health care sector is civilized.

Perhaps the workers in this bargaining unit would have had more faith in the Government and maybe would have acted differently, but I think they have seen that when you are civilized in a strike, when you do negotiate in good faith, when you do agree at some cost to yourself to put essential workers in place, what you do is you end up staying on the street. I would disagree with the Minister of Health when he calls this situation civilized. If we had not been involved in the Keech discussion there were numerous .No. 57 (Morning) R9

questions I wanted to ask the Minister related to the progress of the X ray and Lab technicians strike action. I think these workers can be referred to as the forgotten group, and because they have acted in good faith in the essential workers, I do not think that it has been fair to treat them in that way. I totally disagree that this strike has not now reached dangerous proportions in terms of health and safety.

I know, as of the end of last week, that a survey of physicians in this town indicated that at least thirty patients awaiting surgery, urgent surgery, and I am talking about people who have a desperate requirement for bypass surgery and have been diagnosed with cancer, are lying in hospital beds unable to have that surgery because of the X-ray and Lab strike, even with the essential workers in place, so we were already in a crisis before this particular strike occurred. Nobody knows better than the workers in the health care sector how vulnerable are the people they serve or how essential their services are.

I will not get into this argument and lay blame anywhere, because when there is a failure of the collective bargaining process as we see today, I think it is far more complicated than to say, you are at fault, or you are at fault. I do know that the Government cannot shirk its responsibility, because it had to be able to anticipate that there would be labour unrest in this sector this summer. Mr. March is not a quiet man and he made that very obvious months ago.

It has been a source of great concern to people within the health care sector that in fact this situation could occur, and is largely related to the failure of LlO June 22, 1990 Vol XLI Government to deal with the report, or the review of this legislation, and the draft of new legislation that was handed to them as soon as they took off ice fourteen months ago, and for that I find the Government criminally negligent. Some Han. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Sp~aker: The hon. the Minister of Social Services. Mr. Efford: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, the resolution that was introduced in the House of Assembly last evening by the President of Treasury Board, I would suspect, I would not suspect but I would say definitely, that it was a resolution that was introduced not at a great ease by the President of Treasury Board, or by anybody on this particular side of the House of Assembly. I want to speak for my own position and my responsibility as Minister of Social Services and the institutions that are affected by this strike and the situation that is taking place.

I want to say at the outset, and I have no doubt there are a number of workers in the gallery who are affected by the strike. I want to tell them that I have a great respect for people, and for people's rights to have the opportunity to voice their opinion and their discontent, and that they are not satisfied with government, or with governments, with their wages, or whatever. Nobody should ever take that respect and that right away from people. That is one part of our democracy that we all, and we all should give everybody respect, and be proud that we are living in a No. 57 (Morning) RlO

democracy where that is allowed. I have no doubt, as Minister of Social Services, if I were not in this position today and I were a worker in those services, as they are, I would probably, and I have no doubt, I would not probably, I would do the same thing that they are doing. Because you have to fight and you have to fight for your rights. But then it comes down to a little bit more than that, it is not just a matter of your rights and your wages and your working conditions. It is what the effect is having on other peoples. And it is difficult for Governments regardless of your political stripes.

I was in opposition when the former Administration had to take a difficult stand. And I did my job as an opposition member. I rose in the House of Assembly and I spoke, probably more so than the members that have already spoke this morning. But it is not - An Hon. Member: You don't remember that. Mr. Efford: I do remember that. I had a role to play as an opposition member, and so do you have a role to play as an opposition member. I think oppositions are important to the democracy system. I do not agree with any Government having total control and no criticism. I think it makes for good Government.

But then it goes much, much deeper, and I have realized that more and more over the last two or three days. And I can talk, in particular, about the developmental group homes, that I am responsible for as Minister of Social Services. And I have to go beyond just being John Efford the individual, with his own individual thoughts, and Lll June 22, 1990 Vol XLI his ways when he operated in his former capacity in business, and as an individual outside of Government. I an now the Minister of Social Services.

And I am more aware of the responsibilities contained by that office and to the individuals that are affected and being cared for by the Department. And in the developmentally delayed group homes we have a number of residents who were born with a development delayed or a disability, through no fault of their own. And I am not laying the responsibility because they were born that way or because they are in that way, on the workers who are out on strike. It is not their fault. It is not their doing.

And I have great respect, and I want to take the opportunity to say this now, for the caring and the care that they have shown, in their capacity in working in those group homes to the individuals. And I think it was very, very evident when they decided to go out on strike just two days ago, how important a role they play in the lives of those people. Because there has been a unity built up between the workers and between the residents.

And you have to understand - and I am sure most members on the other side do, especially the former Minister of Social Services - you have to understand the mentality of the residents of the home. They were born with that unfortunate disability. And those people who are working in those developmentally delayed group homes have a great understanding and caring and professionalism, in how to deal with that. And Mr. Speaker, when that transition took place a couple of days ago; when they decided to go out on strike, and No. 57 (Morning) Rll

we, and I as a Minister, had to move in the management staff, there was a great disturbance in the minds of those individuals, those residents who are so attached to those workers. What happened? A trauma was set in. Their whole life was disrupted and consequently we have had major problems. I am not going to identify and go right into the gory details of what has taken place, but there have been problems in the group horne. The one particular one right here in St. John's, and I am referring to. There have been a number of incidences that we have had to do things beyond the normal thing.

I would prefer and pray to god that I would not have had to do that. And I think asking, or legislating the essential workers back to those homes, is not done because we enjoy doing it. It is not done because we want to do it. We have a responsibility. We have to be conscientious. We have to be caring for the individuals. Are we doing it to take rights away from people? Would we do it, if we were talking about the manufacturing of rubber tires or processing fish? Would we force these people to go back to work, just to get them off the streets, off the picket lines? No. That is not the issue.

It comes down to the issue of the people who are affected. The people who are suffering because of it. The Member for St. John's East said she was not going to lay blame. Probably we should take some of the blame. I am not going to say that we should not. Probably she should point a finger. I would if I were over there. So I am not going to be a hypocritical person on this side and say that we should not take some of the blame. But that is not going to Ll2 June 22, 1990 Vol XLI solve the problem that we are faced with today.

We had yesterday to take one of the residents and bring them to another institution, who had caused some injury to herself and very nearly caused major injury, serious injury I should say, to the people who are working there. Now I did not want to do or make the decision I had to make yesterday but, nevertheless, for the best interests of the residents and the best interests of the workers, I had to make that decision. But it was done. If we have some of the workers back into that particular group horne, then we could at least live with some ease.

That is not going to say that if they go back to work they are not going to get their rights. That they are not going to be bargaining, that this process is not going to go on. I am sure the President of Treasury Board will address that when he stands up. We anything away. continue. You but that is not are not taking The process will may snicker, sure, the point.

The important thing is that we are responsible for the concern, the health and the well-being - as the Minister of Health has expressed - and as Minister of Social Services I have to express, I have to inform, I do not have to tell the people who are on strike who work there because they know, and I must say that the strikers at this particular group home, I have a lot of respect for the way in which they are carrying out their picket lines down there. They are showing great co-operation and great concern.

I have had no criticism for what they are doing on those particular pickets down there whatsoever, on those lines. No, I cannot say anything negative No. 57 (Morning) Rl2

about it. My staff, and the information that is passed along to me, is nothing but high pt'aise fot' them. But nevet'theless, Mt'. Speake!:', thet'e is a concet'n that we must follow. I only hope evet'ybody can have some compassion and undet'standing fot' what is taking place and the pl:'ocess that must take place. In conclusion, Mt'.

Speake!:', I must say that what is now a pt'ocess I am sut'e the community at lat'ge - at the same time I would hope aftet' the concet'ns at'e met with the t'esidents of the gt'oup homes and the t'esidents of the boys home who at'e also affected, and I do not want to go on because I would be only repeating the same thing over, that both parties can come and negotiate and settle their differences in a mannet' in which nobody's lives will be affected by it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Opposition Leader. Mt'. Rideout: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

I cannot help but wonder as I sit here this morning and listen to this debate, that only fourteen months ago this Government, the new Government seeking a mandate from the people of this Province, promised a new era of labour relations, a new era of labour peace, Mr. Speaker, particularly in the public sector. That sector for which the Government is directly responsible. I cannot help but wonder, Mr.

Speaker, here this mot'ning, this real change of new labour relations, a new dawn, a new day for dealing with the public service of this Province, is now withering and dying on the L13 June 22, 1990 Vol XLI vine for what it was, rhetoric, Mr. Speake!:'. evidence is here today. just The Now, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately this is a no-win situation for anyone involved.

We have a group of workers who for the first time, so I have been told in this particular circumstances this particular group, the very first time they have chosen to use the weapon they have a right to use under the collective bargaining laws of this Province. We also, Mr. Speaker, on the other hand have the sick, the handicapped, the disabled, and those who cannot help themselves, who must have essential services. I do not think there is anybody in this Province including the workers themselves who would disagree with that. But the real culprit here, Mr.

Speaker, the real negligence must lay squarely on the shoulders of the Government. This Govet'nment had ample opportunity over a fourteen month period, over three sessions of the House, last spring, last fall, and again since March of this year, this Govet'nment had ample opportunity to pick up the draft legislation that was suppose to provide for essential workers that came out of a Government/Union agreement that settled a strike in this Province before, Mr. Speaker.

The point is that the Government had ample opportunity over a fourteen month period, knowing that contracts were expiring all over the place, knowing all of that the Government had a responsibility and ample opportunity to move before today, to move before it was too late, to move in conjunction with the labour leaders and the labour movement as they promised to them during the last election campaign, .No. 57 (Morning) Rl3

Mr. Speaker. But that opportunity is now gone past. The window of opportunity has passed, and what we see here today is the Government having to use the heavy arm of the law, the heavy arm of the Legislature to provide essential services, as the Minister of Social Services said in his remarks, Mr . Speaker. This bill or this resolution is sending everybody back to work, this kills the strike, Mr. Speaker, this is not providing essential services which we all agree have to be provided, this is the end of the bargaining process.

Those people now will have to go back to work and an arbitrator will make a decision, whether the Government likes it or the workers like it, it will be binding. This kills the strike, Mr. Speaker. It does not only provide essential services, it kills the collective bargaining process. So, Mr. Speaker, it is not with any great degree of pride that we have to debate this resolution today. And it is not enough, Mr. Speaker, for the President of Treasury Board, in closing the debate on this resolution, to attack what happened three or four years ago or to attack Bill 59, that is not enough.

That is not going to fly any more, Mr. Speaker. We paid our price, if we made a mistake, Mr. Speaker, which we did, we paid our price. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Rideout: We are no longer the Government. Members on the other side are the Government, and they will be judged, Mr. Speaker, by workers to whom they held the olive branch fourteen months ago, by their performance today by their performance tomorrow, by their performance this fall, when Ll4 June 22, 1990 Vol XLI the NTA negotiations resume, and so on. They are the Government.

They are the ones who must be judged and they are the ones who will be judged. And finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say this. At this most crucial moment for workers and for the sick and the old and the disabled in this Province, where is the Leader of the Government? Is he going to say a word or so in this debate? I mean, is there nothing else in Newfoundland and Labrador, but Meech Lake? Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Rideout: Is there anything else important? The desperate situation we have on our hands here this morning or in the fishery or in the economy, where is the Leader of the Government?

And what are his views on the commitment and on the olive branch that he held out to this group who are here today, and to other groups who are similarly affected when we are using the heavy arm of the Legislature, Mr. Speaker, to kill their collective bargaining rights? Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker: The bon. the President of Treasury Board . Mr. Baker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to very quickly deal with some of the points that have been mentioned by the Opposition Members.

First of all, Bill 59, right now the new labour legislation which was drafted in co-operation with labour, which was put together with the input of a lot of people, is now at the stage where it is with the Committee system. No. 57 (Morning) R14

During the rest of the summer months, this bill will be subject to public hearings, will be subject to comments and criticism, and this is part of the consultative process. We want to make sure that when that piece of legislation comes into the House, and it wilL this fall, it has been properly examined, not only by Opposition members, not only by NAPE, but by all other labour organizations and groups in this Province who are interested in the collective bargaining process and in that legislation. So, Mr.

Speaker, our labour legislation has been developed and is still in the legislative process of development right now. It will be brought in in the fall, and at that point we will have a piece of legislation that I hope will be better than anything we have ever had before. The other comment I would like to specifically address, and I did not intend to do this, but there was a charge of criminal negligence directed towards me by the Kember for St. John•s East, and I feel I should address that. at least partially, if I can do so without inflaming an already inflamed situation.

I would like to say to the Kember for St. John • s East and to everybody else that there have been many attempts to get an essential services agreement; there have been many attempts by Government and by me, personally, to get an essential services agreement; there have been many attempts by individual institutions in the Province to get essential services agreements. And not last minute attempts either, I might add, going back quite some time. We have not been negligent, I want to say, in terms of what we have LIS June 22, 1990 Vol XLI tried to do with regards to essential services .

We have not been negligent, and I would be quite happy, sometime later this morning, to sit down with the Kember for St. John • s East and go over and outline in great detail exactly what attempts have been made, if she wants to satisfy herself. So attempts have been made. And I am not, at this point in time, ascribing blame, but attempts have been made, serious attempts over a long period of time, to have essential services agreements in place. For whatever reason they are not there, and I regret that. There has been a lot of misinformation floating around and I alluded to that when I introduced the resolution.

There have been a lot of things said that perhaps should not have been said, that unnecessarily inflamed a situation that maybe not have been inflamed. And I think as this process goes on it may, at some point in time. become obvious. But I regret that we have reached this point in time. And we have reached this point, not because of any lack of effort or concern on the part of this Government. A situation has developed and, unfortunately. it has developed to the extent that we must have the services provided to the people - we must!

It is no longer at the stage where we have days and weeks before we have to do something, we must provide those services. And I suspect there is a concern for providing those services, not only on the part of Government, but also on the part of the workers. I think there is probably concern on both sides that things are happening now that should not be happening, and the whole situation No. 57 (Morning) RlS

has perhaps gone a little too far. The workers will have the binding arbitration. They will have a settlement. They will have a settlement, I can advise hon. members; I am assuming, they will have a settlement that will ensure that they are above average in terms of Atlantic Canada in their pay scale. And how I know it, Mr. Speaker, is simply because with our last offer, they would be above average in Atlantic Canada. Mr. Speaker: Order, please! I would point out to members in the gallery that there is supposed to be no responses in any way. Thank you. The hon. the President of Treasury Board. Mr. Baker: Mr.

Speaker, that case will be made. There are two sides to every story - there are two sides to every story. Mr. Speaker, in concluding I would like to read a paragraph I left out deliberately the first time I quoted from the letter from the Newfoundland Hospital and Nursing Homes Association, the last paragraph of their letter which says: 'It is with deep regret that we make this request' - the request that services be provided - 'given our long-standing position on the right to strike as prescribed by the current legislation.

However, our concern for the health and safety of the public we serve leaves us with no other alternative but to request this action' . They had no other alternative but to request this action, I have no other alternative but to request this House to pass the resolution now before it for the health and safety of the members of the Ll6 June 22, 1990 Vol XLI general public. Speaker. Thank you, Mr . Mr. Speaker: Is the House ready for the question? Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion? Those in favour please say 'aye'. Some Hon. Members: Aye. Mr. Speaker: Those against please say 'nay'. Some Hon.

Members: Nay. Mr. Speaker: In my opinion, the 'ayes' have it. The hon. the President of Treasury Board. Mr. Baker: The first motion 3 on the Order Paper. Mr. Speaker: The first motion 3. The hon. the Opposition Leader for a question. Mr. Simms: Mr. Speaker, just wondering, might we five minute recess? Mr. Speaker: A good idea. House I was take a Mr. Simms: Because, obviously, we are changing into a different mode here and the cameras, I believe, have to be reset and everything like that, it might be appropriate. We would certainly be prepared to agree. Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Government House Leader. Mr.

Baker: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I think we really should. The lights need five minutes to warm up, so if we could have a five minute recess before we proceed with the second order, motion 3. No. 57 (Morning) Rl6

Mr. Speaker: recessed for minutes. The House approximately Recess is five Mr. Speaker: The House will now come to order, please! Before recognizing the Member for Pleasantville who adjourned the debate last evening, I want to make a correction. This morning when I was talking about a person retiring from the news media, actually I was right in the person who was retiring, but there are a couple of others. I want to again, on behalf of hon. members, pay tribute to Joe Halleran. He is the dean of the TV in Newfoundland, and he has served for thirty-four years. He is operating the camera in the middle here.

Also retiring today is Brian Johnston and the person I mentioned earlier this morning, John O'Brien. I believe he retires on Wednesday. I am sure all hon. members would want to wish these people well. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker: The hon. the Member for Pleasantville. Mr. Noel: Sir, also, to add my these gentlemen retirement. I would like, best wishes to in their I finished up last night making the case, to some extent, for the degree to which the people of Newfoundland pay their way as Canadians, the extent to which we earn the standard of living we enjoy. Many Canadians do not understand that.

And they do not understand that our people want L17 June 22, 1990 Vol XLI only the standard of living we can earn, that we just want to be part of a system that will enable us to earn the standard of which we are capable. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Kr. Noel: And we are capable of earning a standard of living far above the one we presently enjoy. Now there are some people who do not understand that, Mr. Speaker, one being the chief idiot in residence in the House of Commons in Ottawa.

I have a copy of a press release here indicating that 'Manitoba and Newfoundland will face economic consequences if they fail to pass the Keech Lake Accord by this weekend's deadline' , the Chairman of the powerful House of Commons finance committee said Thursday. 'Kani toba and Newfoundland have more at stake in national unity than their populations seem to believe, Don Blenkarn told reporters after a speech to the Confederation Club in Ki tchener. ' If the Accord isn't passed, there could be a serious impact on the country's economy.

And 'both provinces depend on heavy transfer payments from the Federal Government. • He says, and he is quoted here, •sometimes, looking at the costs of carrying other parts of the country, Newfoundland for example, I sometimes feel we would be better off if we towed it out to sea and sank it. An Hon. Kember: That is a Tory. Some Hon. Members: Shame! Shame! Terrible! Mr. Noel: How that is kind of understanding we have in Ottawa, and the kind of appreciation of the way this country operates. No. 57 (Morning) R17

An Hon. Member: That is only one man's opinion. Mr. Noel: It is not one man • s opinion. We know it is not one man's opinion. we know it is the opinion of the gentleman the Prime Minister set up to go across this country to sell his GST. That is the gentleman we are talking about, a gentleman who should realize that if there was no Canada, I doubt that there would be any motor vehicles built in Ontario. I believe that many central Canadians do not understand, but I don't know if I have ever come across many of them who admit the extent to which they profit from Confederation.

Ten years ago, I did some work indicating to me that every resident of Ontario profited to the extent of $1,000 per year from their trade with the other provinces, and that would probably be up to $3,000 or $4,000 today. But there are some people who understand that. Former Finance Minister, Donald MacDonald, said a few years ago, 'consumers in regions with little industry protected by the tariff, subsidized producers in regions with substantial amounts of industry which is protected. The tariff has clearly been a source of significant subsidy to both Quebec and ontario.

Simon Reisman, the former Deputy Minister of Finance, said most of Quebec's secondary industry depends heavily on the highly protected Canadian market. Sir, I have figures indicating that annually Newfoundlanders subsidize to the profit Quebec is making on the sale of Upper Churchill Power. Newfoundlanders L18 June 22, 1990 Vol XLI subsidize Quebecers to the extent of $1,000 per Newfoundlander. That is a subsidy of $100 to every Quebecer per year through our resources, the export and exploitation of the resources of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Many of the benefits we have today which are attributed to Confederation, have been made possible by the debt that we have accumulated and the debt we are responsible for. When we became Canadians, we had a Government cash surplus of $40 million. Today, we are responsible for a debt of between $15 billion and $20 billion dollars, I would estimate, in addition to all of the tax dollars we have sent to Ottawa, to all of the tax dollars sent to Ottawa by companies in Ontario and Quebec made as profits on their sales to the captive market they have in Newfoundland and the other small Provinces of this country.

Everything we consume in this country, Mr. Speaker, we could buy cheaper outside Canada, and I have been accused of being a separatist for pointing that out. I make no apologies for pointing out the extent to which the people of Newfoundland and Labrador pay their way in this country. And that is not to advocate separatism, because separatism is irrational in today's world. Nobody can be a separatist in today's world, you have to deal with other people. That is what you have to do. What you have to do is work out trading relationships that best suit you.

That is what other people are endeavoring to do, and that is what Quebec is endeavoring to do. Fortuna tely, Quebec has this need No. 57 (Morning) R18

to _ be understood, this real cultural and linguistic problem they have, but it is a very convenient package in which to enclose their own self-interest, the self-interest that they are pursuing in this country. Ontario is the greatest beneficiary of Confederation and Quebec is the second greatest beneficiary of Confederation, and for that reason, I think those people who think if we decide to drag Meech Lake out to sea and sink it, if we decide to do that, I think it is highly unlikely that we are going to see Quebec leave Canada. But there has to be substantial change in Canada and we may as well accept that.

And that is why I do not think we should pass the Meech Lake Accord. It is only a band-aid for dealing with the problems we have in this country. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Noel: What the Prime Minister should do now is call a constitutional convention so that Canadians from right across this country can get together and put together a complete package that will, insofar as possible, satisfy the needs of the people in all the regions and all the provinces of this country, and that will mean a different Canada.

I am convinced that Quebec will not be satisfied until it has more political and cultural autonomy one way or the other, whether Meech Lake passes or whether it does not pass. We may as well accept that reality and work out relationships to the satisfaction of the Quebec people and to the satisfaction of Newfoundlanders and of other Canadians. The world is changing, and the world has changed a lot since Canada was born.

And we have to Ll9 June 22, 1990 Vol XLI realize that the country we have today is not perfect and may not be the most desirable structure for the years ahead, so let us get all Canadians together and work out a package that satisfies the aboriginals, satisfies the women in the country who have some concerns about the Accord, satisfies people who have concerns about the Distinct Society Clause, and satisfies the smaller provinces who have to have more say in the way the national government of this country is run if we are to have an equal share of the benefits of Confederation.

As I said last night, Sir, my first commitment is to our Province and the people who elected me, and that is why I oppose the Meech Lake Accord. We have had Premiers from several other provinces, and we have had a Prime Minister come down here and try to persuade us to pass this Accord for Quebec's sake. Mow, I am all for doing what I can to accommodate other people, but I want my people accommodated as well. When this country is prepared to deal with the needs of our Province, I would be the easiest person in the world to deal with the needs that other people have.

But until that happens, I have not been elected to enable people in other parts of this country to get what they want for their people at the expense of Newfoundlanders and Labradorians. Now I realize there may be some basis for the concerns and the fearmongering that Mr. Blenkarn is promoting, but the real concerns about what might happen if Meech Lake is defeated. There are people in my District that have those concerns, and people in this city and the Province, and I am sure all members of this House No. 57 (Morning) R19

have some concerns, and I respect the members who may well vote against what appears to be the will of their constituents, because they think that those concerns are a significant reason for doing so. I respect that. And who knows what basis there may be for such concerns. Things can happen quickly in the business world, interest rates can go up if this is defeated, and next weekend in Quebec Mr. Bourassa announces that he is giving up on Federalism and there is economy instability and interest rates go up and the dollar goes down, Mr.

Mulroney says that in view of the instability, he can no longer continue to guarantee the Hibernia agreement, things like that can happen. I think the likelihood of it happening is exaggerated, but who knows? And that is something on which every member will have to make his own decision. But throughout my adult life Canada has been trying to accommodate Quebec, and every time is a crucial time. The Prime Minister told us in this House yesterday that we should show understanding for Premier Bourassa in this crucial time. The quite revolution in the 1960s was a crucial time.

The time of the referendum in 1980 was a crucial time, when Mr. Levesque was elected was a crucial time, every time we are dealing with national issues in this country it is a crucial time for Quebec. Well, Mr. Speaker, this is a crucial time for Newfoundland. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Noel: OUr people are not well off, and particularly this year we have many economic problems. I think the first time I spoke in this House I quoted Mr.

Bourassa L20 June 22, 1990 Vol XLI talking about the humiliation of Quebecers, because they 'have problems fulfilling their cultural and linguistic aspirations,, and I sympathize with that, but not as much as I sympathize with the humility of Newfoundlanders who have inadequate standards of living, and who suffer the indignity of not being able to earn a standard of living to which they aspire, and to which our talents and our resources should enable us to achieve. How, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my constituents for helping me over the past week in trying to deal with this issue.

I have been in contact with a lot of them, and without citing the details of the polls, three-quarters of the people in my District are against the Meech Lake Accord, three-quarters of the people I have had contact with, and I believe that is a pretty realistic figure. How we have gotten into this free vote as a substitute for a referendum, our people were led to believe that we would have a referendum if we had time, and the other provinces and the National Government prevented that, or at least it did not happen.

Maybe we had a role in preventing it as well, I suppose, to some extent, we were part of the process, but it never happened. So essentially the vote that is going to take place here today is a substitute for a referendum. Well if there was a referendum in this Province today I have little doubt of which way it would go. How I sympathize with members who say that a member should not follow his constituents wishes all of the time, if he has some serious doubts about what they want. I do not have serious doubts about what my constituents Ho. 57 (Morning) R20

want. And the number of them who want it is so overwhelming that I would have to have very serious doubts in order to persuade me to vote in a way opposite to what they have indicated. But I also share their opinion in this matter, Mr. Speaker. I think the Meech Lake Accord is seriously flawed. I think it is not good for our Province, it is not good for this country. I think that if this Legislature defeats the Accord, it will be evidence of our commitment to Canada. We want to do what is right for Canada.

We want to help Canada get the package right before we do things which cannot be changed, and if we pass Meech Lake, we will do things that cannot be changed without the agreement of all provinces in this country, and we know how difficult that will be to get. I think, if we reject this Accord, we will be demonstrating our confidence in the people of Canada and our trust.

In spite of the warnings and concerns we have about the economic consequences, I think many Newfoundlanders, many members of this House, are willing to do what they think is right, because they believe the people of Canada are not so petty, are not so low. They believe the people of Canada will respect our right to make the decision that we feel is right, without imposing economic reparations on this Province. So, Mr.

Speaker, in my view, rejection of this Accord will be a vote of confidence in our country and in the people of our country, and will be the way to ensure that we will finally begin to develop a constitution in this country that L21 June 22, 1990 Vol XLI will serve the needs of all the provinces, all of the regions, all of the ethnic groups, and all of the people who want the kind of constitution that we can all be most happy with. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Mr. SEeaker: The hon. the Minister of Forestry and Agriculture. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Fli~ht: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr.

Speaker, I first want to join with the rest of my colleagues from both sides of the House who, on rising, indicated they felt a heavy responsibility, felt that they were probably taking

part in one of the most historic debates that have taken place in this House of Assembly since 1949 and probably will ever take

part in again. It is in that atmosphere, Mr. Speaker, I say to you, I come to the debate with a sense of responsibility, in awe, sense, of the occasion. in a Some say, Mr. Speaker, we are debating the future of Canada. Some others say that the debate is as important as, or more important than the debate that brought us into Confederation. And, under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I feel humbled and honoured and, as I said, somewhat awed, to be taking

part in what will turn out to be such an historic and important debate. Mr. Speaker. what I have to say first is I cannot believe that I am taking

part in this debate. There is probably not a person alive in Canada today who would have believed six months ago that it would come down to this, that No. 57 (Morning) R21

the House Newfoundland decide the of or future Assembly in Manitoba would of the Meech Lake Accord. And here is why, Mr. Speaker. In June of 1987, when the First Ministers and the Prime Minister met in Canada and forged a constitution, for th ~ first year there was very litLe debate in the country. There was the odd-voice in British Columbia, the odd-voice in Nova Scotia, the odd-voice somewhere, saying, this Accord is wrong, that it gives special privileges, special powers to certain parts of the country. But, in fairness, it was, by and large, a non-issue. And then, Mr.

Speaker, in the second year of the three years, more and more people, as they began to understand more and more, started to raise questions about the Meech Lake Accord. Then, last November, there was the First Ministers' Conference, and we all remember that First Ministers' Conference. Mr. Speaker, our Premier entered the debate as the Premier of this Province, as a First Minister, and from that point on, across this country, overwhelmingly, lawyers, scholars, ordinary people, sent the message to their First Ministers. And, Mr.

Speaker, the reason I am surprised that it has come down to this, is that I cannot believe that those same First Ministers went back to Ottawa and decided to force the Keech Lake Accord like it was, that they ignored completely and totally the opinion coming from across this country. Mr. Speaker, that, in my mind, was denying the people of this country a say in their constitution. It was not possible in my mind that could happen, Mr. Speaker. L22 June 22, 1990 Vol XLI It has been said many times and I wi 11 n'ot make it any more real, but a constitution is for people.

The First Ministers of this country knew that the people wanted to have a say and I could not believe they would go to Ottawa and insist on ignoring the will of the people of this country, and not permit any accommodation, any consideration from anywhere to effect their decision on the Accord . As I have said, Mr. Speaker, that is a denial of the people's right to have a voice in the constitution. So it has come down to this, and I doubt that there is a Canadian who would have believed that any one Legislature would have been given the responsibility of deciding the acceptance or rejection of the Accord. Mr.

Speaker, what I am hearing and seeing in this debate has a lot in common with what the Prime Minister and what the First Ministers did in Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, this Province wanted a referendum, that was our choice a referendum. We requested a referendum. We were denied the right to have a referendum. Now, Mr. Speaker, I understand why we were denied the right. I understand why the Prime Minister with other Ministers denied Newfoundland the right because they knew, as sure as they were in Ottawa, that a referendum in canada in Newfoundland would reject the Keech Lake Accord by an overwhelming majority.

So, if you think like the Prime Minister and if you think like the people who are supporting the Keech Lake Accord on that particular issue, then you understand and I accept that . But Mr. Speaker, we decided to do the next best thing. We decided that we would allow the No. 57 (Morning) R22

people in this Province to have a say as to whether or not they wanted the Meech Lake Accord rejected or accepted. Kr. Speaker, we undertook the next best thing. For every member in the House of Assembly the means was made available to go out and talk to the people, have the people tell you how they feel about the Accord, and whether they wanted it voted for or rejected. Kr. Speaker, as an KHA I had a choice. I had an option. If I believed I should vote one way or another to either accept or reject the Meech Lake Accord, if my conscience told me it was right to vote one way or the other then I had an option.

I could have stayed in St. John's, Mr. Speaker, then when I voted one way or the other the only concern I would have had, was my constituents would have had the right to accuse me of not consulting, not coming and asking their views. I could have lived with that. But, Mr. Speaker, having started the process and committed myself to go back to my district and poll the people and talk to the people and ask them how they wanted me to vote, to accept or reject, having settled that process then Mr. Speaker, I feel I would have no choice but to vote the way the people of Windsor - Buchans indicated for me to vote.

In my particular case, Mr. Speaker, I have been elected four times, almost five, but four times. Kr. Speaker anybody who thinks that I am going to break faith, Mr. Speaker, or break the trust that has built up over the best part of those fifteen years by going out and going through a charade, I mean that is the most L23 June 22, 1990 Vol XLI offensive insult I have ever heard. Going out and going through a charade and asking people for five days, I spent five days, Kr.

Speaker, in . front of every possible constituent I could get my hands on, and I went farther than that, I realized I would not be able to speak to the majority and I did not speak to the majority, but we initiated the way that the majority opinion could have been gotten of the people in my District. Mr. Speaker, overwhelmingly they told me what they wanted. Mr. Speaker, I feel honor bound, however I feel personally about this Meech Lake Accord, when I know and every member of this House of Assembly knows that this is a constitution. This will decide Newfoundland's rights and future in this country.

This is not, as one member in a debate indicated, Bill 53. This is the Constitution, Mr. Speaker. And I believe that people have a right, an undeniable right to speak in this, Mr. Speaker. This is a democracy, and to do otherwise and to reflect the wishes of the people, whether it is for or against, in this particular vote and this particular debate is denying them their constitutional right. Denying them their democratic right to have a say in this issue, Mr. Speaker. It no longer remains a democracy, it may well become a collective dictatorship but it is certainly not a democracy. And Mr.

Speaker I feel honour bound and I believe that every member in this House of Assembly who took it on himself or herself to determine how his constituents wish him to vote is honour bound to vote that way. Mr. Speaker, I keep hearing that Newfoundlanders do not understand No. 57 (Morning) R23

the Meech Lake Accord. They don't know what they are talking about. Well, Mr. Speaker, there was another debate, and a great historic debate, in this country once. It was during 1948-49, when we were debating and eventually voting on the issue of to join Canada or not to join Canada. And I have read a lot about that debate And there was a lot written about how the people, how the poor people - and remember we did not have the communications we have today, we did not have the ability to get into every home and every house and preach the benefits one way or another.

And the people, depending on what side of the debate they were on, saying; oh well, Newfoundlanders, the poor fishermen out in the cold, they don't understand, how should they be expected to vote. Well, Mr. Speaker, every Newfoundlander alive today knows that they voted wisely. In the second referendum they voted for Confederation. In view of all the charges that Newfoundlanders did not know how to vote. Mr. Speaker, let me tell you this about the people in Windsor Buchans. I accept that the people of Windsor - Buchans, and most of the people I talked to did not understand the Accord.

The legalities of the Accord. They did not understand how The Distinct Society Clause could override the Charter of Rights in Quebec or possibly outside of Quebec. They do not understand the amending formula, whether it should be unanimity or whether it should be seven and fifty. They did not understand really the veto and how the veto is used and when it can be used and when it cannot be used. Not only do the people of Windsor - Buchans not understand that, Mr. Speaker, 99 L24 June 22, 1990 Vol XLI per cent of Canada do not understand that.

But I tell you what the people I talked to in this Province and in Windsor Buchans do understand; they know right from wrong. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Flight: They understand fairness. They understand something that is fair or not fair. That is just or unjust. And I do not intend to listen anymore, Mr. Speaker, to people who say the people don't understand. The people don't understand so I have to take it on myself now to go vote because the people don't understand.

The people's understanding of the Keech Lake Accord and the legalities of the Meech Lake Accord is transcended by their perfect understanding of what is right or what is wrong, Mr. Speaker. And the people of Windsor - Buchans and practically every other Newfoundlander I have spoken to - Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Flight: - has said this is wrong . It is the process, it is the way it is done. They do not believe people should be manipulated. They do not believe people should be beat into submission. They do not believe that people should be forced to capitulate. It was wrong. And Mr.

Speaker, when I was advised to vote whatever way I was advised to vote; to vote for or against, when I was advised to vote against, Mr. Speaker, I had no doubt in my mind and I did not believe it was incumbent on me to ask the question, do you understand the veto? Do you understand The Distinct Society Clause. No, Mr. Speaker, they understood what No. 57 (Morning) R24

need!:? to be understood, when you are voting for a Constitution. When you are voting for something that will determine your right and your position in a country. So Mr. Speaker, I am not going to pay much attention any more to people who say; Newfoundlanders don't understand. They understand, Mr. Speaker. And let me tell you, if ever anything backfired on a Prime Minister in his lifetime, it was that seven-day dinner meeting, Mr.

Speaker, because I suspect that all across Newfoundland and all across my District and maybe all across Canada, people would have, prior to that dinner meeting probably voted to accept or reject Meech Lake, but in my District, that charade had a galvanizing effect, a galvanizing effect, Mr. Speaker. They saw what happened. They saw the manipulation. They saw the bluff. They saw what in effect became known in this country as lies and they want no part of it, and they don't intend to have any part of it. I say to every hon. member of this House, when he rises to vote, unless he stayed in this St.

John's, unless he decided from day one that he was going to vote his conscience that he knew better than all his people. If he undertook to do a survey, then, Mr. Speaker, he would be well advised to vote according to what message he got in that district. You know, I have also heard here about the consequences. We will live with the consequences. Well, I wonder what consequences certain members are talking about. Is it the consequences of the next election they are talking about, because that is not important.

I would prefer to live with the consequences of that than live the L25 June 22, 1990 Vol XLI rest of my life knowing that I sold out, that I broke the faith, and I broke the trust of the people who sent me here five times. I have heard it said that if we vote to reject the Meech Lake Accord, either the Prime Minister or one of the - I think maybe t~e Prime Minister, suggested that we would sit back six months from now or a year from now or five years from now and say if I had only voted the other way. Well, Mr.

Speaker, that's a heavy responsibility and I might add that not one of the people with whom I spoke in Windsor- Buchans or in my travels to and from Windsor-Buchans , every person was concerned about this country. Every one. Every one expressed to me a desire and a willingness in wanting to keep Canada together, so the people who are saying vote against the Meech Lake Accord, in their humble opinions, may well have been saying vote for Canada, vote against the Meech Lake Accord. They want to stay in Canada, they want Canada to stay together, and they want Quebec to stay, so, Mr.

Speaker, I have no doubt about the attitude of the people in this Province and what they want. But, Mr. Speaker, in as far as my conscience, I have to wonder if the result of this vote was the unspeakable, were the eventual break of this country, then, I. surely, as one of the people who played a role, certainly that responsibility would bear very heavily on me, and I would probably take a heavy heart and heavy conscience to the grave, but I can tell you something else, Mr.

Speaker, one doesn' t how long it is given to one to be in this particular business, and I tell you that ten years from now, when No. 57 (Morning) R25

I am somewhere, Mr. Speaker, I don't want it on my conscience, if things aren't going right in this country, if because we rejected the Meech Lake Accord, if, because we allowed a flawed, a terribly flawed document that's good for some and not good for others, to be accepted, then I don • t want to be sitting somewhere saying to myself, I could have changed that. I had it in my hands to change it.

One would have to decide where one would feel most comfortable, whether it would be a situation, where if, the unthinkable happens, I don't believe it will, but if it does, I don't know for certain, it won • t, but if it does, then one would have to feel comfortable with what side of the argument one wanted to be on, whether the country is kept together by the kind of tactics we have seen, whether Newfoundland's rights are denied by the kind of tactics we have seen, and, Mr.

Speaker, it has already been read when one sees something coming from Ottawa, this is the leadership, this is not just a fool in Ottawa as someone said across the House, or someone said down here, this is the Chairman of the Finance Committee in Ottawa, appointed by the bon. Prime Minister. This is the man, Mr. Speaker, that stopped having public hearings in Halifax on the CST tax because he said Newfoundlanders did not know enough to attend the hearings, and this is the kind of people that's affecting and pushing and demanding that the Keech Lake Accord be approved, unamended.

Some concern for the people of Newfoundland, some concern, Mr. Speaker, for the people of Newfoundland's rights and our contribution to the country. L26 June 22, 1990 Vol XLI An Han . M ember : What did he say? Mr . Flight: I won't be repetitious. Some Hon. Members: Read it again. Kr.

Flight: For certain members, someone in the gallery, or the press, who might not have been in their seats when the thing was read I will just quote, apart from all the other derogatory comments he made, 'sometimes, looking at the cost of carrying other parts of the country, namely, Newfoundland, for example, I sometimes feel we would be better off if we towed it out to sea and sank it. ' That is what Carstairs said in reply to a statement Kr. Mulroney made some years ago. For the sake of dramatics I will do the same thing with that. Mr. Speaker, my time is fast running out.

If I received a message as a member of this House of Assembly during this past six months, and leading up to this vote, it was to put Canada first, to put Newfoundland second and put Canada first. Well, finally, one day I said, what is Canada? What are we talking about here? Is Canada Newfoundland's rugged sea shore? Is it Peggy's Cove in Nova Scotia? Is it the great forests? The Miramichi of New Brunswick? Is it the great Quebec? Is it the great international city, Montreal? Is it Ontario, the economic heartland? Is it the prairies? Is it the Rocky Mountains? Is it Alberta? Or, is it people?

I have always believed, Kr. Speaker, that Newfoundland is Newfoundlanders. It is the people that endured in the worst kind of circumstances for 400 years . That is Newfoundland. It is not the rot, the dirt, the beautiful lakes and No. 57 (Morning) R26

the beautiful rivers, it is the people, wherever they are in this country. So, Mr. Speaker, I said, well, if they want me to vote for Canada I will vote for Canada. I held polls, we all held polls, which show that 75 per cent of Canada, that is the high one, 75 per cent of the people of Canada wish to have the Meech Lake Accord rejected. You ask me how I am going to vote? I am going to vote for Canada, Mr. Speaker. I am going to vote for the people of Canada. Mr. Speaker, my time has run out so I will end this debate. There are many things to be said and a lot would be repetitious after the debate we heard.

A lot has been said far more eloquently, and will be said far more eloquently that I can say it, but I will end my speech by saying this to you. I read one time there was a very famous American politician who struggled many times with the kind of decision we are making here, and a very famous quote he made was, and this applies to everything, Mr. Speaker, 'You do the best you can, and then you stand.' Well, Mr. Speaker, I have done the best I can this past year to understand Meech Lake.

I have done the best I can, given the tools that were available to me, to allow the people of my district to tell me how to vote, as they should have told me, and as they have a right to tell me, and I feel honour bound to reflect their wishes. Well, Mr. Speaker, in every way possible, in this particular debate, I have done the best I can, and when the vote is called this afternoon I will stand. Some Han. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker: The bon . the Member for Port au Port. L27 June 22, 1990 Vol XLI Mr. Hodder: Thank you, Mr . Speaker. Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to return debate across the House.

I want to say a few words, and I want to say them for myself, for' my district, for the Province, and for the country. I do want to say in r'esponse to some of the comments that have been made across the House, that this is not a debate that is about people who say intemperate things about Newfoundlander's.

There are a great number' of people on the Mainland who have said very good things about Newfoundlander's, about Newfoundland's Premier, about this Legislature, and about this debate, so I don • t think it is right for members who take one particular point of view, to stand in this House of Assembly and use the words of some intemperate politician on the Mainland. Mr.

Speaker, I would suggest that when people use inflammatory language they should be ignored, but very often perhaps we can see somewhat what the Quebec people feel when English Canada wipes their feet in the flag or when English Canada makes some intemperate remark. We always feel that in Newfoundland when someone says something about us. We do not agree with it, none of us on this side agree with that kind of a comment. Mr. Speaker, I think I have said enough about that because it is not a matter wor'th talking about. I do r'eseqt it being used to inflame the debate. Because if you put it in perspective, Mr.

Speaker, it does not mean anything. It is just the words of an intemperate bigot. Mr. Speaker, this hardest decisions made. It is one is one of the I have ever of the hardest No. 57 (Morning) R27

times that I have had in fifteen years that I have been in this House of Assembly. I went to the District of Port au Port just briefly to tell hon. members something about that. When I arrived there, as hon. members know, we have no fish plant this year, but the day I arrived there the buyer had, or shortly before the buyer had stopped buying fish and fishermen were there standing on their beaches wringing their hands and I guess cursing fate, wondering what else could happen to them. They have had two storms this year. Ice had destroyed their lobster pots and shortened the lobster season.

They had two storms where their gear had been destroyed. Mr. Speaker, that first day I had a hard time talking to anybody about Meech Lake. I must say that I did visit most parts of my District on that very first day. I went from Blue Beach, which is at the tip of the Port au Port Peninsula, to Mainland, to the Cape and around the District. Mostly I talked to fishermen and nobody mentioned Meech Lake to me. In most cases, I did not mention it, because, Mr. Speaker, at that particular time nobody was very interested in constitutional debate, who were in that particular position. Mr.

Speaker, my telephone number has been published for the last year, two years, in the local paper, and my telephone number and my two home telephone numbers are published in the telephone book in my District. I can honestly say to you, I have had three letters , two were against and one was for. I have had four telephone calls. I also had a petition which was against. Mr. Speaker, some of those people who signed the L28 June 22, 1990 Vol XLI petition have since told me they felt the other way but I suspect that most of them would be against the Accord. Mr.

Speaker, there is a question that you have to ask yourself, when you are elected to represent a district are you elected to follow or are you elected to lead. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps you are elected to do both. I think if a member is elected in a district and he thinks that something is right for his constituents, right for his Province and is right for his country, then I think he should do it for the betterment of his constituents. How, Mr. Speaker, in the long run, if he is right his constituents will elect him again or they will praise him for it. They might. They might not. Mr.

Speaker, if he is wrong then he has to pay the political price, even sometimes if he is wrong his constituents will give him another chance if they believe he did it honestly. But, Mr. Speaker, that is the dilemma I have found myself in. Many of the Francophones in my District, I should say the Francophone Organizations are for the Keech Lake Accord. That does not say that all Francophones are for the Meech Lake Accord, but just that many of them are. Mr. Speaker, the last time I stood on a free vote in this House, I stood during the flag debate. I think that was the last free vote taken in this House.

At that time I voted against my own Party on the flag. That was a very difficult decision but not nearly as hard as this one, because I had a pretty good idea of what I was doing. But in this particular debate I have searched my soul. No. 57 (Morning) R28

I want to make sure that I am right. I have listened to both sides of the argument. But, Mr. Speaker, you know I represent a District that was part of French Newfoundland, the han. the Member for Stephenville represents a District that was part of the French shore, and part of French Newfoundland, and both Stephenville and Kippens and the Port aux Port Peninsula were French speaking within living memory of some people who are alive today.

And there are, if you look at the Stephenville phone book, you will see a lot of Whites who were one time Leblancs, and if you travel throughout the area you will find very few people who speak French, although some do in Stephenville. You find more in Kippens, but very few these days. As you travel to the areas of the District which are most isolated and which had the worse roads, and I paved some of those roads and I wonder if I did the right thing, because it was due to lack of communication and transportation that the French language had survived. But that French language and culture, Mr.

Speaker, was not like the French language and culture of Quebec. It was not like the French language and culture of st. Pierre and Miquelon or New Orleans or in New Brunswick. It was a distinctive Newfoundland culture. And, Mr. Speaker, it was different from anywhere else on earth. And today you can only find glimpses of what that language and culture was like, because most of it has died and that unique group of people who lived in Newfoundland are struggling to save what they have left. And sometimes you glimpse it in the music of the fiddle players and the singers and the stories of the old people, Mr.

L29 June 22, 1990 Vol XLI Speaker, and sometimes in their local plays. But, Mr . Speaker, much of it is gone never to return. And from the experience of representing these people I can understand why Quebec has aspirations to keep their language and culture. They are surrounded in Canada by an English majority. And I think in terms of this debate in that way. I know as well, Mr. Speaker, our only border is with Quebec, we are an Island and we are Labrador, it is our sister province. And, Mr. Speaker, there is a distrust in Quebec with Newfoundlanders. Because, Mr.

Speaker, in 1927 there was a boundary dispute and Newfoundland won that dispute and many Quebecers almost to this day do not recognize that and many of their politicians, particularly around election time, sometimes play to that, although it is a secure boundary, but sometimes we in Newfoundland see maps ft"om Quebec with no border in Quebec and we have all heat"d the uproat" that happens at that time, but it is a historical fact. But think, Mt". Speaket", what would happen if we had lost that boundat"y dispute, how would we feel.

And then thet"e is the Chut"chill Falls deal, that Newfoundlanders think of, whet"e we made a deal , a bat"gain, the same as if I was buying a house from you and we made a bargain, and that bat"gain was bad. Unconscionable yes, we would like to ovet"turn it, but a deal was a deal. And, Mr. Speaket", I was in Churchill Falls in 1966 and in 1967, and in those days we did not have the vocational system that we have now, and many of out" Newfoundlandet"s were untrained, and there was a great deal of resentiment because of the fact that Quebecers had the better jobs. And I am not saying that No. 57 (Morning) R29

everything there was was all resentment were reasons for it. right, but and there But, Mr. Speaker, I think we have to rise above that - history is history. I think one of the columnists in The Globe and Mail the other day said that Canada is paying its price now for some of the historical mistakes that it made. I hope we are not making a historical mistake here today, Mr. Speaker. To talk about the Accord itself, I think most of us, all of us that I have heard speak in this House, did not like the procedure. The procedure was inherited and I do not know how we are going to change that procedure.

I do not think it is going to be from open discussions all the way because whenever we have had that we see that some of the participants played to the folks back home. Maybe it has to be a combination of both, but one thing I do know is that the next time we get into this kind of a situation we have to talk about it in the Provinces first. We have not done that in this Province, either with this Government, which has been in for a year and a half, nearly, nor with the former Government we had. Mr.

Speaker, I do not think, with the 1982 repatriation of the Constitution there was not this sort of a fuss, but I think we have learned in spades this time that certainly we have to do something different, and maybe we have to make mistakes to learn, but that our people must know. People must know what we are getting into, people must become involved in the process, and, I think, for that, Mr.Speaker, we will become better Canadians. We have had some talk about senate reform here.

I personally wonder L30 June 22, 1990 Vol XLI if it should be there at all, but there is one thing I do believe, that a Triple E Senate, elected, equal, and effective, would be much better than the type of institution we have now. What I do not agree with is that this is the salvation for Newfoundland. I am not saying, Mr. Speaker, that it would not improve things, but it is not the salvation.

We can see with our neighbours to the south, and we have argued about that here in this House, of which state is better than the other and what the economic GMP of one state, one thing and the other, how better one state is than the other, but it does not, I think, correct regional disparities. Mr. Speaker, members over and over again have said in this House that the Meech Lake Accord is flawed. The BNA Act in 1867 was flawed, the Terms of Union between this Province and Canada were certainly flawed, and we knew that in spades during the debate we had on the railway package in this House just a few years ago. Mr.

Speaker, had we only known in 1949, had we had our crystal ball, we would not have seen the flaws. In 1982 Quebec was not in the process, and that is when the notwithstanding clause, which a lot of my constituents, I must say, when they talk about the Meech Lake Accord, they talk about the notwithstanding clause. I had one argument with one gentleman who said the notwithstanding clause is in the Meech Lake Accord, and I said it is not. It is something that upsets Newfoundlanders, and upsets all Canadians, I think. No doubt, Mr.

Speaker, the Meech Lake Accord is flawed as well, because we cannot see into the future, but this is an evolving process and I have no No. 57 (Horning) RJO

doubt that perhaps the ten commandments would be flawed if we looked at them in today' s light. I think they are all good documents, everyone of them, and I think it is part of an ongoing constitutional evolution of Canada. I suppose I could criticize Quebec when I speak here today, too. I do not think that the Quebec Government, or the Quebec people have sold their aspirations to the rest of Canada, the way they should have.

Perhaps they have and we have not listened, I do not know, but we are a multi-cultural country and I hope we stay that way, and I hope that we will always in Canada be able to allow our regional differences . Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I would like to say that I believe, as does Premier Peterson, that the passage of Keech Lake will offer stability to the country. I believe, as the Premier says; that no Canadian Province should hold up the constitutional development of this country.

And I believe that the future of the nation is in our own hands and our decisions today will affect our children and our grandchildren. And Kr. Speaker, please God that we make the right decision. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker: The bon. Kember for Harbour Grace. Mr. Crane: Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me today to have the opportunity to stand here and speak in this debate. Certainly a year ago, fourteen months ago, when I was elected as a Member for Harbour Grace District; I never anticipated that I would be dealing with such a serious issue as the Meech Lake debate.

L31 June 22, 1990 Vol XLI Before I begin my few remarks, I would like to say that there is one thing during this week of stress that I have really enjoyed. That is the dignity in the House and the respect that each Kember has for each other. And the respect that we have for each other's opinion. It is fine and dandy to stand here and say; I am right, you are wrong. But ·it is not as simple as that. And I hope to prove where I am coming from before I am finished. Four years ago, I imagine very few people in Newfoundland knew there was a Meech Lake.

Maybe not too many people across Canada knew there was a Keech Lake. But in Newfoundland today, Meech Lake is a household word. Wherever you go, wherever you stop to talk, regardless of our problems, regardless of the fishery, how bad it is; people are talking Meech Lake wherever you go. And I think quite a number of people know that Meech Lake has not only to do with Newfoundland and its problems, but it has got to do with Canada. And everybody who has stood in this House has said they are Canadian and proud to be a Canadian. I am no different.

And I really believe that everybody on both sides of this House are proud to be Canadians. And I think when they vote they will vote with Canada in mind, whichever way they vote. I am sure three years ago when the ten Premiers and the Prime Minister sat down at Meech Lake to weld together some kind of an Accord to bring Quebec into the Constitution, they did the best they could under the circumstances . And I think the only thing that people are mad with today, still mad with, will No. 57 (Morning) R31

be mad with for years to come, is the process. Those ten Premiers and Prime Minister welded together this in a Maritime session and then they came back quietly to the legislatures and put it through the legislatures. And very few people knew anything about it. That is the only thing I see wrong with it. And nobody knew anything about Meech Lake, with the exception of the legislatures. The people in the legislatures knew, they put it through. And I think we would have never known anything about it.

But a clause in the Constitution said; before this seal of approval goes on Meech Lake it has got to lay on the table for three years. Maybe that is the flaw in that Constitution. Maybe that is something that should be worked out. During those three years we had Provincial elections, and everybody · knows what happened. Along came Premier McKenna, Premier Wells, Premier Gary Filmon with his minority Government; and those three Premiers decided to question the Meech Lake Accord. They saw flaws in it. I suppose one of the worst opponents of Meech Lake was Premier McKenna.

For three years he fought the Meech Lake Accord. Of course, Premier Wells sees lots of flaws in it. And today I am sure most Canadians do. The process continued to get worse if anything. Because when those three Premiers decided to question, I think it was then that the Prime Minister should have said; okay, come to Ottawa and sit down. And let us talk about our differences. Let us try and overcome the bridges, the gaps which you see. Let us try and straighten out the flaws in Meech L32 June 22, 1990 Vol XLI Lake, somehow that will accommodate both of us, but he didn't do that.

He waited til the last, the dying minutes of the game, and then he brought them in to that marathon session, that seven-day dinner to which everybody refers and really didn't do anything. He put the premiers who were not in favour of Meech Lake into a pressure cooker and kept them there for seven days, they came home, nothing signed, and then he had the audacity to get on television and say well, I planned it that way, because by bringing it into a crisis situation was the only way I was going to get support.

That is a terrible way to do business, and I think that was the flaw, the biggest flaw in the Meech Lake process. When I was told by the Premier that I could go back to my District and that I would have a free vote in the Legislature, I did go back to my District and I interviewed as many people as possible, I had telephone surveys and had a public meeting. At the public meeting about 120 people turned out, it is not a big group of people, but they were people who understood the Accord very well and didn't mind passing their opinion.

I went there as neutral as I could be and when I finished my address to the people, I felt very good because John Lundrigan, who is a proponent of Keech, came along and said, you couldn't do a better job, as far as being neutral is concerned. I try to be neutral and I try to tell people, if you vote against Keech Lake, this could be the consequence. I painted the worst scenarios I could paint. I didn't go out building up a great deal of, if you vote against Keech No. 57 (Morning) R32

Lake, everything is going to be rosy, I painted the worst scenario that I could paint. I asked people for their views at the meeting and I was surprised that ten or twelve out of 120 came forward and expressed their views and expressed them well. As a matter of fact, they impressed me with the knowledge they had of Meech Lake - and then we took a vote. Ninety-nine out of one hundred voted and asked me not to accept Meech Lake, to reject it.

And what really surprised me, I was digging around to find somebody who was really a proponent, and one of the people at the meeting was a gentleman who ran against me for the Conservatives in the last election and when I saw him come forward, I thought I had a fellow who was going to tell the other side of the story, I appreciated that, but I was sadly mistaken as well because when he came to the microphone, he had a five minute speech, then turned to me and said, 'John, make sure you vote against Meech Lake'. So I thought, there is not a chance in this District.

I have had four or five people who have come to me and said vote for it and so I have tried to weigh the pros and cons of Meech Lake and certainly I am not a lawyer. There are four lawyers in this building in this House of Assembly, and they can • t agree on which way to vote. There are constitutional lawyers, six on this side and six on this side. These six would say Keech is a great thing for the country, we must have it. These six will say, terrible, the country is gone if you vote this way, so how in the world can a person like me really make up my mind how to vote.

L33 June 22, 1990 Vol XLI I do not think anybody can point a finger at anybody else. Nobody knows the day if you are going to vote right or wrong, but five years down the road you might know. Five or ten years down tt.e road, everybody will know if you have voted right or wrong and all I hope is, that I am making the right decision with my vote. I am sure everybody in this House is just as sincere as I am.

I am not anti-Quebec and I am not anti-Manitoba, I am not anti­ Canadian, but I think when you weigh the pros and cons of Keech Lake, don't ever decide you are making a good decision or a bad decision because I don't think there is any right decision or wrong decision. I don't think it is black and white. I think whatever the decision you may get some grey in it. There is one thing I don't like to be and that is, I don't like to be pressured into making a decision, and I hate these remarks like the member for Port au Port mentioned, coming down from Mr. Blenkarn.

That is a terrible thing in a situation like we are in here. We are in a pressure cooker trying to make the decision as best we can, and then we get people coming in here heaping all kinds of pressure on you. If you don't sign Meech Lake, Hibernia is not going ahead, if you don't sign Meech Lake, Canada is going to fall apart. You know, I think if these people had stayed home it would have been better. Now I listened to the Premiers and the Prime Minister and I listened to everybody who has spoken, I have listened intently. I am a better listener than I am a speaker.

So I have listened intently to what has gone on. The question kept coming to me, and the question I kept asking No. 57 (Morning) R33

myself, the distinct society in the Meech Lake Accord, the distinct society tells me that they will give Quebec more legislative power. Okay, everybody again says it will not. Premier Peterson says, 'I do not think it will, but if it does, it will only affect Quebec.' Premier Devine from Saskatchewan, says, 'Well I do not think it will give Quebec more power, but I am not sure it will not, if it does it will only affect Quebec.' But I do not think that is the way it is at all.

I think if QUebec builds up more power it is certainly going to generate disinterest among the other provinces, because once a province becomes so powerful, and I will quote the KP, the twenty-five year Kember of Parliament the other day from Nova Scotia who left and walked out of the caucus over Meech Lake. He felt pretty strongly about it. He says, 'If Meech Lake is approved it will put a straitjacket on the Federal Government. They will have power enough to put a straitjacket on the Federal Government.' Nowlan is a Conservative KP, who had been there for twenty-five years.

He must have some ideas of the power in Keech Lake for Quebec. Another thing that bothers me is unanimity. Everybody with a veto. Every province has a veto. How in the world will we ever get any senate reform or any more changes in constitution that takes unanimity. These are the things that bother me. These are the reasons I cannot support Keech Lake. I do not know if I am making the right decision or the wrong decision.

If anybody can tell me if they know that, looking into the future, I would certainly appreciate hearing from them L34 June 22, 1990 Vol XLI because I think that if you vote against Meech Lake there is going to be repercussion. There is going to be negativism. There are going to be people in Ottawa telling you, well, you are not going to get this. And they are going to use the defeat of Keech Lake to put up interest rates that would have gone up anyhow, borrowing is going to be curbed because of Meech Lake, it might have been curbed anyhow because of our economy.

Everything that goes bad is going to be because we defeated Keech Lake. But on the other hand, if Quebec is going to leave, that is another thing, if you turn it down QUebec is gone. I do not believe that either. I do not believe it is as simple as that. But supposing the worst scenario comes and QUebec leaves, that is the worst scenario that can happen, I hope it never happens. I am a person who would always like to see ten provinces in this Canada. But looking on the other side of the coin, flip the coin, if we say yes to Keech lake, if we say yes to Keech Lake, Mr.

Speaker, and give the Legislature of Quebec enough power to put a stranglehold on the nation, then I am afraid that the western provinces are going to get disinterested as well. What is going to happen if they decide to walk out? I do not think there are any real positive results can come whichever way you vote. So what I am doing is picking what in my opinion, and my constituents opinion is the lesser of two evils. I think there are two evils, but I am picking the lesser, I will vote today to reject the Keech Lake Accord. Before I sit down I would like to say a couple of more things.

Getting back to the survey, I No. 57 (Morning) R34

think we really have to look at what our people are saying. If it had been put to the people, they would have had all the say in it. If we had a referendum, it would have been the people who would have decided, but because we did not have time we asked them for an opinion and I do not see how we can outright reject that opinion. I think it would be a slap in the face to the people in our districts to do that. Nevertheless, I will not criticize the people who do it. I think everybody is voting with their conscience. I think everybody is voting for what they think is right.

I do not think anybody should stand in this House and criticize the person who votes the other way. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Speaker: The hon. Minister of Works, Services Transportation. Mr. Gilbert: Thank you, Speaker. the and Mr. Mr. Speaker, the first time I stood in this House to debate the Meech Lake Accord was on May 17, 1988. Little did I think then that I was going to have three more times to do it, and little did I think that it was going to cause the emotion that has been raised over the decisions that have to be made here in this House today.

The first time I spoke, I was concerned with the issues and the weaknesses which had been identified in that document. They have been well talked about since, the distinct society, the Quebec veto, limitations on Federal L35 June 22, 1990 Vol XLI spendings, and Quebec's increased role in immigration. And, at that time, I really didn't expect that I was going to hear this debated in the House twice more.

At the time, I even talked about how, as in Opposition, really we were talking and pointing out the concerns that we felt, but we knew the Government had the majority over here and were not going to do anything about it. But, I guess, what has happened is we have seen democracy at work. Since that time, there was an election and the Government of the day are now the Opposition and we are the Government. So it gives us a chance, and we are put in a position where we have to make some very serious decisions.

Now, when the Premier came back from Ottawa a couple of weeks ago, a decision was made that we were to go into our districts, consult with the people in our districts and get the feeling as to what was the general concensus out there, because we didn't have time to have a referendum that should have been held, so that really, we would get the tl"Ue impact of what was happening. I went into my District and spent four days there. I talked to the people and tried to be, as my colleague from Harbour Grace just said, as fair as possible. I tried to present the case.

What I really got from the District was that they wanted me to vote to reject Meech Lake. I told them I wasn • t sure I could do that. I told them that I was going to have to make that decision when I came back, heard the debate in this House, and then, after deliberation, I was going to have to make a decision that I was going to have to live with. In most cases, they agreed that I, as No. 57 (Morning) R35

the representative for that District, should have the final right to make the decision. History will prove if I am right or wrong in the decision I have to make. Mr. Speaker, this Legislature is about to make the most significant decision ever made by the House of Assembly since the time of the Alderdice Government, I suppose, when, in 1934, the Legislature of the Dominion of Newfoundland voted itself out of existence and changed forever the constitutional structure of this country - it was a country then - and this Province.

So, during the course of the debates, we have heard all the reasons why Meech Lake is a flawed document. Our Premier has presented Newfoundland's position with clear thinking, integrity and courage, but he has also said that no one province has the right to hold up the passing of this Accord. I believe the fundamental question which we have to ask ourselves at this time - An Hon. Member: (Inaudible). Mr. Gilbert: You did not say that. An Hon. Member: I thought you did. Mr. Gilbert: - is do we have the right to reject this decision agreed upon by the nine other Premiers and supported by three Federal parties?

I mean, this is the situation I find myself in. The fundamental question is, Do we have this right? The next question is do we believe the process that was used in making this decision was right? There is no doubt about it, there is no one in Canada would agree L36 June 22, 1990 Vol XLI that the process was right . It was wrong. And I think this is what the Premier was concerned about when he pointed out the weaknesses, the fact that Canadians, the public did not have a right to make a decision as to what was going to happen.

I know Canadians across this great country of ours have been appalled, I suppose not only by the secrecy of the talks, but by the tactics used to bring about a crisis environment at a time like this, a serious situation like this. And the crisis environment caused by pressuring the First Ministers to approve the Accord under duress. Everybody in Canada I think realized that this system of amending the Constitution is wrong and should never be used again.

We recognize that a bunch of people, politicians, and leaders of the ten provinces sat together in a room overlooking Meech Lake, that famous place now, and made a decision to bring Quebec into the Constitution. Bearing in mind that there was concern, and there was an amendment needed to bring Quebec into the full membership in Canada. It was in 1982 when the chance was there, when Quebec was given the chance, there was a Separatist Government in power in Quebec who had no intention of signing the agreement no matter what was given.

I think those people sat around a table and I think that if you were to look at it in retrospect, they cut a deal. It had very little to do with constitutional refinement. There were a bunch of people sat around the table and said, we are going to make a deal, we are going to bring Quebec in, and it will work out along the way. They did not give the people in their provinces No. 57 (Morning) R36

the right to have the input. Now this is why we are faced with this situation today that we are, it is because of the situation that was put in by those people who were going to be statesmen, albeit they were like a bunch of fellows sitting around and cutting a deal and smoking a cigar and saying, well do this and it is good. But the only thing is they did not get the approval. The people did not give them the approval. That is the main concern that I have with the Meech Lake Accord.

And I suppose a lot of people in Canada and most of us here in Newfoundland were shocked when we heard the Prime Minister of this country admit that he timed the meeting of the First Ministers so that there would be very little time to give the people of this Province or the whole country any real time to debate and to approve the decision that had been made a few years earlier. And we are all aware that, as I said, the process is wrong, but we cannot change the fact that it was the elected First Ministers of the provinces who agreed to pass the Meech Lake Accord.

And our Premier, I think, recognized that when he said that he undertook to bring this back to be debated here and it would be approved if the Constitutional amendment of 1987 is given legislative approval. He said, Well, fine, in view of the fact that we do not have time to have a referendum, if it is approved in this Legislature then it would have to be put into law and adopted, and I think that is fair. I think that is what we are doing here really, I suppose today, is either approving or rejecting the Meech Lake Accord. We all know L37 June 22, 1990 Vol XLI what we are doing here.

But much has been said of the consequences of rejecting the Accord on the future of Canada and on the future of Quebec within Canada. The one thing that we know for sure is that the Official Opposition in Quebec has as its main aim to take that province out of Confederation. That is the one thing we are sure of whether Meech Lake is passed or rejected, that is the Opposition in Quebec, the P.Q. Party has that as their aim. Now if we vote to reject the Meech Lake Accord we know for sure that Canada will never be the same. That is one thing we can rest assured on, there are going to be changes - we do not know.

And this is where I have the concern that I have, is that I do not know what will happen once we vote, if we voted to reject the Accord. It would certainly place a heavy burden and responsibility on the shoulders of the people of this Province. It is also going to lead to politlcal instability. And as well, it is certainly going to lead to economic and financial instability and the consequences are immeasurable at this time. Because we do not know for the entire nation. We really do not know what will happen. And this is why I think we can stand here and in a free vote, we have to think about it and look at it.

If we had that crystal ball, that my colleague from Harbour Grace talked about, to look into the future, it would be easy to make decisions like this. But when you have to make this decision - and it is the most serious decision that I have ever had to make since I have been in politics - and when you have to make them, and you do not know what is going to happen if it is rejected and you really No. 57 (Morning) R37

have some concerns about what happens if it passes. We do not know. There are a lot on imponderables in this agreement so it makes it much more difficult to make the decision. Now, as a Newfoundlander and a Canadian, I am very concerned with the consequences if Meech Lake is rejected in this Legislature. And I look at it from the point of what is going to be the financial and economic concerns all across Canada. Internationally, what are the people looking at Canada now saying. What are they saying is going to happen if Meech Lake fails.

We, in Canada will be looked upon by the whole world, that we have an internal problem which is going to take the energy that we should be putting into solving the problems of the economy, into trying to keep the country together. Now, that is my concern. If there is going to be economic upheaval in this country and downturn; we in this Province, which has the most fragile economy in all of Canada, are the ones that are going to feel the effects of a downturn in the economy. We are going to be the first ones struck. One of the public meetings that I had in my District was in St. Alban's.

Approximately 100 people showed up to the meeting, and people got up and expressed their concerns; either to vote for the Accord or to vote against it. The meeting, I would say, was somewhere in the 60/40 area. It was divided. I knew most of the people in that room, but there was this strange couple sitting in the front row, strange, as we say in Newfoundland, because they are not from home. So afterwards when I was finished, I went over to this woman and she said; Mr. Gilbert, I L38 June 22, 1990 Vol XLI would like to say a few words now.

She said my husband is a professor at the University of Waterloo and he is here on an assignment and he is going to be here for the summer . And she said; I would like to urge you to vote to reject the Meech Lake Accord. Because you and your Province have stood up in all of Canada and said that there is something wrong with this. In Ontario we did not do that, or we did not get the chance to do it, so you now have to fight the battle for Canada. So I said; Madam, that's great. I appreciate the fact that you did - and there was concern in the room, people were wanting us to fight the battle for Canada.

And I said, I appreciate the fact that you want me to fight this battle for Canada, and you want Newfoundland to fight this battle for Ontario. But I said, if as a result of us rejecting the Meech Lake Accord we get Ottawa upset with us, and the country is going to be put in chaos because of the fact that we have this situation where Quebec is threatening to move, I would like to have the luxury to be able to defend Ontario and the rest of Canada. But unfortunately as a Newfoundlander first, and as a Canadian, I have to look at what is best - I